A Philosophical Argument for the Existence of God

[TheChristianEgoist]

This argument is different from many others (including the Kalam argument on this forum) in that it does not require (or really tolerate) the minutia of various theories of the special Sciences (like physics). It thoroughly anticipates and dismisses most major objections in the structure of the argument, itself.
You can find a full post of my argument, along with many clarifying comments and objections answered here: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com ... ble-mover/

1) Things can only act according to their natures. This is the law of causality.

2) Regarding action, the nature of a thing is either purposeful or accidental – meaning that an action is either purposeful or un-purposeful, intentional or unintentional. This is the law of the excluded middle applied to the nature of action.

3) Accidental actions are necessarily the result of some sort of interaction – which means that every accidental action necessitates a prior action of some kind.

4) There cannot be an infinite regress of accidental actions. An infinite regress of a series cannot exist because a series must have a beginning in order to exist.

5) There must have been an action which triggered the beginning of accidental action (3 & 4), and this ‘trigger’ action could not, itself, have been accidental (3).

6) If the beginning to accidental action could not have been accidental, then it must have been purposeful (2).

7) A purposeful action is a volitional action and volition presupposes a mind and values.

8) An actor with mind, values, and volition is a person.

9) A personal actor began all accidental action in the universe.

[instantc]

I am also still curious as to how it can be logically argued that something that is by nature dichotomous (like possibility and impossibility) can be said to have a third option.

I have a bag containing an unknown number of 6 sided dice. Is it possible that you can roll an 18 with the dice in the bag? You claim "yes" because, for example, there could be 3 dice in the bag and could therefore roll 3 sixes.


I open the bag and reveal that there is only one die in the bag.

Is it possible to roll an 18 with one die in the bag? No.

But doesn't the whole word 'possible' just entail that we don't know whether something is the case? For example, if I shuffle a deck, it is then possible that the top card is the ace of spades. However, it either is or it isn't, possibilities don't exist in reality. When the card turns out to be the jack of diamonds, then it becomes quite obvious that it was never possible for that card to be the ace of spades. Possibilities can be different for different observers too, for example I may have seen the top card and already know that it is not the ace of spades, while from your point of view it might still be. Similarly, isn't it possible that there are enough dices in the bag to roll an 18, until we confirm that there is only one dice?

Then again, if we are talking about logical possibility, i.e. that given event doesn't contradict the laws of logic, then yes, it makes sense to say that we don't currently know whether or not rolling an 18 with the dices in the bag is possible or not.

[olavisjo]

.

Similarly, isn't it possible that there are enough dices in the bag to roll an 18, until we confirm that there is only one dice?

Yes, it is possible.

The source of the confusion in this case (and most cases) is the language barrier.
We are using the word "possible" to represent two concepts.
We can call one of these "necessarily possible", this is where it is necessary for one of the numbers 1 to 6 to come up when rolling a standard die.
The other we can call "contingently possible", where it is possible to roll an 18 if there are 3 to 18 standard dice in the bag. The first possible is contingent on the second possible.

Not so mysterious after all, is it?

[JohnA]

.

Similarly, isn't it possible that there are enough dices in the bag to roll an 18, until we confirm that there is only one dice?

Yes, it is possible.

The source of the confusion in this case (and most cases) is the language barrier.
We are using the word "possible" to represent two concepts.
We can call one of these "necessarily possible", this is where it is necessary for one of the numbers 1 to 6 to come up when rolling a standard die.
The other we can call "contingently possible", where it is possible to roll an 18 if there are 3 to 18 standard dice in the bag. The first possible is contingent on the second possible.

Not so mysterious after all, is it?

If it is not impossible, then it does not imply it is possible.
Impossible Is not the opposite of possible in all cases. If it was then the use the words 'not possible' or the word 'impossible' would be redundant/pointless. Not all things are deterministic or binary.

[nayrbsnilloc]

If it is not impossible, then it does not imply it is possible.
Impossible Is not the opposite of possible in all cases. If it was then the use the words 'not possible' or the word 'impossible' would be redundant/pointless. Not all things are deterministic or binary.

Yes, not all things are binary. However, possibility and impossibility are binary, even if you were to separate them into subsets of necessarily possible and contingently possible. Adding the extra descriptor doesn't change its possibility, only the way in which it is possible. "necessarily" and "contingently" describe the nature of the possibility similar to the way "even" or "odd" would describe the nature of a number. In the end, it is still a number/possible.

also, John, having two ways to say the same thing does not render one of them invalid/redundant/pointless. Have you never heard of a synonym?

This is especially true when one of the words (or phrases) is being used as the definition of the other. "not possible" is the most basic definition of impossible. People (likely) first came up with the concept of possibility, and then they encountered its negative (not possible) and gave it the name "impossible."

[JohnA]

If it is not impossible, then it does not imply it is possible.
Impossible Is not the opposite of possible in all cases. If it was then the use the words 'not possible' or the word 'impossible' would be redundant/pointless. Not all things are deterministic or binary.

Yes, not all things are binary. However, possibility and impossibility are binary, even if you were to separate them into subsets of necessarily possible and contingently possible. Adding the extra descriptor doesn't change its possibility, only the way in which it is possible. "necessarily" and "contingently" describe the nature of the possibility similar to the way "even" or "odd" would describe the nature of a number. In the end, it is still a number/possible.

also, John, having two ways to say the same thing does not render one of them invalid/redundant/pointless. Have you never heard of a synonym?

This is especially true when one of the words (or phrases) is being used as the definition of the other. "not possible" is the most basic definition of impossible. People (likely) first came up with the concept of possibility, and then they encountered its negative (not possible) and gave it the name "impossible."

The Dice and box examples shows you are wrong.
Site toy can invent prescriptions / prefixes to deal with your issue. But just remember: the simple known is a better solution than the complex unknown.
Impossible is not the same as not possible. Does not matter how many times you say it. The die says you are Wrong.

[nayrbsnilloc]

The Dice and box examples shows you are wrong.
Site toy can invent prescriptions / prefixes to deal with your issue. But just remember: the simple known is a better solution than the complex unknown.
Impossible is not the same as not possible. Does not matter how many times you say it. The die says you are Wrong.

Your attempt at using Occam's razor does not apply here. I have made no unnecessary assumptions.

To the contrary, the Dice (and I guess the box? don't remember which one that was) example(s) do not show I am wrong. The people in the dice video simply came to the wrong conclusion about the nature of possibility. Instantc gave a poignant example with his hypothetical deck of cards. Probability and possibility deals with the unknown, if we already know what will occur then there is only one possible outcome. In your dice example, since we don't know how many dice are in the bag, but there could be at least three, then it would still remain possible to roll the desired 18.

To walk you through it: Is it possible to roll an 18 with three dice? Yes.
Is it possible for there to be three dice in the bag? yes.
So then is it possible to roll an 18 with the unknown number of dice in the bag? Again, yes.

To continue asserting that the dice video/example proves this wrong is pointless. The two people in the video (which is already a very unreliable source) coming to an incorrect conclusion does not validate the position, it only means you share in their incorrect belief.

[Filthy Tugboat]

The Dice and box examples shows you are wrong.
Site toy can invent prescriptions / prefixes to deal with your issue. But just remember: the simple known is a better solution than the complex unknown.
Impossible is not the same as not possible. Does not matter how many times you say it. The die says you are Wrong.

Your attempt at using Occam's razor does not apply here. I have made no unnecessary assumptions.

To the contrary, the Dice (and I guess the box? don't remember which one that was) example(s) do not show I am wrong. The people in the dice video simply came to the wrong conclusion about the nature of possibility. Instantc gave a poignant example with his hypothetical deck of cards. Probability and possibility deals with the unknown, if we already know what will occur then there is only one possible outcome. In your dice example, since we don't know how many dice are in the bag, but there could be at least three, then it would still remain possible to roll the desired 18.

I think, as someone else pointed out, the problem here is the language being used. I disagree, it is not "possible" for something to occur that can not occur (less than three dice in the bag) just because we are not fully aware of the circumstances. It "may be possible" as there "may" be three dice in the bag, if there isn't then it isn't and it never was possible. You have to stipulate that it "may be possible" for there to be three dice in the bag, and again, it "may" be possible to roll an 18 with the dice in the bag. Possibility is objective, to state something is possible or impossible is an objective statement, meaning it is either true or not true, at no point can it stop being possible, that would mean it were never possible in the first place.

To walk you through it: Is it possible to roll an 18 with three dice? Yes.
Is it possible for there to be three dice in the bag? yes.
So then is it possible to roll an 18 with the unknown number of dice in the bag? Again, yes.

Premise two and three are incorrect. You should rephrase the sentences and perhaps make a fourth premise, to make this argument correctly should be as follows:

It is possible to roll eighteen with between three and eighteen dice.
This bag can contain up to 30 dice.
This bag has an unknown number of dice in it.
It may be possible for the dice in this bag to roll eighteen(if it has between three and eighteen dice, if it does not, then it is not possible).

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 187 by Filthy Tugboat]

Information known after the fact (for example, knowing that there were only 2 dice in the bag) does not negate the previous possibility of the hypothetical situation.

To show this, I will reiterate the deck of cards example:
You have a standard, 52-card deck of playing cards. You are to flip over the top card of the deck. Given this information, and not knowing what the top actually is, it would be correct to say that it is possible that the card flipped over could be the Ace of Spades.

Then, if you flip the card and it is the Queen of Hearts, you know that it was not the Ace of Spades. However, after flipping the top card and knowing it is the Queen of Hearts, it does not make the original hypothesis that it is possible that the card could be the Ace of Spades invalid. Knowing the outcome after the fact does not change the possibility of the outcome before it happens.

They are two separate situations with different given information.
Situation A) 52-card deck, unknown first card. Is it possible that the card turned is the Ace of spades? Yes
Situation B) 52-card deck, first card is the Queen of Hearts. Is it possible that the card turned is the Ace of spades? No.
The added information changes the situation.

Understanding this, emptying the bag and finding only two dice does not mean that it was impossible for there to be three dice in the first place, and thus impossible to roll an eighteen.
Situation A) Bag with an unknown quantity of dice (possibly 3+). Is it possible to roll an 18? Yes
Situation B) Bag with only 2 dice. Is it possible to roll an 18? No

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 187 by Filthy Tugboat]

Information known after the fact (for example, knowing that there were only 2 dice in the bag) does not negate the previous possibility of the hypothetical situation.

The hypothetical situation being, a situation that is not necessarily manifest in reality where there are between three and eighteen dice in the bag. If the are less or more, then the actual situation (rolling eighteen) is not and was never possible.

To show this, I will reiterate the deck of cards example:
You have a standard, 52-card deck of playing cards. You are to flip over the top card of the deck. Given this information, and not knowing what the top actually is, it would be correct to say that it is possible that the card flipped over could be the Ace of Spades.

That it "may be possible." You are still neglecting that our knowledge or lack there of, does not create nor negate whether something is possible or impossible in reality. It either is or it isn't as possibility is objective, not subjective.

Then, if you flip the card and it is the Queen of Hearts, you know that it was not the Ace of Spades. However, after flipping the top card and knowing it is the Queen of Hearts, it does not make the original hypothesis that it is possible that the card could be the Ace of Spades invalid. Knowing the outcome after the fact does not change the possibility of the outcome before it happens.

It's quite simple though, if the card was not at the top then at no point, without reshuffling the deck would the card makes it's way to the top. The card which you are suggesting is possibly the Ace of Spades was in fact, never the ace of spades and it never could be in that situation.

They are two separate situations with different given information.
Situation A) 52-card deck, unknown first card. Is it possible that the card turned is the Ace of spades? Yes
Situation B) 52-card deck, first card is the Queen of Hearts. Is it possible that the card turned is the Ace of spades? No.
The added information changes the situation.[/quote]

To our perspective, in reality the situation was not changed at all and the card was never possibly the Ace of Spades.

Understanding this, emptying the bag and finding only two dice does not mean that it was impossible for there to be three dice in the first place, and thus impossible to roll an eighteen.
Situation A) Bag with an unknown quantity of dice (possibly 3+). Is it possible to roll an 18? Yes
Situation B) Bag with only 2 dice. Is it possible to roll an 18? No

The problem is you are reducing possibility/impossibility to a subjective level, a nonsensical thing to do. If something is possible or impossible then it is objectively so. Something cannot be possible at one point in time and impossible at another, the specific thing is either possible or impossible at all times. What we think or know about the circumstances does not change this fact.

[instantc]

The problem is you are reducing possibility/impossibility to a subjective level, a nonsensical thing to do. If something is possible or impossible then it is objectively so. Something cannot be possible at one point in time and impossible at another, the specific thing is either possible or impossible at all times. What we think or know about the circumstances does not change this fact.

Provided the deterministic nature of the universe, things either happen or they don't. The only meaningful function of the word possible is to entail that we don't know whether something will happen or not. Can we say that it is possible that it will rain tomorrow? Given your definition of the word we can't. If it turns out to be a sunny day, then it was never possible for it to rain. This will render the whole word pointless, and instead of what we used to describe as possible we will then describe as 'may be possible'.