[Ted Logan]

Jerry,

I appreciate your responses to me, and especially your attempts to help me see problems in my reasoning and what seems to you to be arbitrary claims without support. John is right, though, that I did not intend to engage you with my statements and so they were framed as a Christian's words to another Christian. However, I also recognize that, over the many years, you have dialogued with enough of us to have developed important challenges to our apologetic tendencies.

I regret, however, that in all these years, I have really not gotten to know you well enough to address you as I now wish I had. My ability to participate at CGR has sadly narrowed to a very small window, and now I can only look back with regret at the many times that my own hubris has guided my interactions, rather than Christ-like love and a willingness to learn. I guess what I'm saying is that the only thing I think I still might be able to give you is an apology for being such a sorry representative of Jesus, with the hope that you might yet come to the point of realizing that all this time, He has been there and you have been suppressing the truth that you already know.

That said, I don't have a response to what you've said, and I don't think I'm the right person to give one anyway at this point. What I will say (and believe me, the irony of the suggestion is not lost on me) is that I think that if you take my statements as they were intended, within the Christian framework and intended for a Christian audience, then you will agree that I have interpreted the matter correctly within that framework.

I hope you will yet be found in Christ, Jerry. Thanks for your patience with me.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Right, that's what I was talking about. On the one hand, you're responding to a claim that wasn't addressed to you and for that reason might be much differently elaborated if presented to you as an apologetic claim,

It was asserted that a worldview with no God was incoherent.

The only way I can make that a "to Christians" statement is to say "it is incoherent to imagine what would happen if X is true, because X is false". This would, to me, seem to be the opposite paradigm of modal logic (and you've asserted that the argument was modal).

so there's no reason to call it arbitrary unless you have additional information about the claim; on the other, you responded to the cosmological family of arguments, which can hardly be called arbitrary, as they are arguments.

I didn't call the argument arbitrary: I called the presuppositions arbitrary.

But it is a real statement. The statement itself is part of reality.

I fixed your emphasis. You are right. The statement is real, and has all the effect on reality that a statement can have.

The possibility itself is a real possibility, a real part of reality, in one way or another, regardless of whether the state of affairs denoted by the possibility is actual.

The only "real possibilities" are the ones that actually happen. These are not statements about reality but about knowledge.

To me, it's possible that your mother has had 7 children. To her it is either true or false, and therefore not possible. "possibilities are part of reality" is false. Possibilities are "facts which might or might not be part of reality". That's why they are "possible" rather than "real".

Not really. If it were, we'd be incredibly narcissistic, because we'd never be thinking about anybody other than ourselves.

So you've learned something without ever considering the possibility of the fact you learned? Interesting. Could you give an example?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It was asserted that a worldview with no God was incoherent.

The only way I can make that a "to Christians" statement is to say "it is incoherent to imagine what would happen if X is true, because X is false".

I don't understand these sentences, sorry. In some way I'm as-yet completely oblivious to, is it not straightforward to understand how this could be a "to Christians" statement? He said things like, "Our faith entails the claim that..." The 'our' in there is a dead giveaway, right?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

This would, to me, seem to be the opposite paradigm of modal logic (and you've asserted that the argument was modal).

Aaron's argument is not done using modal logic. There's a decent chance Aaron doesn't know any modal logic, at least not formally. In this thread, modal logic has to do with Plantinga's ontological argument, and also to some extent with the talk of counter-factuals from earlier -- maybe in that latter way Aaron is relating indirectly to modal logic, but that doesn't mean that he made a modal argument.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I didn't call the argument arbitrary: I called the presuppositions arbitrary.

The cosmological argument was what you speculated might be the basis for those presuppositions, and so you criticized it with "Who created the creator?"

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I fixed your emphasis. You are right. The statement is real, and has all the effect on reality that a statement can have.

Right, exactly. Real but not actual, or at least not necessarily actual.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The only "real possibilities" are the ones that actually happen. These are not statements about reality but about knowledge.

Yes, you think the whole world is logically deterministic so there is no such thing as logical possibility. It does make for a strange world, because it makes arguments like these follow, and not only follow but makes the premises logically necessary also, though of course you might be willing to bite the bullet:

- I ate pizza today, therefore Hydrogen's atomic number is less than Helium's.
- Hitler is dead, therefore it is currently 5:09 pm CST.
- 'Tomasso Aquino' is Anglicized 'Thomas Aquinas', therefore US Independence is celebrated on July 4th.
- Stephen Colbert has brown hair, therefore pugs were bred in ancient China.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

To me, it's possible that your mother has had 7 children. To her it is either true or false, and therefore not possible. "possibilities are part of reality" is false. Possibilities are "facts which might or might not be part of reality". That's why they are "possible" rather than "real".

This looks like a basically semantic disagreement. In modal logic you would use the word 'actual' in the way that you are using the word 'real.' 'Possible' is distinguished from 'actual', not set over against 'real' like you're doing here.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So you've learned something without ever considering the possibility of the fact you learned? Interesting. Could you give an example?

Maybe we're talking about different things. What I mean is, I've learned something without doing a thought experiment in which I imagined myself under xyz circumstances. Like, I learned symbolic logic without thinking of myself as an existential quantifier, and I learned about the elliptical orbits of our solar system's planets without thinking of myself as Venus. Those seem so obvious that I'm thinking you mean something different than what I mean.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I don't understand these sentences, sorry. In some way I'm as-yet completely oblivious to, is it not straightforward to understand how this could be a "to Christians" statement? He said things like, "Our faith entails the claim that..." The 'our' in there is a dead giveaway, right?

There are two ways I see to understand the original complaint: and both are useless.

One is: I cannot imagine the hypothetical because it's not actually true.
The other (which he seemed to say) is: I universe without God is internally inconsistent.

The first is silly (that's what a hypothetical is), and the second is untrue.

The cosmological argument was what you speculated might be the basis for those presuppositions, and so you criticized it with "Who created the creator?"

Which one was the cosmological argument? "The universe must be created"? Yes. The obvious counter is that most quasi-reasonably criteria to conclude that, when those criteria are applied consistently, result in an infinite regression of creators.

Right, exactly. Real but not actual, or at least not necessarily actual.

No. not real. The statement is real. The idea is real. The thing being expressed in the idea is not real (unless it is).

Yes, you think the whole world is logically deterministic so there is no such thing as logical possibility. It does make for a strange world, because it makes arguments like these follow, and not only follow but makes the premises logically necessary also, though of course you might be willing to bite the bullet:

- I ate pizza today, therefore Hydrogen's atomic number is less than Helium's.
- Hitler is dead, therefore it is currently 5:09 pm CST.
- 'Tomasso Aquino' is Anglicized 'Thomas Aquinas', therefore US Independence is celebrated on July 4th.
- Stephen Colbert has brown hair, therefore pugs were bred in ancient China.

This looks like a basically semantic disagreement. In modal logic you would use the word 'actual' in the way that you are using the word 'real.' 'Possible' is distinguished from 'actual', not set over against 'real' like you're doing here.

The real difference in the positions is that some are asserting that "could be true" things have an affect whether they are true or not. That's the whole "necessary being" argument.

I could not disagree more strongly.

Maybe we're talking about different things. What I mean is, I've learned something without doing a thought experiment in which I imagined myself under xyz circumstances. Like, I learned symbolic logic without thinking of myself as an existential quantifier, and I learned about the elliptical orbits of our solar system's planets without thinking of myself as Venus. Those seem so obvious that I'm thinking you mean something different than what I mean.

You don't have to think of yourself as in an elliptical orbit. You have to hypothesize the thought that planets move in elliptical orbits and attempt to integrate that into your other knowledge.

If I told you that the entire Earth were made of cheese: you would (presumably) imagine the Earth of cheese, find that inconsistent with other facts, and conclude I was wrong (likely you would not have those steps in a very discreet manner as it's a *very* simplistic example).

[zedman]

Interesting where this thread has gone in some ways.

[Moderator Snip: Let's stay in discussion.]

I'd tend to side more with Chrysostom in where this thread has wound up.

[JerryLove]

For those unaware: the quoted text is an insult.

[Moderator note: Jerry is right, so the text and Jerry's quote of it have been removed.]

I'd tend to side more with Chrysostom in where this thread has wound up.

Which part? Modal logic, necessary god, external evaluation of a worldview, internal evaluation of a worldview, the cosmological argument, other?

[AFXFTW]

Well, if you could disprove God's existence, would you also gain any understanding as to the TRUE nature of existence? Or would you just be disproving God as he's understood in modern Christianity?

I'll leave aside the question of how we're gaining incontrovertible knowledge of a negative proposition "There exists no ____", much less the negative existence of something omnipotent and outside of space and time (How would you go about ruling him out?)

Rather, I'll assume for purposes of argument that we know that no person-like, individual deities exist who have contact with or communicate with mankind or who concern themselves with the happenings of this universe.

Unlike most Christians, I don't imagine that I or anyone else would respond to such knowledge with a life of chaos, abandon, cruelty, and hedonism. Argue as I might that Christianity is the source of good ethics and morality, you don't have to believe in God to see that those ethics are good. A life of sin first and foremost hurts yourself; and even a very selfish person, if he had any sense, could see that.

[zedman]

The original post contained a questioning of the question.
No offense was taken to that, except by you.

[Moderator note: Let's let cooler heads prevail. I've snipped out the more argumentative stuff in this and other recent posts. Peace to you all.]

I can assure you everything I have posted in this thread is completely honest.
It was not intended to insult or to be rude or to be belligerent.

You are free to disagree with that, of course, but to call something dishonest when you disagree with it is not accurate.

[RadioHead67]

If g-d were proven to be not real it would be very confusing to me. How did we get here? I dont think you can prove g-d exsists or doesnt exsist. To beleive he doesnt exsist requires just as much faith to say he does exsists IMO.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by RadioHead67

If g-d were proven to be not real it would be very confusing to me. How did we get here? I dont think you can prove g-d exsists or doesnt exsist. To beleive he doesnt exsist requires just as much faith to say he does exsists IMO.

To sum up your response:

"If God were not real then.... GOD'S REAL!!!!!!"

I'm sorry. You cannot answer a question by saying something unrelated to the question.