I have not contradicted myself. But you say you're right when God might have made you wrong. There is no probability to what God might do in your system. Your total relativism, with God at the top, is self contradictory

1.

Er, no. I am in the actual world claiming that in the actual world no true proposition is also false. — Bartricks

2.

I claim that it is 'possible' - metaphysically possible, not epistemically possible - for true propositions also to be false. — Bartricks

3.

That does not mean that I am asserting that any actually true proposition is also false. — Bartricks

You are in the actual world claiming there is an instance contradictions are true. — Cheshire

My statement is maintained by number 2. There is no rational qualification that removes the contradictory nature of claiming true and false are compatible values. Maybe you could demonstrate dividing by zero when you get done failing to defend your position.

Learn what words mean. Then realize that everything I said in those quotes was accurate.

You are claiming impossible things become possible in a metaphysical framework. Some do; the idea of unicorns existing, does exist. The idea of true/false propositions is incoherent in every case. Proceed with the zero division demo.

Gibberish.

How do you distinguish a possible from an impossible world?

No long form response this time?

your rish was gibber. Up your game

It could be ill founded, misguided, naïve, inaccurate, poorly executed, even simply wrong, but gibberish it's not. Will you be conceding the matter or making more false claims?

You seem to be operating under the notion that people who beieve in God have arrived at belief in God or at claims about God via an abstract logical reasoning (or even by empirical investigation), in a bottom-up manner, so to speak.
— baker

Oh, not at all. — Banno

Your questions and posts on the topic of "God" indicate otherwise. They indicate that you're trying to arrive at certainty about God via an abstract logical reasoning, in a bottom-up manner.

Instead of relying on divine revelation in order to come to certainty about God, you're relying on your own reason (+some outsourcing to the forum folks).

Riddle me this:
How to arrive at certainty about God?

What's your answer?

Rather, if the notion of god leads to inconsistencies, then either, the notion of god cannot be instantiated (atheism)or the notion of god needs to be reconsidered. — Banno

Exactly. Instead of treating it as a philosophical artifact, treat it the way religious theists have been treating it for millennia: a matter of divine revelation. (Which you personally just don't happen to have.)

Until the diverse preachers indoctrinators proselytizers chill out, they should expect others asking them to justify their claims. In case they impose their faiths on others, politics, have their faiths interfere in other peoples' lives, whatever social matters, etc, then they should expect all the more. — jorndoe

I think this requires a different approach. First of all, don't let them dictate the terms. As long as we attempt to discuss "the existence of God" or request them to justify their claims, we're letting the theists dictate the terms, and we're playing by those terms -- and we have set ourselves up for certain failure. We must not let them drag us to their turf where they can play, and win, on their terms.

Why would anyone trust ancient religious texts when they are just human writings and contradict each other?

You don't have an argument, do you? — Bartricks

In the end your refusal to address my argument inspires pathos.

I have demonstrated that the view that for some proposition A, A is both true and false, is a consequence of your view that the law of noncontradiction does not apply in some possible worlds. Reject noncontradiction in any possible world, and you reject it for every possible world. — Banno

I say that it is possible for the law of non contradiction to be false, and all you can do is insist that means I think it is actually false. — Bartricks

No, i've pointed out that your insistence on a contradiction leads to explosion.

but I can reason well. — Bartricks

Your insistence on obfuscation and denial count against this.

Gregory Focus on the argument and not the arguer. — Bartricks

This is advice you might do well to follow.

That's why there are no necessary truths, just contingent ones. — Bartricks

Is that a necessary truth?


You do not quite understand necessity and contingency.

Here's the thing: continuing on in this belligerent irrational way will only render your posts here irrelevant. Folk will increasingly ignore you. As it stands, very few of the top posters bother to reply to you. Your posts are taken up by new members, who entertain you only until they realise your foibles. It's not a winning strategy.

How do you distinguish a possible from an impossible world? — charles ferraro

Possible worlds are just fiat. We make 'em up. This isn't anything magical, it;s just a way of talking about them that allows us to make sense of modality.

So you might ask "what would happen if I went to the shops today?". That's the same as asking what it would be like to be in a possible world in which one went to the shops. it's not bringing worlds into being, it's just a way of talking about "what if..."'s

An impossible world is one in which there is a contradiction; so there is no possible world in which 2+3=6.

Fifty years ago Kripke presented a formalisation of this stuff, ginving us a basis for considering the consequences of "what if..."'s. It's still a subject for discussion, but for a while it was a big focus in logic.

↪Bartricks You are claiming impossible things become possible in a metaphysical framework. Some do; the idea of unicorns existing, does exist. The idea of true/false propositions is incoherent in every case. Proceed with the zero division demo. — Cheshire

Yep.

↪Cheshire Gibberish. — Bartricks

That's not a reasonable reply.

How to arrive at certainty about God? — baker

Quite explicitly, I am arguing that the arguments for and against the existence of god are inconclusive.

More generally, it seems to me that statements about god are undecidable.

SO if someone is certain about god, it is not as a consequence of deliberation.

...a matter of divine revelation. — baker

...and as a consequence it is irrational; it stands outside of rational considerations. It is perhaps there are a part of what Wittgenstein called "hinge propositions".

The issue then becomes the extent to which such beliefs should be taken into consideration when deciding what to do.

Why would anyone trust ancient religious texts when they are just human writings and contradict each other? — Gregory

Indeed. And yet these are used in deciding issues such as abortion, euthanasia, women's rights and so on.

Our debate has its roots in events of the 18th Century when much of Christianity turned to fairy tales in the eyes of the educated.

As Nietzsche pointed out, gods are metaphors. People explained themselves through the antics of their gods. For the last 2000 years, the primary western image of divinity has been about suffering and sacrifice. Pretty poignant, actually.

How do we explain ourselves now?

How do we explain ourselves now? — frank

Acknowledge three instances of God. The God in children's stories. The God of theistic experience. Perhaps an empty space for a speculative God that emerges as a collective conscious of matter until proven unreasonable. That's the direction I was thinking of going.

Take a look at the latest thread on abortion. The second post - by @Bartricks, as it turns out - invokes theistic notions of soul.

Here's the rub; the assumed link between god and what is we ought do. This is what must be broken.

Here's the rub; the assumed link between god and what is we ought do. This is what must be broken. — Banno

Yes, the part that can't be updated falls under children's stories.

Prior to the advent of non-Euclidean geometries, couldn't it have been claimed, with all sincerity, that there was no possible world wherein, or no conceivable circumstances whereby, two parallel lines would intersect, as this would have "obviously" constituted a blatant violation of Euclid's parallel postulate?

And didn't the machinations of Descartes' evil genius comprise a hyperbolic situation whereby a possible world is conceived wherein the meditator is constantly being deceived into thinking that 2+3 can, and does, equal 6?

Prior to the advent of non-Euclidean geometries, couldn't it have been claimed, with all sincerity, that there was no possible world wherein, or no conceivable circumstances whereby, two parallel lines would intersect, as this would have "obviously" constituted a blatant violation of Euclid's parallel postulate? — charles ferraro

Oh, indeed. What was salient is an account of how geometry could be kept consistent when the rules are changed. It is still wrong to assert that two parallel lines meet in Euclidean space.

So if you can show us a consistent arithmetic in which 2+3 is 6, go for it. As it stands, making that assumption undermines our capacity to do arithmetic.

And that's the point of the discussion above with @Bartricks; if one accepts a contradiction, then anything follows, and further discussion ends. If Bart were able to present an account in which contradictions occur but do not result in a logical explosion, there would be a point to his posts. And indeed, that's what Dialetheism seeks to do, with debatable success.

Take a look at the latest LLPthread on abortion. The second post - by Bartricks, as it turns out - invokes theistic notions of soul. — Banno

Nietzsche would say Bartricks is relying on a metaphor that works for him, though he doesn't realize it, and that the atheist is doing the same thing. Often the atheist is the more confused of the two because she's actually stranded between two distinct worldviews. In other words, 'God' is still part of her decision making process, just in disguise.

Take a look at the latest thread on abortion. The second post - by Bartricks, as it turns out - invokes theistic notions of soul.

Here's the rub; the assumed link between god and what is we ought do. This is what must be broken. — Banno

You're too sensitive here, almost a political correct language you're demanding. He uses ensoulment where secularists would refer to it as the moment a fetus gains personhood. His post was pro-choice, with limitations not unlike most pro-choice advocates.

Along these lines, I'd point out that the most important truths we learn are through fiction. What then of this fiction that speaks the truth? A paradox of biblical proportions.

@frank

You're too sensitive here, — Hanover

Perhaps. But see . I'd be looking for a better analysis than personhood; and I think that is found in, say, Nussbaum and the notion of flourishing.

the most important truths we learn are through fiction — Hanover

I don't actually disagree, so much as puzzle over this mode of expression. The way "truth" is being used here is not the way it is used in, fir instance, "It is true that 1+2=3".

You seem to be conflating logical necessity with ontological necessity. Of course it is logically possible that God does not exist; that has never been contested as far as I know.

Another problem with your argument is that God, by definition, does not exist in worlds, but as the creator and sustainer (if God exists) of all worlds. The ontological point really is that God's existence, if God exists, is ontologically necessary.

don't actually disagree, so much as puzzle over this mode of expression. The way "truth" is being used here is not the way it is used in, fir instance, "It is true that 1+2=3". — Banno

1+2=3 is a deductive logical construct, obviously differing from empirical truths. Do you not mean that true is what corresponds with reality?

But you agree, so we're in agreement.

If fiction is the path to truth, you've lost at least one basis to abandon religion. You don't have to believe the sea parted, just that there is a truth being told there.

If fiction is the path to truth, you've lost at least one basis to abandon religion. You don't have to believe the sea parted, just that there is a truth being told there. — Hanover

But what is that truth? The moment you say what it is, you are wrong.

A being that necessarily exists cannot coherently be thought not to exist. And so God, as the unsurpassably perfect being, must have necessary existence—and therefore must exist. — Tom Storm

That's basically the Ontological Argument. Note, as I pointed out to @Banno, it is not the Logical Argument (although of course the entailment of the conclusion from the premises is deemed to be logically valid).