At this point, it seems that you're taking this way too personally. I know it's frustrating.

Monder: Ontological God and Omnipotent God. In other words, logical necessity and logical impossibility respectively. Ontology relates to the nature of being.

You're not making it clear how, why, what and where, God is able to make your so-called "Mistakes" in the OP. This may help some:

on·tol·o·gy
/änˈtäləjē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
2.
a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.
"what's new about our ontology is that it is created automatically from large datasets"

I read it twice the first time and I still can't make sense of it. You're trying to posit an ontological God who makes mistakes, and it's just not following.

(You've given analogies to the human condition, but failed to describe/reconcile God's qualities, features etc. Oh, and when you did, you hinted at the ontological argument-see your first paragraph.)

Dude, good luck with that :razz:

What do you mean by independent existence? — Protagoras

Pending on the context, the whole concept can take different forms of discourse (cosmology versus metaphysics).. But I think how Hanover & 180 have framed that particular area of discussion, he probably means metaphysics-transcendental idealism (at least that's how I'm interpreting the aforementioned comment from him).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism#:~:text=Transcendental%20idealism%20is%20a%20philosophical,Kant%20in%20the%2018th%20century.&text=Kant%20argues%20that%20the%20conscious,the%20conditions%20of%20our%20sensibility.

I believe at some point in the discussion, if it continues, that metaphysical notion of existence if you will, will likely rear its head :grin:

Okay let me be less diplomatic an excruciatingly direct.

For the reasons I stated, your argument in the OP seems to link logical impossibility (Omniscience) to free will, volition, and finitude ("mistakes") and other ethical choices that people make.

Henceforth, how do you go from Omniscience to an Ontological God who makes mistakes?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think others are struggling with your OP as well... Just take a deep breath and sift through the comments and concerns if you will... .

Bartricks!

I'm thinking the term 'mistakes' may need a bit more relevancy. Based on your Omni-3/OP, I don't think it follows that God is capable of making 'mistakes' per your definitions. Conversely, what does seem to follow, is that God is all knowing of every 'mistake' that is made. Maybe that also means a world of contingency and a world of necessity.

That's because per Omni-3 logic (logical impossibility v. Ontological logical necessity), the reason for its own existence is contained within itself, there is no choice in the matter. A necessary thing can make no references time, change, contingency, free will/choice, etc. (Platonism, mathematical truths, and so on). It's a closed and complete loop of explanation. 'Mistakes' then from your OP, would mean a problem with reconciling a world of changing things v. unchanging things.

What would be an interesting argument, would be to argue that God is the exact opposite of Omni-3. But then, there would be no reason to posit God in the first place.
:snicker:

You're confusing "reason" for "cause." Not the first, least, nor no doubt last, of your confusions. — tim wood

Start a thread and call it Reasons and Causes. Include either philosophy or cognitive science quotes or whatever is appropriate. Just a thought.

I think this also speaks to some of Hanover's arguments specifically referencing one's own truth.:
Subjectivity and Philosophy:

From the latin “subjectum”.

Its primary sense tells us that there is a term affirm or deny something, in a proposal. More metaphysically, Subject is synonymous with substance be real support for attributes or accidents. It is also the person subject to a sovereign authority in politics, and the knowing mind in the theory of knowledge.

Definitions of Philosophers:

– Schopenhauer

“It’s who knows everything, without being yourself known is the subject. The subject is, therefore, the bedrock of the world, the invariable condition, always implied in any phenomenon, any object, because all that exists is only for the subject.

As you may know, there are all sorts of other metaphysical theories on this phenomena of self-awareness.

am asking why you think it is necessary to argue against a claim for which there is not good reason to think it might be true — Fooloso4

see it, it is not so much a matter of convincing others but of making an argument that is convincing. It seems curious to me if someone were to make an argument they did not intent to make convincingly. — Fooloso4

I think in large part you answered most of the question. But it is neither always necessary to convince other's of your own truth (Hanover alluded to that in the debate-Subjectivity), but if one were to advance an argument either for or against something, it seems you agree that usually one provides reasons for their belief.

As an aside, I was debating a Dr. friend of mine about political ideology and I argued that if one believes something (and either advances or takes a position one way or another), they have the obligation to at least explain why they believe what they believe regardless of the belief. Of course, that's not the same as trying to change someone's belief about that same thing (political ideologies). At some point, in a formal debate one has to advance their position by similar reciprocity to be convincing. But again, that doesn't mean you're trying to insist that they change their view.

(Their truth is their truth. The question becomes why or how/when , etc... .)

The obvious is that in any argument or proof there must be something that ties the conclusion to the premises - the knot being either all right or all wrong — tim wood

That's not what we're talking about. Stay out of this grown-up talk Tim :razz: .

We're talking about logically fallacies and why people agree or disagree with other's. In other words, some reasoning has to do with some emotional experience one has had... . In your case, emotions are more noteworthy. Kind of like Voluntarism, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
LOL

Does that mean you must show that there are not?

If I was going to deny that [a] supposition, well yes. I mean, if one say's 'no that's not true' and offers no counter argument, then why shouldn't one say 'yes that's true' instead? (Reason usually compels people to believe what they believe.) If they say yes, they say yes for a reason. If they say no, they say no for a reason.

I could be missing the obvious, but is that what you're asking?

Of course, but it's like committing a logical fallacy to deny the antecedent by offering no justification/explanation for the denial.. One has reciprocity in advancing their own position by whatever logical means is appropriate without such fallacy(s). Is that what you're saying?

Indeed, it's reciprocity.

Dude, don't attack the process (like Trump)…. you're losing (again), just man-up!

Otherwise, tell us you didn't agree to the debate rules??

LOL

180 crashed another debate into the ground.

Gosh, it definitely seems so...let's hope for the best, plan for the worst :razz:

My two pennies:

After reading 180's lack of responses, I must say, Golly Geee:



180 tends to use political statements instead of philosophical arguments (I know we all have to be careful there, but c'mon man!). Here you go again 180, projecting your own lack of understanding onto other's. I think most have figured him out, including Hanover. For instance, when he has nothing, he projects in this case, his own straw man and non sequitur fallacies to make himself look like he knows something. When Hanover points it out, 180 then pivots to attacking the 'process' and not the substance. Very 101. It's just a smoke screen and an illusionary budding intellect... .

Oh well, nothing new under the sun there. Another disappointment. Hanover did his homework, where 180 so far did not. (Actually, not sure why 180 even agreed to the debate... .) Hanover also calls him out and corrects his misuse of ad hom's. Sorry for the tough love 180, really, you gotta give us something man; not just the usual smoke and mirrors. :razz:

Anyway, be that as it may, Hanover has been more than gracious, and has offered some other interesting arguments that have real import.

1. I liked the notion of Subjective truth. NICE.
2. SD: " It admits to the obvious metaphysical difference between hats and perceptions of hats, and that the latter cannot be experienced except by the subject." YEP.
3 "we each walk around daily with the freedom to choose, something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in a physically limited universe.That is to say, SD gives a path for a meaningful free will, entirely lacking in a purely physical world." I loved the notion and/or suggestion of Metaphysical Will ala Schop and others! Or how about this, someone explain the Will period, without positing some dualist metaphysical concept.

Also, this is an interesting supposition below. I would like to see both 180 and Hanover exploring this one a bit (180 hasn't touched it yet). This could prove interesting. In the meantime, someone here provide some insight to its implications:

"And there is a critical distinction between not detected and not detectable, with the latter suggesting that no amount of technology can locate its existence. I get that I can't hear extremely high frequencies, but they are detectable, not just not detected. On the other hand, you will never experience my experience. Ever. That is what makes mental states different from physical states."

How does this relate to independent existence?

For example, 180 supposedly said through Hanover's interpretation of same that: "is that I [Hanover]deny specifically that there are physical properties that are completely incapable of being sensed in some capacity and so measured, including dark matter."

Is 180 suggesting there is independent existence?

And yall blamed 3017 when it was obvious he is a very good debater,he just had a terribly uncharitable and poor debater who upended the debate. — Protagoras

Yep. It was disappointing to say the least. I asked 180 for a rematch...we'll see. Though I'm not sure there is much bite to his bark :razz:

Anyway, I'll have to get into this new one w/Hanover...seems intriguing... .

Of course. And most likely that could be because of the historical accounts associated with Christianity, as Jesus was recorded in same. Just like many history books we read about someone, one can easily conceive of that existence pretty readily...

Why not? I took a finite 15 minutes to finish my tea while the future is infinite. — TheMadFool

Paul Davies writes: Turning to the scientific position on the origin of the universe one can again ask about the evidence that there actually was an origin. It is certainly possible to conceive of the universe of infinite duration and for much of the modern scientific era following the work of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, scientists did in fact generally believe in an eternal cosmos. There were however some paradoxical expects to this belief.

Do you think that notion (of infinite) is reminiscent of Einstein's relatively, speed of light, and eternity?

but I recommend no longer bothering to take the likes of 3017 seriously. — 180 Proof

3017amen : What 180 is about to say is false.
180 Proof: 3017 has just spoken truly.

What other logical question would you like me to answer? Rematch to avenge your loss?

If you're scared, say you're scared :razz:
LOL

Pardon the pun but I love your premise.

Though I think you can have both. You can love an object and appreciate the object for what it is, without an intellectual connection. The purchase of objects like houses, cars, clothing, paint colors, anything relative to aesthetics comes to mind.

Of course the dynamics of, in this case, romantic love may wane if the relationship is not balanced. If one where to use a mind-body-spirit criteria as a decision making model or method in choosing a mate, only loving just the person's body would not be fulfilling (in the long run).

Greater in what way? Since you (and Anselm) don't say in what way, should we assume in every way possible? If so, that would include greater in height, greater in ability to eat pies in a pie-eating contest, greater in armpit smelliness, and a whole lot of other greaters. — Herg

Yes. The a priori argument posits greatest in everything and in everyway possible. It's based on logically necessary truth's.

Well, yes. My concept of God now is of a very tall dude who can eat more pies than anyone else and has smellier armpits than anyone else. I often wondered what God was like. Thank you for clarifying that for me.
12hReplyOptions0 — Herg

Sure. Absurdity qualifies also. (Pure reason has those effects... . Yet another reason why A-theism is not logical)

Thanks!

I got to take care of some personal things at the moment P. Let me get back to you later K?

Look dude if you want to debate me one on one, then propose something. Otherwise I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list.

Now continue with your angry tirades if you must :razz:

Could you clarify on the last paragraph of your post,platonism and structures/maths? — Protagoras

What I meant by the following:
"To that end, one thing we know is that those same abstract entities and structures (math), seem to comprise much of sentient consciousness itself-metaphysics. (Perhaps one reason why Platonism is alive and well.)"

...is, that that was referring to similar abstract structures that comprises our intellect. For example, we have this logical side and we have this feeling side (the will) that is a dumb and blind 'feeling' or impulse or energy that needs logic to make cognition work the way we understand it to work (and cognize). Refer to my profile I did an OP/thread years ago on Voluntarism.

And within that description of cognition, we are able to perceive abstract entities. Abstract structures or entities include but are not limited to the following: mathematics, music/music theory, aesthetics (the feelings one feels when they perceive colors, objects, etc.-see Kant), the Will itself-Schop., the feeling of Time/time itself, and even Love and other metaphysical concepts and phenomena that are innate to conscious existence and the world of perception and sense experience.

There's much more to parce but does that help any...

Hey TMF!

With the holiday weekend upon us I'm going to try my best to get to your supposition (s), but have to ask quickly for a couple qualifiers if you will:

1. By infinity would you accept the term or concept of eternity as one in the same?
2. The concept of infinities and finites, can they be analogous to (or treated like) temporal time/space time and eternal time as a unity of opposite concept?

Okay any idea of what I should call the new thread/OP? I'm open to any ideas....

Okay I'll explain in a bit...btw, I love psychology.... Probably why I'm more of a continental philosopher!!!

TMF!

Thanks for your reply I want to give your thoughtful post the same thoughtful consideration so let me monder it and get back to you!

Could you clarify on the last paragraph of your post,platonism and structures/maths? — Protagoras

I would love to clarify, why don't you start a new thread?

180 and I agreed to the following:

Title: Atheism is not Logical


1. No word limits per post.

2. No links to previous posts on TPF.

Take as much time as needed between posts.

I will start the debate with an opening argument(s).

The moderator said he closed the debate after non-response within agreed limits from 3017 — tim wood

Stop right there. It was agreed we would have an unlimited amount of time for responses. It doesn't matter now but I cannot let that pass without correction. If you want quotes I'll provide them. And it was two days without a response which was the weekend. Get it straight dude.

Anyway go back to your angry tirades :razz:

I read you correctly are you saying standard logic cannot prove things like conciousness and time which are obviously real,therefore the concept of God is like the reality of time and conciousness,and doesn't follow standard logic? — Protagoras

Well, generally speaking, that is one so-called tenet of my philosophy or truth as the case may be. More specifically, that overall argument refers to the nature of reality and/or existence, and how a priori logic cannot capture the 'truth' of those same realities. For example, mathematics (a priori mathematical truth's) themselves have limitations (Gödel/Heisenberg/Turing, Kant, self-referential propositions/paradox-liars paradox, etc. etc.) even when used by physicists... .

To that end, one thing we know is that those same abstract entities and structures (math), seem to comprise much of sentient consciousness itself-metaphysics. (Perhaps one reason why Platonism is alive and well.)

I know, I was extremely disappointed too. I had all sorts of arguments lined up, as I hinted at in my opening statement.... .

One is not a philosopher or psychologist If one doesn't engage in a genuine existential critique of religion. Angry rants don't count!

And if you search for truth you will find divinity. Even if you find the divine is the human soul. — Protagoras

I love that last quote. Thank you for that inspirational message! Happy 4th!

Thanks Pro! Indeed to all. You know, BTW, I throw them bones and olive branches on occasion just to help but they still don't get it. For instance, if you read what I said I suggested a posteriori kinds of knowledge (WJ religious experiences).

Oh well, like the late great George Harrison said: a lot of things in life can wait, but the search for God cannot. (I think I got that one right too, not sure though.) In any case, besides, over 75% of philosophical domains posit God, for some reason go figure!!
:razz:

God Bless you brother (if I'm allowed to say that).. . .You know, this kinda reminds me of a Keats quote:

Truth is beauty, beauty truth. That is all ye know, and all ye need to know. (That's from memory so I hope I got it right.) I appreciate your objective voice.

Anyway, well said. We all don't have to agree with one another either, no quarrel there. Actually here's another philosophical musing or concept. Sort of like the Taoist unity of opposites, I am more often than not inspired by protagonist behavior, if you know what I mean vern!

If nothing else, it's how NOT to be.

As far as Christian Existentialism, thanks it's kinda like politically, when I became a moderate independent. The sky opened up and revelation started. I felt liberated & free... . In a Greek moderation way, I realized that not only is it normal to draw from both sides (and other things in life designed to be hybrids and compromises/engineering, relationships, etc.), I have always realized that ultimately this is not my kingdom. And that speaks to the independent component. It's a win-win for me! And a peace of mind.

We need more moderate's in our political and religious institutions!!

And the lie that your opponent in debate "threw in the towel." A lie of multiple folds, together again with your condescension. And not a particle or even scent of truth in it. — tim wood

Nice try, but woefully incorrect, hence:

"2nd Request: Please provide a coherent logico-deductive premise. So far, your atheism is:

I'm an Atheist who doesn't believe in "Whatever"

Let be established that 180 Proof has not proved The Logic of Atheism as being coherent.
TKO in Round one I'm afraid. (Or go back, read yours and my comments, get a drink and some coaching from your corner :razz: )

I'll continue the debate if you do your homework on logico-deductive reasoning 180! Again, your belief in "Whatever" is not coherent."


Put in another quarter Timmy and try again .
LOL

:up: :up:

Good job, No worries, 180 contradicts himself all the time :razz:

Tim, you can ask me anything, though I’m not sure you’re emotionally stable enough to receive the information in a constructive manner :razz:

Anyway back to the atheist peanut gallery lesson. I’ll still query 180 to see if he can answer the question about a premise/conclusion being sound, but am losing faith in him considering he once again, prematurely threw in the towel. Nonetheless, his analysis of the Ontological Argument is misguided for the following reasons:

Anyone who understands what is meant by the term ‘God’ or supreme being would see that such an entity must exist. The concept of God is a being in which none greater can be conceived. Since anyone can conceive or comprehend, a priori, that particular definition standard, one can conceive of a God. Just as important, 180’s notion of soundness similarly fails on the epistemic grounds of philosophical idealism. Not only can God be conceived as a concept in one’s mind, but can also exist in one’s reality. Reality exists as obscure things-in-themselves.

Equally important are the questions and resulting facts about the world of mathematical truth’s (a priori)and logical necessity, or logically necessary truths like the Ontological Argument. In physical science, using a priori mathematical truths to discover a something in the world of objects (seen or unseen), those something’s are essentially brute fact, yet exist as true abstract structures in the mind. For instance, 2+2 =4 is a fact that exists. (At some point, reality can only be described mathematically-beyond the usual categories of protons, neutrons, and electrons.) The Ontological Argument works in the exact same way. 180 is once again wrong that ‘soundness’ has anything to do with the conclusion reached from a priori logic/analytical propositions (like the Ontological Argument ).

That also leads to other questions about Atheist's and their motivations and belief systems. Is it based on the Ontological Argument not being true, and if so, how so and by what method (a posteriori)? Is thier disbelief based on the logically impossible Omni-3? If so, how does that square with consciousness and reality?

If those are too difficult to answer, one is left with another brute fact (pardon the pun) that the Atheist's belief system seems extremely flawed. As an important ancillary note which perhaps Tim or 180 could find it easier to answer, why do Atheists like to troll religious threads? The irony seems to be, that which should have no concern or existence, seemingly weighs heavily on one's consciousness :razz: