tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post1493249132391271976..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Some Ways of Defending Theism That Don't WorkStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7364466951256723702012-04-20T16:55:12.152+00:002012-04-20T16:55:12.152+00:00Ben,
Thanks for the guidance. I appreciate the h...Ben,<br /><br />Thanks for the guidance. I appreciate the help and hope you are doing well.<br /><br />From the pointer you provided (http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3458545)<br /><br />“Theorem 1: If it's possible that p and q are true, then p is possible and q is possible<br />Theorem 2: If it's possible that p is not possible, then p is not possible<br />Theorem 3: If it's possible that there exists an x that is an F, then there exists an x so that it's possible that x is an F.”<br /><br />Using the statement<br />P1: the existence of the Christian God of WLC <br /><br />P1 is not possible under many conditions for example if a logical conflict exists among all the required characteristics/capabilities of the WLC god, or if God is not personal, or if the Buddhists are right. <br /><br />If any of these conditions or countless others are, not necessarily proven true but, just possible we get from Theorem 2<br /><br />The existence of the Christian god of WLC is not possible<br /><br />Perhaps I misunderstand how to apply Theorem 2 or it is incorrectly presented but what concerns me is the willingness to accept this logic system when it proves “a supreme being” without examining the implications and applicability of the system of inference to the question at hand. Given the ease with which results like the one above are generated it seems there is an issues in using this set of theorems to any “necessary exclusive entity” since the possibility of anyone of them rules out the others. There also seems to be something at play when you can shift a statement from being, possibly not possible to truly not possible without any additional evidence or argument.testinganideahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17264420433491373741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52769402195731645842012-04-20T02:23:14.179+00:002012-04-20T02:23:14.179+00:00Here is the The Modal Perfection Argument For The ...Here is the <b>The Modal Perfection Argument For The Existence Of A Supreme Being</b> spelled out on this forum(I think it's WL Craig's formum).<br /><br />http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3458545<br /><br />Ontological Arguments aren't particulary favored among Thomists.<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/anselms-ontological-argument.html<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/plantingas-ontological-argument.html<br /><br />I also seem to remember David Oderberg first Chapter of REAL ESSENTALISM was devoted to polemics against Modalism.<br /><br />It's a lot to digest.<br /><br />Interestingly both Plantinga and Graham Oppy have criticism of this argument.<br /><br />I'll have to get their papers when I get around to it.<br /><br />Cheers man.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51936754345414313912012-04-20T00:20:44.482+00:002012-04-20T00:20:44.482+00:00Ben,
Rather then discuss the definition of "...Ben,<br /><br />Rather then discuss the definition of "nothing" let be make the point I was trying to convey to Anonymous a different way. <br /><br />The issue I have is with this particular application of modal logic. Under the definitions and rules of inference used in this argument I get reach conclusion<br />C1. God exists <br />If I use premise<br />P1 It is possible that God exists<br />However, I reach conclusion<br />C2. God does not exist <br />If I use premise<br />P2 it is possible that God does not exist<br /><br />Any system of logic that gives these conflicting conclusions based on how I phrased (with or without negation) the possibility of god's existence does not provide results that reflect the meaning of "possible". <br /><br />Stated another way, under this model the statement<br />S1. It is possible that god exists and it is possible that god does not exist <br />Is the equivalent to the statement<br />S2. god exists and god does not exist<br /><br />Yet S1 seems reasonable if not logically true by definition while S2 is logically false by definition.<br /><br />In my opinion this argument of god's existence intentionally hides the implications of its inference engine to allow the acceptance of seemingly non controversial statements (god may exist) to be the logical equivalent of a controversial statement (god exists). testinganideahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17264420433491373741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82668764532565455552012-04-19T22:34:10.488+00:002012-04-19T22:34:10.488+00:00Well this answers my question. Craig is a retrict...Well this answers my question. Craig is a retrictivist or appears to be one.<br /><br /><br />http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/politically.html#ref15BenYachovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76087442152056073102012-04-19T22:24:06.862+00:002012-04-19T22:24:06.862+00:00Thanks Paul I own a copy of REASONABLE FAITH pp. 3...Thanks Paul I own a copy of REASONABLE FAITH pp. 35-36 is it?<br /><br />I'll go look it up.<br /><br />Cheers man.<br /><br />"No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God."<br /><br />So does Craig absolutely reject the concept of Invincible Ignorance or the possibility of Inclusivism like C.S. Lewis?<br /><br />Is he a restrictivist?<br /><br />I believe in the Catholic dogma of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus(i.e. Outside the Church there is no Salvation). But it doesn't logically follow I believe every non-Catholic who dies without formally joining the Church will be damned.BenYachovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-73636425741382780912012-04-19T17:43:41.154+00:002012-04-19T17:43:41.154+00:00Ben: "[W]hen a person refuses to come to Chri...Ben: "[W]hen a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God." -- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, quoted <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/chris_hallquist/faith.html#ch1" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Paul Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07812075028283068443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-6523197471098978942012-04-19T15:08:17.331+00:002012-04-19T15:08:17.331+00:00Stephen Law:
Although I do not accept Leibniz'...Stephen Law:<br />Although I do not accept Leibniz's theodicy, i.e. the best of all possible worlds analysis, I do think it is the correct approach if theodicy is to succeed. He sets an extremely high standard for the conditions God has to satisfy.<br /><br />He argues that God is omnipotent, omniscient, maximally (infinitely?) good, and in explaining the apparent inconistency of these properties with the existence of evil, argues that God brought into existence "the best of all possible worlds".<br /><br />I understand "possible world" to mean "complete history of the Universe". Along these lines, to say that this is the best of all possible worlds is to say that there is no possible history of the Universe that would have been better than the actual history of the Universe.<br /><br />A history of the Universe that did not include the Holocaust, on Leibniz's view, would not be a better history of the Universe.<br /><br />Leibniz's theodicy requires not only that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and maximally good, but that the history of the Universe could not have been better than it is.<br /><br />I agree with Leibniz's standard. However, I disagree that this is the best of all possible worlds, in his sense.<br /><br />Hence, God leaves something to be desired. Hence, God with a capital "G" does not exist.Daniel Polowetzky https://www.blogger.com/profile/04299950687312400826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-56827819311454521972012-04-19T12:07:57.099+00:002012-04-19T12:07:57.099+00:00@testinganidea
"If God exists then God is a ...@testinganidea<br /><br />"If God exists then God is a necessary being"<br /><br />I am not sure what you mean by "being"...to me it reflects a thinking that is borne out of our experience within our universe....it gives a shape and form identity to something, and compels consideration of "it" as "thing". A "being" that has come to be, or a "being" that has always been? <br /><br />Personally I wouldn't use the word being for the Ultimate. I wouldn't even consider it as a "cause" or the "first cause" of anything, because within the term is embedded dependency -- without an effect, there is no cause.<br /><br />Perhaps a mysterious "potential" cause that becomes a cause when there is an effect, otherwise remains a potential in and of itself. <br /><br />Let me know how silly I sound.....BNJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677058687262534718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32368053407728328602012-04-19T03:30:27.815+00:002012-04-19T03:30:27.815+00:00>1. It is possible for nothing to exist.
Well ...>1. It is possible for nothing to exist.<br /><br />Well you have to define what you mean by "Nothing" & I find there is too much equivocation on the definition of that word.<br /><br />>2. If God exists then God is a necessary being.<br /><br />With you so far.<br /><br />>The logical conclusion will be:<br />3. God does not exist<br /><br />I guess that would be true if we define "nothing" as extending to the existence of God.<br /><br />But then again on the classic definition of "Nothing" meaning an absence of anything. <br /><br />"Nothing" doesn't really "Exist" since there is nothing to exist. <br /><br />ex nihilo nihil fit.<br /><br />Thus I am skeptical it is even a valid deductive proof of the non-existence of God.<br /><br />Oh BTW it good to see you here testinganidea. I thought I felt a positive disturbance in the Force.:-)<br /><br />Cheers man.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28597900708304909492012-04-19T01:23:19.955+00:002012-04-19T01:23:19.955+00:00I apologize in advance as it is unlikely that I be...I apologize in advance as it is unlikely that I be able to follow-up any replies in a timely fashion.<br /><br />The statement that:<br />“evil god challenge doesn't refute any of the premises in Maydole's modal perfection argument” <br />is irrelevant as this argument does not require god to be good in order to be “valid” unless one presupposes that good is one of god’s properties which is the question at hand.<br /><br />More importantly if one uses this same set of inference rules and possible worlds approach with the premises:<br />1. It is possible for nothing to exist<br />2. If God exists then God is a necessary being<br />The logical conclusion will be: <br />3. God does not exist<br /><br />Since I find this set of premises more likely, does that make the conclusion true? As with any deductive proof it only leads us to what was contained (although perhaps somewhat hidden) in the premises all along. Deductive proofs of this nature tell us nothing about our real world. With one set of axioms the interior angles of a triangle must equal 180 degrees but with a different set the proof yields greater than 180 degrees. We cannot use these proofs to tell us which is true of our world; we must make measurements and observe if we are to determine which set reflects the world as it is.testinganideahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17264420433491373741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13024942513631524522012-04-18T14:40:20.614+00:002012-04-18T14:40:20.614+00:00@Prof Law
>Tell you what, Ben, can you give me...@Prof Law<br /><br />>Tell you what, Ben, can you give me the reference and quote where Feser explicitly denies offering theodicies <br /><br />Ah reversing the burden of proof! Such a lovely sophistry! :-) Sorry your the one making the positive claim he uses Theodicies & therefore you should show the rest of us where he like Swinburne or Plantinga explicitly says he is trying to morally justify God's actions. <br /><br />Which is going to be kind of hard considering in both TLS and AQUINAS Feser explicitly says God <b>has no moral obligations to us</b>. Feser clearly endorces Brian Davies view and if you are at all fimilar with Davies' work you know He rejects Theodicy in two chapters of his book titled "HOW NOT TO VIDICATE GOD PARTS I,II".<br /><br />At best he cites some reasons as to why God might allow sufferings but they are hardly presented as moral justifications. Which for modern Theodicy is essential. <br /><br />>In return I'll quote you Craig and give you page reference.<br /><br />I would appreciate that but I remain skeptical that your interpretation & exegisis of his work might be at all accurate. Here is a simple idea? Why don't you e-mail him and ask him what he ment? <br /><br />>As for professionalism, if you endlessly troll and try to wind people up, it's not unprofessional of them to tell you to get lost.<br /><br />You wind yourself up and thus I win. Here is some advice. Don't give me the satisfaction. O<br /><br />h and contrary to what you might think I am no troll. I do respect you when you act laudibly. Your defense of philosophy against Atkins and Dawkins was comendable. I have no patence for bad Theistic argument anymore than you do. So get the chip off your shoulder. I am not your enemy. I just disagree with you.BenYachovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24541846719730623522012-04-18T14:22:36.416+00:002012-04-18T14:22:36.416+00:00Tell you what, Ben, can you give me the reference ...Tell you what, Ben, can you give me the reference and quote where Feser explicitly denies offering theodicies (wich he then does in his Last Supersitition book)? That would v helpful as I am planning to write EGC 2 paper might well include Feser. In return I'll quote you Craig and give you page reference.<br /><br />As for professionalism, if you endlessly troll and try to wind people up, it's not unprofessional of them to tell you to get lost.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-81542841565626481482012-04-18T14:16:18.262+00:002012-04-18T14:16:18.262+00:00So professional.
Grow up Prof Law. You are bette...So professional.<br /><br />Grow up Prof Law. You are better than that.BenYachovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-35669387205143116082012-04-18T14:05:29.258+00:002012-04-18T14:05:29.258+00:00Sod off Ben.Sod off Ben.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76642705004209351402012-04-18T13:56:27.179+00:002012-04-18T13:56:27.179+00:00>That is William Lane Craig's view, btw. Pe...>That is William Lane Craig's view, btw. People like me know God exists, and knowingly reject him. Which is why we will burn in hell for eternity. And deserve to.<br /><br />How do we know that is his view? I am skeptical after all you where the one who falsely claimed Feser believed in Theodicies.;-)BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3621683503613146432012-04-18T13:50:57.104+00:002012-04-18T13:50:57.104+00:00Stephen,
My sister employed this position when I ...Stephen,<br /><br />My sister employed this position when I tried to get her to acknowledge my sincere disbelief. Is the best answer on offer, "well, you'll just have to take my word on the matter"? Seems like her not taking my word was the problem in the first place.<br /><br />Any suggestions?Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01807521208323669248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-17300895558929179602012-04-18T13:17:20.520+00:002012-04-18T13:17:20.520+00:00That is William Lane Craig's view, btw. People...That is William Lane Craig's view, btw. People like me know God exists, and knowingly reject him. Which is why we will burn in hell for eternity. And deserve to.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14858535809235262932012-04-18T13:16:10.690+00:002012-04-18T13:16:10.690+00:00My two recent posts originated in a misunderstandi...My two recent posts originated in a misunderstanding, so I deleted themBNJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677058687262534718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-91837040127420092352012-04-18T13:10:51.806+00:002012-04-18T13:10:51.806+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.BNJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677058687262534718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55783803713688786532012-04-18T13:09:12.964+00:002012-04-18T13:09:12.964+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.BNJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677058687262534718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43073621587463304822012-04-18T12:51:48.840+00:002012-04-18T12:51:48.840+00:00Downtown Dave - you think I know your God exists, ...Downtown Dave - you think I know your God exists, and am just lying/deceiving myself?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26473895162160226182012-04-18T11:51:49.673+00:002012-04-18T11:51:49.673+00:00It's impossible for man to prove the existence...It's impossible for man to prove the existence of God. But God has proven Himself, and is holding man responsible for the evidence He has given. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/downtown davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05594195282113827293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33328411085775970602012-04-18T05:54:05.882+00:002012-04-18T05:54:05.882+00:00Hi Stephen,
You directed me to this post in answe...Hi Stephen,<br /><br />You directed me to this post in answer to <a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/missing-foundations-of-logic.html?showComment=1334634138810#c7067285542098448856" rel="nofollow">questions I had asked</a> at this post.<br /><br />When I asked you what you consider the best logical argument for atheism, you stated, "I like the EGC". <br /><br />Can you please show the premises and conclusion of this argument, as you best understand them?<br /><br />In this post here there seems to be an underlying implication that people must either emphasize faith or empiricism in justifying their beliefs. <br /><br />I would offer that faith is important in experiencing truth because of the relationship between knowledge, action and experience, however, in terms of testing and evaluating the truth of ideas and beliefs, I would emphasize the importance of logic. <br /><br />As noted in a previous post, <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html" rel="nofollow">the top apologists for atheism tend to either ignore or misuse the laws of logic.</a> <br /><br />A guest at my blog named Tony, whom I believe came over from your blog, seems to hold <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/stephen-law-helps-reveal-nature-of.html?showComment=1334722162595#c4851413177717037921" rel="nofollow">what appears to be a popular misunderstanding of the relationship between truth and logic.</a> I believe this has to do with presuppositions about the nature of truth.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7638448718635754072012-04-18T01:07:08.002+00:002012-04-18T01:07:08.002+00:00Personally, I find this evil/good god thinking qui...Personally, I find this evil/good god thinking quite unreasonable. Good and evil lie in purpose and meanings behind events, not within them. To a child it might appear evil for you to wake her up early in the morning from her nice comfy sleep and send her to school at dawn in freezing temperature... but is that? <br /><br />Proof of god lies not in empiricism, but in reason. For most “believers” god is more of an ultimate wisdom and potential in control of things…not discretely localized in space and time. If this were true, no analysis, instrument, vision, perception can directly fathom it, because we can only contrast and compare. For us to know there is light, we must be able to identify darkness. When things are on either sides of our equations, they simply cancel out – that does not in any way mean they are not there!BNJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677058687262534718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54146040313661303272012-04-18T00:13:57.732+00:002012-04-18T00:13:57.732+00:00"Moreover, someone can argue that the existen..."Moreover, someone can argue that the existence of fine tuning and, therefore, the reasonable probability of life is evidence of the design being of a good god."<br /><br />Wouldn't an evil god desire moral beings in order that they may perform moral evils, the worst kind of evil possible? Moral experience, apprehension of moral values, it seems all of those are equally to be expected in either direction. <br /><br />Lee.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01807521208323669248noreply@blogger.com