Shadow Thread for MOA H2H version 2

[rikuoamero]

Okay, this is the shadow thread for the debate currently underway between For_The_Kingdom and Wiploc on the Modal Ontological Argument.
Just wondering...is anyone interested in what I think about this debate, about it occurring so soon after my own against the very same opponent? Perhaps people can guess what this makes me think about FtK.

[wiploc]

I guess I can post here now.

I'll entertain questions and comments.

And, I like debating, so if somebody else wants to debate, say, one of the "proofs" of the existence of god, I'm probably game.

[rikuoamero]

I guess I can post here now.

I'll entertain questions and comments.

And, I like debating, so if somebody else wants to debate, say, one of the "proofs" of the existence of god, I'm probably game.

FtK's profile says he hasn't been online since last Wednesday. Have you sent PMs asking him what's up? I think I remember him disappearing for a few days during my debate with him, then he reappeared.

[wiploc]

He didn't respond to my PMs. I don't know what's going on.

He set a two day limit on responses as a term of the debate. He could be sick or he could have just gotten tired of the debate. I'm clueless.

If he shows up again, I'll be happy to resume the debate.

[wiploc]

And I'm outa here! (Out of this thread.)

FtK is back and ready to debate.

[wiploc]

I'm not outa here?

I was writing my next post, and suddenly my window got really small, uncomfortably small. I didn't want to work in that tiny window (which I now suspect was for people on cell phones) but I didn't know how to change it back.

So I saved what I had, and closed the window, thinking that I could log back into this web site and find my saved text and continue typing.

But I don't know how to find it. I should have copied it to my clipboard.

Can anybody help?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 25 by wiploc]

It's FtK's turn next. And what do you mean you saved? Where you typing using a word processor (Microsoft Office, Google Docs?) If you saved in that, then you should be fine.

[Aetixintro]

Why not this:
Modal Logical Argument for the Existence of God - "S5 Modality"

UD (universe of discourse): Everything
G: Existence of God
H: Existence of Heaven
E: All Necessary Objective Ethics
M: Necessary Meaning
D: Necessary Definition of God (God is spirit)
C: Necessary Complete Knowledge - all the knowledge we can come to know, also when in Heaven

So,
1 C - Assumption
2 E - Assumption
3 M - Assumption
4 D - Assumption
5 C implies possible H/possible G - Assumption
6 E implies possible G - Assumption
7 M implies possible G - Assumption
8 D implies possible G - Assumption
0-------------------
9 C & E & M & D Conjunction introduction 1-4
10 possible G Implication elimination 2, 6
11 (C & E & M & D) implies possible G Implication introduction 9, 10
12 - (C & E & M & D) implies triple-possible G "S5"(1) 9,10 (â—Šâ—Šâ—Š) I guess my interpretation of S5 Modal logic in two steps
13 - triple-possible G implies Necessary Existence of God "S5"(2) (â—Šâ—Šâ—Š->â–¡) I guess my interpretation of S5 Modal logic in two steps
0-------------------
14 Necessary Existence of God (â–¡G, i.e., Necessary Existence of God)

God is proven! IMO!

S5 Modality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S5_(modal_logic)
Modal logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic
Modal logic by Stanford University: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/

I guess my interpretation of S5 Modal logic in two steps such that a possible, possible, possible entity becomes very possible entity becomes necessary entity.

Note: Atheists acknowledge in general that they can't disprove the existence of God.

That is, in simple words, that the necessary entities of Objective Ethics, Meaning, Definition of God and "Complete" Knowledge entails this special version of S5 modality so that these entities suggest a very possible Existence of God (and Heaven) and thus implies the necessary Existence of God (and Heaven).

(Introduction of this "S5" is then given as example by a (triple-)possible company that operates by principles possible A, possible B and possible C and by these becomes a necessary company in this World, say Intel, Microsoft, Alphabet, Nike, Adidas, Asics, Sony or any other! My innovation?! )

Does this really work? Is God more proven by this? Less proven by this? It's all rubbish?

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 25 by wiploc]

It's FtK's turn next.

He wanted me to go again first.

And what do you mean you saved?

There's a "Save as draft" button under this window that I'm typing in. I don't know what it does. If it works, I don't know how to find the saved text.

I thought that maybe I clicked some wrong button, and didn't really save. So I just went to the sandbox and tried "Save as draft" there. Then I looked around for something like "Edit your saved draft," but I'm not seeing anything.

Where you typing using a word processor (Microsoft Office, Google Docs?) If you saved in that, then you should be fine.

No, I was here at Debating Christianity.

[rikuoamero]

You wrote, "Even if we could for second negate the existence of any god(s), then the physical world would be all that exist."

(You being FtK)
So...the universe isn't contingent on God? It doesn't rely on God to exist, in other words?

The web site doesn't include enough nested quotes for some of these things to make sense.

Oh it can be done. It just takes some practice with using the QUOTE tag, and making sure you're using enough tags in the right places, especially with the /QUOTE.

1

2

3

I can't figure out in my head how to make the nest go the other way. It can be done, I've seen it before, but I'm looking at the tags in the comment box as I write this, and I can't figure it out...

1

2

3

[/QUOTE]

*throws hands up in the air*

I'm sorry, you've got that backwards. You just undefined "mercy" so that you can't have any opinions about it at all.

Never ceases to amaze how regular words and concepts lose all meaning when it relates to the believer's God...and yet they still talk about these words as though they still have some meaning.

And as far as God and eternity is concerned...there is a way for God to be eternal without having to have traversed infinite time to be so.

I'm going to guess that this is something only God can do, no one or nothing else can. Sounds like yet more special pleading. Only God can be necessary, only God can be eternal without traversing infinite time.
In Set theory, these would be sets that are merely masks for God. So instead of two sets labelled "Contingent" and "Necessary" (and any objects that are presumably not contingent end up in the necessary box), we have "Contingent" and "God".

[rikuoamero]

Let's see if I can recover a post. I'm going to save this as a draft...

Ah. Found it wiploc. Assuming you really did click on "Save as Draft", what you do is go to the home page debatingchristianity.com
and on the right you should see