Saturday, July 31, 2010

Godlessons Doesn't Think Logic Exists

The Atheist at Godlessons has a post on whether God can be said to exist being that He is immaterial. He says, "When we speak of immaterial things, we are speaking of something that has no physical substance. Now, if you think about this, everything we know to exist has physical properties."

Not to mention that this is a very recent definition of what it is for something to exist, formulated by logical positivists of the 19th and 20th centuries, it also would nullify many of the concepts that Godlessons wants to use to disprove the existence of God, namely the laws of logic. Do the laws of logic exist? If they do, then they are not material objects, rather they are ideas. They are what philosophers refer to as abstract objects. They obviously exist, because they determine how we determine truth. But they aren't physical objects.

Mind-body dualists also have no issue with thinking that immaterial beings exist, as we are partly such beings. Not to mention that objects we conceive of in our minds, such as pink elephants, don't exist materially, but within the immaterial area of our minds.

Also, the proposition, "everything we know to exist has physical properties," itself is an immaterial object. Propositions exist whether we bring them materially into being by typing or writing them down. The proposition 2+2=4 would exist whether or not anyone else did or not.

Another bad atheist argument.

24 comments:

Mike Felker said...

Brennen, sounds like you are on your way to becoming a presuppositionalist ;-)

bossmanham said...

Mike,

Lol, thanks.

I like certain aspects of what presuppositionalism brings forward in terms of people's epistemology. I also think the TAG argument is good as a comprehensive case. Though I would disagree with Van Til's and Clark's complete approach.

Mike Felker said...

Its just encouraging to see that there are non-reformed folk who are using TAG. And I really don't agree with those reformed guys who think that TAG is just for them. Honestly, I don't see any inconsistencies between TAG and arminianism and would strongly encourage all arminians to add TAG to their bag of arguments. Though I might call myself a presuppositionalist, I see no reason to make TAG my only argument when there are plenty of additional evidences that are at least as convincing and useful.

As long as our apologetic is bringing glory to God, then evidences can and should be used.

Godlessons said...

Okay, so I left out concepts. Are you saying that God is a concept? I have never seen concepts that could do anything without help of the people conceptualizing them.

Now, if you think that God is not a concept, my argument is still valid, and you are attempting to throw up a smoke screen.

As for dualism, does anyone have any evidence for dualism, or is it just a feeling? I have seen tons of evidence against it, but none for it. In my mind, that means that the most likely explanation is that it is a trick our minds play on us.

Also, it is generally considered bad form not to post a link to the blog you are talking about, even if you are bashing them. The original article is here:
The “What is God?” Argument for the Non-Existence of God

bossmanham said...

Okay, so I left out concepts. Are you saying that God is a concept?

No, concepts are immaterial and they exist. Since these concepts and propositions are contingent on a mind existing, I think we have a good reason to believe in an eternal mind which holds these truths in being.

I have never seen concepts that could do anything without help of the people conceptualizing them.

Which is why the Kalaam argument ends with a personal creator. Only minds are causally active.

Now, if you think that God is not a concept, my argument is still valid, and you are attempting to throw up a smoke screen.

If we've determined that immaterial objects can exist, then why should we stop with concepts? The burden of proof is on the one who wants to limit these immaterial objects.

Also, as I stated before, since concepts don't seem to be able to exist without a mind to conceive of them (would logic exist without a logical mind?) then I think minds can exist immaterially as well.

As for dualism, does anyone have any evidence for dualism, or is it just a feeling?

I think there are several convincing arguments for dualism. Plus there's personal testimonies of those who have NDE's, and after recovering, recall events that they could have no knowledge of unless they left their bodies.

The modal argument for dualism is really strong.

1) Definition of identical: If x=y, then whatever is true of x is true of y and vice versa.
2) Possibly, my mind can exist without my body.
3) Therefore, my mind is not identical to my body.

The mind possesses the property of possibly existing without the body. Since the body lacks that property (since the body can't exist without the body) the mind can't be identical to the body, because it possesses the property that the body cannot posses. Therefore, the mind isn't identical to the body.

I have seen tons of evidence against it,

What evidence have you seen against it? That brain states correlate to states of the mind? Correlation is not identity. The mind uses the brain to operate the body, so obviously there would be correlations.

Also, it is generally considered bad form not to post a link to the blog you are talking about, even if you are bashing them

I cited your name and your blog name. I did overlook the link though. I apologize. Fixed.

Godlessons said...

No, concepts are immaterial and they exist.

They are contingent on a physical brain, can a concept exist without a physical component such as a brain thinking it? If so, show me an example.

Which is why the Kalaam argument ends with a personal creator. Only minds are causally active.

The Kalam argument is well beyond the scope here, it fails well before we get to the first cause part of things due to making unfounded assumptions, and because of that it's not useful here.

If we've determined that immaterial objects can exist, then why should we stop with concepts? The burden of proof is on the one who wants to limit these immaterial objects.

No, you have not shown that immaterial things exist outside a physical mind. Because of that, the burden still lies with you.

Also, as I stated before, since concepts don't seem to be able to exist without a mind to conceive of them (would logic exist without a logical mind?) then I think minds can exist immaterially as well.

Show how a mind exists without a physical component. You are asserting this without evidence or argument whatsoever.

I think there are several convincing arguments for dualism. Plus there's personal testimonies of those who have NDE's, and after recovering, recall events that they could have no knowledge of unless they left their bodies.

(I have to ask a side question on this.)
(sidetrack)How often do people have NDE's that have seen things that tell them that some other religion is true? Has a Muslim ever died, seen Jesus, been brought back to life and converted? I would think that if there is one true religion and NDE's aren't delusions, everyone that has one should come back with the same religion.(/sidetrack)

Anyway, NDE's are a class of woo that is more akin to psychic readings than to anything else, even having similar results in studies. There is nothing that can be said conclusively about the experiences, other than the fact that many people claim to have had them.

2) Possibly, my mind can exist without my body.

This premise is question begging. Modal S(5). Look it up and you'll see how saying this is exactly the same as saying "My mind can exist without my body."

Further, you make a bad argument if we are to look at it in classical logic as well. Without showing that the mind and the body can exist separately, your written out discussion afterward fails. If the mind is synonymous with the brain, it is part of the body, and therefore can't exist without the body.

What evidence have you seen against it?

How about the fact that physical and/or chemical changes in the brain change the personality of the person. Losing certain parts of the brain removes memories. Stimulating certain parts of the brain causes people to believe they have had all sorts of different experiences.

These things all shouldn't happen if personality or memories are stored in some immaterial component, but they happen consistently, not inconsistently like stories of NDE's.

Personally I had a stroke about 8 years ago. After the stroke, my personality changed. I was extremely non-confrontational previous to the stroke, but afterward, I became very confrontational for about a year, and I am still much more confrontational than I once was, even though I have settled down dramatically.

That is the biggest thing I noticed, because it was stark, but there were tons of other personality changes. People didn't recognize who I had become.

I had no access to certain words also. I couldn't recognize many symbols that I had known forever. All sorts of stuff that I should have access to if it weren't all stored in the brain was gone.

Is there anything I missed?

bossmanham said...

They are contingent on a physical brain

So the laws of logic didn't exist before human beings did? That seems a tad implausible.

can a concept exist without a physical component such as a brain thinking it?

I think the proposition 2+2=4 exists with or without physical entities.

No, you have not shown that immaterial things exist outside a physical mind

It'd be an awful strange universe if propositions needed a physical brain to exist. Not just a physical brain, but a physical brain that has evolved to the point ours have only been at for a few hundred thousand years. So prior to that you had a logic-less, math-less, irrational universe; that is if these things have to have physical rational brains to exist.

Show how a mind exists without a physical component.

I gave an argument for it. Most people don't have an issue thinking of their own mind, or anyone elses, existing in a different body or without a body altogether.

How often do people have NDE's that have seen things that tell them that some other religion is true? Has a Muslim ever died, seen Jesus, been brought back to life and converted?

Actually, you'd be surprised at how many Muslims convert due to seeing Jesus in a dream or something like that. But I'm not sure if there are any cases specific like yours. Frankly, I think the Biblical record gives us good grounds to think that once the mind (soul) makes it to God's presence, or to the place of torment, it doesn't come back prior to the resurrection. Though I'm not 100% sure of all the NDE reports. I do know people know things they shouldn't after they recover and give testimony of being outside their body.

There is nothing that can be said conclusively about the experiences

That's true of a lot of different scientific studies, doesn't mean it isn't evidence for such things happening.

Look it up and you'll see how saying this is exactly the same as saying "My mind can exist without my body."

Which shows you don't understand modal logic. No one started out by assuming their body and mind are separate, they simply acknowledge the possibility. If I say it's possible that something be a certain way, I'm not assuming that it actually can be that. Once you follow the logic, you see that the possibility logically leads to the reality. The axiom S5 (Possibly Necessarily P implies Necessarily p)isn't even used here.

You don't have to assume the conclusion here to reach it using this logic, even though it's true that saying "It's possible that my mind is not my body" entails the distinctness of the two. But saying that I am a human being entails that I am mortal. That argument doesn't even use modal logic, and isn't begging the question.

bossmanham said...

How about the fact that physical and/or chemical changes in the brain change the personality of the person.

I already said correlation does not equal identity. If the brain is damaged, then the thing using the brain as an instrument to work physical components will be unable to operate it properly, just as a pianist wouldn't be able to operate a damaged piano well.

Losing certain parts of the brain removes memories

And if the mind uses the brain to store memories, then losing a part of the brain would make you lose those memories.

Stimulating certain parts of the brain causes people to believe they have had all sorts of different experiences.

And correlation != identity.

Personally I had a stroke about 8 years ago. After the stroke, my personality changed. I was extremely non-confrontational previous to the stroke, but afterward, I became very confrontational for about a year, and I am still much more confrontational than I once was, even though I have settled down dramatically.

I'm not sure why it would follow then that the mind and the brain are identical...

I had no access to certain words also. I couldn't recognize many symbols that I had known forever. All sorts of stuff that I should have access to if it weren't all stored in the brain was gone.

If that part of your brain was damaged, then your mind may not be able to access it anymore. It doesn't force us to conclude that the two are identical.

Rhology said...

Dan Barker uses a similar argument. But lamer.

Godlessons said...

So the laws of logic didn't exist before human beings did? That seems a tad implausible.

So argument from incredulity now?

It seems entirely plausible to me, although I see no reason to limit it to humans. On top of that, we have no evidence whatsoever that what you say is true.

The reason we call things laws is not because we have any absolute knowledge that they work, it is because we observe things happening, and they always happen when the same action is repeated. The "Laws of Logic" you speak of are merely observations of the way things work. Saying that you can't have a square circle is only logical because the two things are impossible to be the same. It doesn't work the other way around.

Trying to equate a logical statement to the thing it is speaking of is a category mistake.

I think the proposition 2+2=4 exists with or without physical entities.

You can think that all you want, but that is an evaluative statement. What would be around to evaluate that statement without a brain? It is just as if I were to say a brick is a brick. That statement would be true, but without a brain to conceive of it, the statement would never exist. The brick would still be a brick, but the metaphysical component, namely the statement, has never been observed to exist outside a brain.

I gave an argument for it. Most people don't have an issue thinking of their own mind, or anyone elses, existing in a different body or without a body altogether.

People being able to imagine something doesn't make it true. I don't know why you think that's a good argument.

It'd be an awful strange universe if propositions needed a physical brain to exist. Not just a physical brain, but a physical brain that has evolved to the point ours have only been at for a few hundred thousand years...

Argument from incredulity based on a category mistake. You can't imagine it because you are mixing the things logical statements are talking about up with the logic statement itself.

I feel sorry for you about this. It's kind of like seeing one of those pictures that can be two different things. Once you see it one way, you have a hell of a time trying to see it the other, because it just makes sense to you. The problem is, once you see it the other way, your way will no longer make any sense whatsoever.

Which shows you don't understand modal logic. No one started out by assuming their body and mind are separate, they simply acknowledge the possibility.
...
The axiom S5 (Possibly Necessarily P implies Necessarily p)isn't even used here.

You called it a modal argument. If it is a modal argument, saying possibly p is question begging. I know that you try to cover it up by mixing in classical logic afterward, but classical logic fails because you are saying that existence is a property. By saying existence is a property, you must say something exists but has the property of non-existence in order to say it doesn't exist. Existence is not a predicate. (Immanuel Kant)

All of this shows first that you don't understand modal logic and classical logic are not compatible. Second, it shows you are not versed on even theist arguments against ontological arguments.

bossmanham said...

So argument from incredulity now?

I said it seems implausible. You've given no good reason to think otherwise.

It seems entirely plausible to me, although I see no reason to limit it to humans. On top of that, we have no evidence whatsoever that what you say is true.

So then the laws of causation, laws of mathematics, etc. that are in place and seem to govern the universe and rely on logic existing didn't actually exist before our strange little species evolved? Why should these functions of the universe display such apparent logical progressions if logic didn't exist without

And, if logic is dependent on physical brains, then why should all physical brains adhere to the same rules? It seems that the laws of logic are objective and aren't dependent on personal preference or understanding. Modus Ponens looks like it works whether any physical brain exists or not.

The "Laws of Logic" you speak of are merely observations of the way things work

So? They're infallible. They always work and it appears impossible that something like modus ponens would ever be false.

You can think that all you want, but that is an evaluative statement

Haha. So, if there were 2 planets several billions of years ago, and then 2 more appeared, and there were no physical brains to see it, then there wouldn't necessaril be 4 planets?

That statement would be true, but without a brain to conceive of it, the statement would never exist.

But the proposition, a brick is a brick, exists independent of any human brain.

People being able to imagine something doesn't make it true. I don't know why you think that's a good argument.

Conceivability is usually pretty reliable as to whether something is possible or not. I can conceive of a 10 footed cat, which is certainly possible. It may not happen naturally, but it is possible. I can, likewise, conceive of myself existing outside my body and looking at my body from above it or from another body. That seems immanently possible.

Once you see it one way, you have a hell of a time trying to see it the other, because it just makes sense to you. The problem is, once you see it the other way, your way will no longer make any sense whatsoever.

Heh, okay, what on earth keeps me from saying the same thing about you? And this has no bearing on the truth of what I am stating.

You called it a modal argument. If it is a modal argument, saying possibly p is question begging

No it isn't. If that's what you consider question begging, then every argument is question begging. It doesn't matter if you're speaking of possibilities or not.

bossmanham said...

I know that you try to cover it up by mixing in classical logic afterward, but classical logic fails because you are saying that existence is a property

No I'm not. I'm saying the mind possesses the property "possibly exists without a body." That is neutral to whether or not it actually is distinct from the body. Begging the question, which you obviously don't know the meaning of, is to assume the truth of what you are stating in one of the premises. For instance, if I said that the Bible is true because it says so, I am assuming what the Bible says is true before I established that. Modal arguments do no such thing. You don't understand what you're talking about and your bringing up axiom s5 is a testament to that fact. You're used to attacking that axiom in the ontalogical argument.

This would only be question begging if I said something like "my mind and my body are two separate things, therefore my mind and my body can exist separately." In the context of this argument, whether immaterial things exist, I would be assuming the conclusion. But, simply saying it's possible is not begging the question.

The premise "possibly, my mind can exist without my body" ENTAILS the truth of the conclusion, but so does saying I am a human ENTAIL the conclusion that I am mortal. You simply don't understand logical argumentation, or refuse to.

By saying existence is a property, you must say something exists but has the property of non-existence in order to say it doesn't exist. Existence is not a predicate

I'm not saying anything about existence being a property. You're just making yourself look bad here.

And who on earth said that classical logic and modal logic are incompatible? Modal logic extends classical logic to include elements of modality, such as possibility and necessity. Have you taken any logic?

Now, do you have an argument or not?

Godlessons said...

I said it seems implausible. You've given no good reason to think otherwise.

I certainly have given good reason to think otherwise. The fact that you are making a category mistake for one. On top of that, the complete lack of evidence of something to the contrary. As well as the complete lack of explanation about how it could be possible.

You are definitely a presuppositionalist, no matter what you may think. Because of that, I can say that you are just an actor in the imagination of my coffee pot, and you really don't exist. You must believe it because you can't prove otherwise.

We have no reason to believe that my coffee pot even has an imagination, but you need to accept it as valid because you can't disprove it.

So then the laws of causation, laws of mathematics, etc. that are in place and seem to govern the universe and rely on logic existing didn't actually exist before our strange little species evolved?

These laws don't govern the universe. We have developed these laws to explain what the universe does. You have it entirely backwards. You are saying that the universe has order because the laws of logic exist. I am saying that the laws of logic exist because the universe has order.

Logic is purely explanatory. We observe order, and explain it with logic. The order itself is not logic, and you won't let loose of that idea.

The reason logic is the same between people is because people make the same observations and come to the same conclusions.

Haha. So, if there were 2 planets several billions of years ago, and then 2 more appeared, and there were no physical brains to see it, then there wouldn't necessaril be 4 planets?

Numbers are meaningless without minds. You are acting as though the statement 2 planets plus 2 planets is 4 planets even exists in a world without minds. It doesn't.

How about a simple exercise. How would such a prospect be dealt with if God didn't exist? Are you saying that if God didn't exist, but 2 planets were there, then another 2 planets came along, there wouldn't be 4 planets?

Godlessons said...

Heh, okay, what on earth keeps me from saying the same thing about you? And this has no bearing on the truth of what I am stating.

The fact that I have explained things the way you understand them would be a good piece of evidence that I understand how you look at things.

You think that without a mind to think of things, there would be no order to observe in the universe.

If I am wrong, please explain how I have misstated your position.

No it isn't. If that's what you consider question begging, then every argument is question begging. It doesn't matter if you're speaking of possibilities or not.

No, you said it was a modal argument for dualism. In that argument you said it was possible that the mind is separate from the body. Because of modal S(5), that premise is question begging unless you show the possibility of the opposite to be impossible first.

I'm not saying anything about existence being a property. You're just making yourself look bad here.

You certainly are. By saying that possibly my mind has the property of existing outside my body, you are saying that existing is a property.

I can further dismantle your argument with this:
My foot has the property of existing outside my body. My body lacks the property of existing outside my body. Since my foot has a property that my body can't have, my foot is separate from my body.

So, now you have a mind without a body, and I have a foot without a body. You have yet to show that there the mind is not the same as the brain.

Now, I know you can redo this whole mess by saying that my mind has the property of existing without my brain, but that is definitely question begging there.

By using mind in the context that you are using it, you are assuming that the mind is a thing in itself without establishing that fact first. That is still question begging.

This doesn't even address the fact that existence is not a property. It does show that you must show that the mind is not synonymous with the brain though, and you have not done that.

I know you think you aren't begging the question, and you think I am wrong. I assure you that I am right and you are wrong on this. Without getting a professional philosopher here to address it properly, I think we are going to butt heads here.

Anyway, I only have so much ability to repeat myself, and if you aren't grasping it by the next time, I'm done here.

bossmanham said...

Nothing of substance in your first response. I don't see an answer to my points. I'll take it as a reluctant concession of the point.

These laws don't govern the universe. We have developed these laws to explain what the universe does. You have it entirely backwards.

Um, if it's what the universe does, then the universe is governed by certain constants, ie laws.

The order itself is not logic, and you won't let loose of that idea.

You've successfully muddied the issue. Observations of physical constants always adhering to certain causative rules does not mean the observation is what creates the rules. It is because the constants exist that we are able to observe them and articulate the rules that govern them. Our observations don't create anything.

The laws of logic match up to certain constants that always work as such. Modus ponens is a fool proof certainty that would exist whether there were any physical constants at all.

Numbers are meaningless without minds. You are acting as though the statement 2 planets plus 2 planets is 4 planets even exists in a world without minds. It doesn't.

I consider this a victory in my argument. When you admit that 2 + 2 = 4 is only valid if a mind exists, you have simply made yourself look ridiculous.

Are you saying that if God didn't exist, but 2 planets were there, then another 2 planets came along, there wouldn't be 4 planets?

We both agree that numbers are mind dependent. I say that a material universe with countable objects is not dependent on physical brains existing, but there has to be a mind to actually have any abstract objects make sense. We can look back in history and see that numerical values applied then as they do now, as the initial conditions of the universe can be expressed in finely regulated mathematical constants.

The fact that I have explained things the way you understand them would be a good piece of evidence that I understand how you look at things.

Um...same question.

Because of modal S(5), that premise is question begging unless you show the possibility of the opposite to be impossible first.

That argument doesn't even use the modal axiom s5! You don't know what you are talking about. And almost nobody has an issue with axiom s5 anyway!

You certainly are. By saying that possibly my mind has the property of existing outside my body, you are saying that existing is a property.

POSSIBLY, MY MIND CAN EXIST WITHOUT MY BODY. That isn't speaking of existence simpliciter, that's saying something descriptive about the mind, just like if I were saying that it were red.

I can further dismantle your argument with this:
My foot has the property of existing outside my body. My body lacks the property of existing outside my body. Since my foot has a property that my body can't have, my foot is separate from my body.


Your foot is not your body...your foot is a part of your body. It can exist seperate from the body as a whole. You clearly are desperate.

Godlessons said...

I like how you just claim that one of my posts had nothing of substance. I will take that as your concession of all the points I made in that post.

Now, first of all, laws of nature don't exist. Laws are what we use to explain the order, as I have said. You are still equating logic to order, and that is improper.

Further, you make no sense whatsoever. First you are arguing that logic exists without a physical component (a physical brain to think of them). I claim that they don't exist without a physical component. Then when I say they only exist with a brain, you claim victory for getting me to admit they don't exist outside a brain, which is what I was saying all along.

I don't know what kind of argument you're having here, but I'm not going to play along with that kind of nonsense.

You have also not dealt with two facts about your modal argument. First that possibly p means necessarily p. If you don't rely on S(5), you should be able to rephrase that so that the word 'possibly' is not in the premise.

The second is the fact that "Possibly my mind has the property of existing outside my body" is exactly the same as saying, "Possibly my mind outside my body has the property of existing." That would mean that in order to show the opposite, one would have to say that "Possibly my mind outside my body exists, and lacks the property of existing." (Kant)

You have danced around long enough. I have repeated myself many times, and you have yet to deal with any point at all.

I can only deal with so much insanity. I know you think you know what you're talking about, and believers think you know what you are talking about, because it follows their belief system.

Ontological arguments are merely a way to make it so that the majority of people just concede that you know what you're talking about because they can't understand it well enough to refute it. The problem here is that I am not one of those people.

If you actually do understand what you're talking about, you know you are wrong and you are being dishonest. If you don't understand what you're talking about, you are trying to fake it so people don't realize you don't know what you're talking about, which is also dishonest. Either way, I don't deal with dishonest people.

I said I was going to be done with this if you didn't start actually dealing with what I have said, and you have done nothing but proclaim by fiat that you are right. You have offered no evidence. You have not shown how my arguments are improper against yours, you merely claim they are without support.

Anyway, I have made my argument as good as it will be made, and you have not dealt with a single point I have made. You try to give the appearance of refuting my position, but if anyone were to look hard, they would realize that you have never once dismissed a point I have made without a logical fallacy, such as argument from incredulity, begging the question, etc. That is a victory in my book, and I don't see the tables shifting.

if you ever do want to have an honest discussion, where you can actually show evidence of your view, and can actually show why I am wrong with my arguments instead of just proclaiming it by fiat, you know where my blog is.

bossmanham said...

I like how you just claim that one of my posts had nothing of substance. I will take that as your concession of all the points I made in that post.

No, literally. All you do is claim I'm making a category mistake without explaining how. I doubt you even know what you're talking about. Then you again ask for evidence, of what I'm not sure. I've provided an argument for an immaterial mind. You have yet to offer any proper refutation of it.

Then you claim I'm a presuppositionalist without any reasoning behind it and contrary to my own claims. Then you say something about a coffee pot to insult a position I don't even hold to. Literally no substance.

Further, you make no sense whatsoever. First you are arguing that logic exists without a physical component (a physical brain to think of them). I claim that they don't exist without a physical component. Then when I say they only exist with a brain, you claim victory for getting me to admit they don't exist outside a brain, which is what I was saying all along.

A brain is a physical component, a mind is not. Logic existed before physical brains did. Logic is mind dependent. Therefore, minds are not physical. I think that logic should be simple. Guess not.

First that possibly p means necessarily p. If you don't rely on S(5), you should be able to rephrase that so that the word 'possibly' is not in the premise.

S5 is possibly P -> necessarily possibly p, not necessarily p OR necessarily possibly p -> necessarily p. Again, you show your utter ignorance at this point, yet you persist in displaying it for everyone.

And this doesn't even use a modal axiom! It looks at the identity of indiscernibles and observes that there is something true of the mind that cannot be true of the body, therefore showing that x(mind) != y(body).

Really, stop embarrasing yourself.

You have danced around long enough. I have repeated myself many times, and you have yet to deal with any point at all.

Okay, you keep living in your deluded world.

Ontological arguments are merely a way to make it so that the majority of people just concede that you know what you're talking about because they can't understand it well enough to refute it

This isn't an ontological argument.

You are ridiculous, and when shown to be wrong, you continue to assert that you are right. I took you seriously at first, but you're about the weakest debater I've ever encountered. Have fun with that. And I'm not the only one who's pointed this out to you.

Godlessons said...

Sorry, had to just show your ignorance. Necessarily possibly p is necessarily p. You aren't following it to its end.

You still wonder why I am saying you don't know what you're talking about?

bossmanham said...

Sorry, had to just show your ignorance. Necessarily possibly p is necessarily p. You aren't following it to its end.

I'm going to quote you again. Get ready.

You said modal axiom S5 is "possibly p means necessarily p." Cntrl + f and copy it.

Then I responded, "S5 is *possibly P -> necessarily possibly p*, [it is not possibly p ->] necessarily p OR necessarily possibly p -> necessarily p. You can verify here and here and here among other places.

bossmanham said...

To be clear, you said modal axiom S5 is, "possibly p means necessarily p."

It is , in reality either Possibly P implies Necessarily Possibly p or Possibly Necessarily P implies Necessarily p.

Godlessons said...

Sorry, I wasn't going to reply again, but you said something so ignorant I had to say something.

I know it's like beating a dead horse at this point, but I'm going to do it anyway.

I wouldn't even reply to this if it hadn't been that you had asserted that axiom S(5) didn't apply here so many times, yet now you show you obviously don't even know what it says.

Possibly p implies possibly necessarily p
You leave it here but there is more.
Possibly necessarily p implies necessarily possibly p
Axiom (CD) "Modal Logic for Philosophers - James W. Garson" If you're interested in understanding what you're talking about.
Necessarily possibly p implies necessarily p

Hence possibly p implies necessarily p.

So again, you either don't know what you are talking about or you are trying to make other people think I don't. Either way, it is dishonest, as I have been saying.

Read up on axiom S(5), like I told you to from the beginning of this discussion. (Throw in the other axioms as well.)

You pretended like you understood it, and continued to argue like I don't know what I'm talking about. That is disrespectful on top of being dishonest.

If you were honest, you would have admitted that you don't understand where I get my conclusion, and I would have tried to explain it to you. Instead, you asserted I was wrong with no evidence, merely because you don't want to admit you don't understand what we are talking about.

Do you still wonder why I am tired of this discussion? It's like having a butt kicking contest with a man with no legs. You're not even interested in learning why you are wrong. If you did, you may have asked for an explanation, but you didn't.

I am totally willing to help people understand what I am saying when they admit they don't know, but you are too proud to admit you are in over your head, and therefore I have no interest in continuing this.

bossmanham said...

You apparently don't know how to read.

Again: Axiom S5 is Possibly P implies Necessarily Possibly p

Look at that. After "implies" is Neceesarily possible. Necessarily possible is different than Possibly necessary, which the second form of S5 begins with.

There are two ways to state S5, etiher Possibly P -> Necessarily possibly p

OR

Possibly necessarily p (note the difference here) -> Necessarily p.

You have lost this point, friend. Continuing just makes you look ignorant, and again, I'm the second person to point this out.

Godlessons said...

Axiom CD buddy. Look it up. Necessarily possible implies possibly necessary.

You're just sad. I already said it, yet you ignore it.

Just ignoring it doesn't make you right.

bossmanham said...

Unlike you, I did look it up, and have stated what Axiom S5 is. Again, the reader will verify.