Ep. 87: On being human

[mitchellmckain]

George is a pink elephant, whose existence is necessary.
If George's existence is possible then he must exist.
I can imagine a world in which George exists, therefore his existence is possible.
Therefore George exists.

Change out George with something or someone necessary and it works, i.e. law of idenity or God. Swaping in a contingent being to erase the argument doesn't work... If one possible world exists, than necessary things and beings are in every possible universe including this one. Pink Elephants are not necesary....

AHHH! So it only applies to things which you think are necessary.

G is a rapist, whose existence Tony thinks is necessary.
If G's existence is possible then he must exist.
TONY can imagine a world in which G exists, therefore his existence is possible.
Therefore G exists.

Hmmm....

I think the more rational conclusion is only that G exists in Tony's head.

[humanguy]

Back to the topic for a moment. I wonder if die-hard Bible Christians ever applaud any human achievement that has nothing to do with Christianity. Can they remove themselves, if only for a few moments, from their dogmatic mindset and simply marvel at, say, a painting or a piece of music or a novel and appreciate its expression of human passion, struggle and beauty, regardless of whether or not the person who created the work was a Christian or atheist, or even especially if the work was created by an atheist?

If a Christian finds much to admire in a work created by an atheist, and even feels a deeply resonating emotional reaction to it, then wouldn't that present a challenge to that Christian's world view?

In other words, can a Christian forget about being Christian for awhile, let their guard down so to speak, and just enjoy being human, without any thought of God or Jesus or judgement day? If so, would they feel guilty about it the next day?

[mitchellmckain]

Back to the topic for a moment. I wonder if die-hard Bible Christians ever applaud any human achievement that has nothing to do with Christianity.

Clearly many cannot applaud very much of human achievement. There are not only fundamentalist Christians who condemn Harry Potter and Dungeon and Dragons among many many other things, but there is the Amish who shun the majority of art and entertainment altogether.

Can they remove themselves, if only for a few moments, from their dogmatic mindset and simply marvel at, say, a painting or a piece of music or a novel and appreciate its expression of human passion, struggle and beauty, regardless of whether or not the person who created the work was a Christian or atheist, or even especially if the work was created by an atheist?

Can anyone "remove themselves" from their own way of thinking? I think the point is that some people have a way of thinking that is more versatile in regards to doing many different things.

If a Christian finds much to admire in a work created by an atheist, and even feels a deeply resonating emotional reaction to it, then wouldn't that present a challenge to that Christian's world view?

Why should it? Do you think there is a conflict between the two?

In other words, can a Christian forget about being Christian for awhile, let their guard down so to speak, and just enjoy being human, without any thought of God or Jesus or judgement day?

Clearly they can and do, for they freqently stray away completely and we find them doing things contrary to their own beliefs.

[humanguy]

In other words, can a Christian forget about being Christian for awhile, let their guard down so to speak, and just enjoy being human, without any thought of God or Jesus or judgement day?

Clearly they can and do, for they freqently stray away completely and we find them doing things contrary to their own beliefs.

Just enjoying being human without any thought of God or Jesus or judgement day is contrary to their own beliefs?

[mitchellmckain]

In other words, can a Christian forget about being Christian for awhile, let their guard down so to speak, and just enjoy being human, without any thought of God or Jesus or judgement day?

Clearly they can and do, for they freqently stray away completely and we find them doing things contrary to their own beliefs.

Just enjoying being human without any thought of God or Jesus or judgement day is contrary to their own beliefs?

I do not think that what I said implies this.

But neither do I think that "just enjoying being human without any thought of God, etc..." must necessarily include applauding human acheivement.

[humanguy]

In other words, can a Christian forget about being Christian for awhile, let their guard down so to speak, and just enjoy being human, without any thought of God or Jesus or judgement day?

Clearly they can and do, for they freqently stray away completely and we find them doing things contrary to their own beliefs.

Just enjoying being human without any thought of God or Jesus or judgement day is contrary to their own beliefs?

I do not think that what I said implies this.

But neither do I think that "just enjoying being human without any thought of God, etc..." must necessarily include applauding human acheivement.

Good point, I agree.

[tonyenglish7]

Yea humans are contingent.

[NH Baritone]

George is a pink elephant, whose existence is necessary.
If George's existence is possible then he must exist.
I can imagine a world in which George exists, therefore his existence is possible.
Therefore George exists.

Change out George with something or someone necessary and it works, i.e. law of idenity or God. Swaping in a contingent being to erase the argument doesn't work... If one possible world exists, than necessary things and beings are in every possible universe including this one. Pink Elephants are not necesary....

AHHH! So it only applies to things which you think are necessary.

G is a rapist, whose existence Tony thinks is necessary.
If G's existence is possible then he must exist.
TONY can imagine a world in which G exists, therefore his existence is possible.
Therefore G exists.

Hmmm....

I think the more rational conclusion is only that G exists in Tony's head.

The evidence from his posts suggests that Herr English is so enamored with his argument (and the bubble it envelopes around him and his kindred) that he will continue to ignore your pin-point needling while simultaneously condemning you for it.

[tonyenglish7]

Baritone,

The evidence from his posts suggests that Herr English is so enamored with his argument (and the bubble it envelopes around him and his kindred) that he will continue to ignore your pin-point needling while simultaneously condemning you for it.

I like it when in response to an argument, I get comments on my character and my emotions and nothing regarding the point in question. This simply means you have no actual response.

[tonyenglish7]

MItch,

AHHH! So it only applies to things which you think are necessary.

G is a rapist, whose existence Tony thinks is necessary.
If G's existence is possible then he must exist.
TONY can imagine a world in which G exists, therefore his existence is possible.
Therefore G exists.

Hmmm....

I think the more rational conclusion is only that G exists in Tony's head.

OK, let's take this slow. Maybe we can agree on terms?

Something is "Necessary" if it has to exist in any world that is not logically impossible. Can we first agree on this definition?

[NH Baritone]

Baritone,

The evidence from his posts suggests that Herr English is so enamored with his argument (and the bubble it envelopes around him and his kindred) that he will continue to ignore your pin-point needling while simultaneously condemning you for it.

I like it when in response to an argument, I get comments on my character and my emotions and nothing regarding the point in question. This simply means you have no actual response.

It was a process comment meant to make certain MitchMac wasn't expecting any progress from his efforts. Thus, my note was directed to him, not to you. I learned long ago that it is pointless to engage with obdurate bullies.

[tonyenglish7]

Baritone,

Thus, my note was directed to him, not to you. I learned long ago that it is pointless to engage with obdurate bullies.

I had to look up that pejorative, at least I am learning something from our discussion.

–adjective
1.
unmoved by persuasion, pity, or tender feelings; stubborn; unyielding.
2.
stubbornly resistant to moral influence; persistently impenitent: an obdurate sinner.

Wow, so you do believe in morals? I am constantly surprised how defending an idea or argument is considered a personal flaw on this discussion board! I guess relativism is firmly grounded in mid air as we speak. If I somehow were to be able to persuade myself to agree with you would my personal character be bettered?

[mitchellmckain]

OK, let's take this slow. Maybe we can agree on terms?

Something is "Necessary" if it has to exist in any world that is not logically impossible. Can we first agree on this definition?

The idea of logical neccessity has a long tradition and I don't have any problem with it. Something that is logically necessary is something that is simply not contingent on upon simple matters of fact. It would remain true even if there were no world of any kind, just lacking in any concrete examples. Your definition here is slightly weaker, implying contingency upon the existence of a world, but it certainly follows that something which is true by necessity is true regardless if state of the world were more like some logically consistent world that we might imagine. This you probably would not disagree with.

Likewise I share your belief that God is a necessary being even though we might disagree about other aspects of this being -- like His character. But the critical problem with this proof of yours is that you cannot prove there is any such necessary being. You cannot convince a skeptic that God exists by defining Him so that He has to exist. The skeptic could very well agree that there may be some necessary truths like certain laws of logic. But your attempt to define God into existence is no less absurd to the skeptic that my attempt to do the same with George, Alfred, Sally and Thomas. It is a circular argument.

[tonyenglish7]

Mitch,

But your attempt to define God into existence is no less absurd to the skeptic that my attempt to do the same with George, Alfred, Sally and Thomas. It is a circular argument.

I agree that it is difficult to convince a skeptic using the ontological argument. But that is no reason not to defend it. I have to tell you a story. I was taking a graduate class in philosophy which was taught by one of my hero's Dr. Francis Beckwith. This was many years ago and it was the first time I studied the Ontological argument. I really liked it because it seemed so simple and was fun to me to follow the logic. After going through the whole thing he concluded that it was a circular argument.

I disagreed and we went at it for about 2 hours back and forth. Of course, he was the doctorate and I was a 87 IQ student. So I had to capitulate but I never really did deep down. Then I read some William Lane Craig, also a doctorate in theology and philosophy and he said it is circular if you claim that God cannot exist and it is circular if you argue in that context and attempt to prove that God exists to someone who is convinced he doesn't.

So I understand your view that it is circular. However, I think that unless you can make an argument that God doesn't exist, it is not circular. I mean, if you start with the premise accepted that the existence of God is possible. Than the Ontological argument is not circular but is powerful. It takes some deep thinking but simple ideas. Namely that if God is possible, he must exist. A god that doesn't have necessity is not God so if a necessary God is possible, he must exist by definition. Just like any other rational entity must exist if it is necessary. Because, if God could exist in some possible world, he would not be God unless he existed in all possible worlds, including this one the actual world. All you have to do to defeat this argument make the assertion that God is not possible in any possible world, but that seems a little fideistic and beyond reasonable.

So as a proof of the existence of God from a view that there is no God. Then yes, circular. But for the honest seeker, it can be a powerful argument if you ponder it for a few seconds. I know this is a long shot with a skeptic and understand your aversion to it. But I like it...

[mitchellmckain]

I agree that it is difficult to convince a skeptic using the ontological argument. But that is no reason not to defend it. I have to tell you a story. I was taking a graduate class in philosophy which was taught by one of my hero's Dr. Francis Beckwith. This was many years ago and it was the first time I studied the Ontological argument. I really liked it because it seemed so simple and was fun to me to follow the logic. After going through the whole thing he concluded that it was a circular argument.

I disagreed and we went at it for about 2 hours back and forth. Of course, he was the doctorate and I was a 87 IQ student. So I had to capitulate but I never really did deep down. Then I read some William Lane Craig, also a doctorate in theology and philosophy and he said it is circular if you claim that God cannot exist and it is circular if you argue in that context and attempt to prove that God exists to someone who is convinced he doesn't.

So I understand your view that it is circular. However, I think that unless you can make an argument that God doesn't exist, it is not circular. I mean, if you start with the premise accepted that the existence of God is possible. Than the Ontological argument is not circular but is powerful. It takes some deep thinking but simple ideas. Namely that if God is possible, he must exist.

You have made a logical fallacy here equating the inability to prove something with the antithesis being possible. This does not follow. Just because we cannot prove that mathematics is consistent does not actually mean that the inconsistency of mathematics is a logical possibility. Surely you know that a thing can be true even when it is not provable, but more than that, the antithesis may actually be an impossibility even though cannot prove this.

Thus there is not only no reason to conclude that this statement, "if God is possible then he must exist" is a true statement, but also there is no way to prove that a God which you define God as self-existent, is actually a logically consistent possibility. All you accomplish with the this property of necessity is to give the question of whether God exists, the alternate form of whether this self-existent God is a logically consistent possibility, for if this being doesn't exist, we would have to conclude that such a God is not a logically consistent possibility.

The question then is why even attribute this property of necessity or self-existence to God? Well that a conclusion that one comes somewhat naturally if one believe that God is the origin of everything.

A god that doesn't have necessity is not God

Again, that may be what makes God, God for you, but this is not the case for me. It is in fact very low on my list of the most important attributes of God, for I can easily imagine that the my attributing this particular thing to God is the product of a misunderstanding on my part. As I said before, making this particular attribute so essential as this, smacks of turning God into a tool of rhetoric.

Just like any other rational entity must exist if it is necessary. Because, if God could exist in some possible world, he would not be God unless he existed in all possible worlds, including this one the actual world.

And I repeat also that tacking on this attribute of necessary to the God you believe in does not prove that the God you believe in exists any more than my doing so proves the existence of George, the pink elephant.

All you have to do to defeat this argument make the assertion that God is not possible in any possible world, but that seems a little fideistic and beyond reasonable.

It is perfectly reasonable if you do not believe that such a God exists. Likewise it is perfectly reasonable to assert that such a necessary self-existent God exists if you in fact believe that He does. What is beyond reasonable is someone asserting that they only believe things that are proven. I know for a fact that they are deluding themselves. The living of ones life simply is not possible on such a basis.