Shadow thread for MOA H2H Debate

[rikuoamero]

As the title says, this is a shadow thread for the Head-to-Head debate currently in progress here
viewtopic.php?t=32046

Other than this post, I will NOT interact with this thread. I merely wanted to provide a set space for discussion on the debate for other users.

[Divine Insight]

According to known physics a true void is impossible...

That's irrelevant since physics need not hold in other possible worlds. You mentioned metaphysical possibility before, remember?

You seem to be forgetting that I renounce "Pure Metaphysical Philosophy" as being meaningless. In worlds that don't follow our laws of physics, our laws of logic may not apply either.

Therefore applying our sense of "logic" to these imaginary other worlds is meaningless.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that our logical formalism was invented by us based upon what we deem to be 'logical'.

I prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the MGB of the MOA cannot possibly exist...

Good luck convincing the proponents of the MOA of that. I told you, I have nothing against appealing to the problem of evil, of which your proof is a variation of. All I am saying is, if the problem of evil was enough to convince them, they would not be theists in the first place.

The so-called "problem of evil" has nothing to do with it.

I prove that their MGB cannot exist as they have defined it as per their very own argument for it.

If they have a "problem of evil" on top of that, then that's their problem not mine.

Keep in mind that from a worldview of naturalism there is no such thing as a "Problem of Evil".

But you are right that they will refuse to confess that their argument has been shown to be in error and that their MGB cannot exist. That's irrelevant. I PROVED that their MGB cannot exist. Just because they don't accept that proof doesn't mean a thing to me.

They can live in denial until the cows come home for all I care. That doesn't change a thing.

Where in the rules of logic does it say that irrational theists who is are denial of the rules of logic supersedes the actual results that logic produces?

[Bust Nak]

You seem to be forgetting that I renounce "Pure Metaphysical Philosophy" as being meaningless. In worlds that don't follow our laws of physics, our laws of logic may not apply either.

The laws of logic are universal. They hold in all possible worlds.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that our logical formalism was invented by us based upon what we deem to be 'logical'.

All the more reason to know that our logical formalism holds in those possible worlds since they are the product of our logical formalism.

The so-called "problem of evil" has nothing to do with it.

A perfect god cannot exist in an morally imperfect world sounds very much like an omnipotent god cannot exist in along side evil.

Keep in mind that from a worldview of naturalism there is no such thing as a "Problem of Evil".

That's a good thing, holding a worldview that doesn't have a particular problem.

...Where in the rules of logic does it say that irrational theists who is are denial of the rules of logic supersedes the actual results that logic produces?

No where, but don't you want to them to concede? That reminds me, you still have conceded that step #4 cannot ever be false, technically or otherwise.

[Divine Insight]

You seem to be forgetting that I renounce "Pure Metaphysical Philosophy" as being meaningless. In worlds that don't follow our laws of physics, our laws of logic may not apply either.

The laws of logic are universal. They hold in all possible worlds.

Tell that to the world of the quantum.

The so-called "problem of evil" has nothing to do with it.

A perfect god cannot exist in an morally imperfect world sounds very much like an omnipotent god cannot exist in along side evil.

The MOA specifically stated that their MGB was omnibenevolent.

Keep in mind that from a worldview of naturalism there is no such thing as a "Problem of Evil".

That's a good thing, holding a worldview that doesn't have a particular problem.

Exactly. This is why naturalism is the strongest worldview in terms of justifying it. It's not difficult to justify a worldview that has no problems.

...Where in the rules of logic does it say that irrational theists who is are denial of the rules of logic supersedes the actual results that logic produces?

No where, but don't you want to them to concede? That reminds me, you still have conceded that step #4 cannot ever be false, technically or otherwise.

If you ever get a theist to concede to rational thought let me know.

I don't need for step #4 to be false. To the contrary demanding that it must be true is what drives my proof against the MOA home. But the hypothesis of step #4 most certainly is false.

You actually sound like a theist who would rather distract from the actual conclusion that the MGB cannot possibly exist by arguing that step #4 cannot be false, when I don't even need for it to be false.

Do you at least agree that I have proven that the MGB of the MOA cannot possibly exist?

Or are you going to support the theist's position that their MGB has not yet been proven to be impossible?

[Bust Nak]

Tell that to the world of the quantum.

Okay. Hey world of quantum, the laws of physics need not hold in all possible worlds, but the law of logic must hold in all possible worlds, which include the quantum world.

The MOA specifically stated that their MGB was omnibenevolent.

Right, which is why I said your argument is a variation of the problem of evil.

If you ever get a theist to concede to rational thought let me know.

I got my theist then-girlfriend to become my wife.

I don't need for step #4 to be false. To the contrary demanding that it must be true is what drives my proof against the MOA home...

All the more reason to stop calling it false/invalid or "only true when..."

You actually sound like a theist who would rather distract from the actual conclusion that the MGB cannot possibly exist by arguing that step #4 cannot be false, when I don't even need for it to be false.

I would say the conclusion that the MGB cannot possibly exist is the distraction. Right from the get go I asked you not to call it false when it is a tautology, and much of your response revolve around explaining that the MGB cannot possibly exist, despite me telling you repeatedly that it was not being disputed.

Do you at least agree that I have proven that the MGB of the MOA cannot possibly exist?

Yes, I stated that wasn't being dispute on at least three occasions, plus two occasions where I explicitly stated I did not have anything against your idea.

The sticking point is STILL your claim re: step #4 is false; step #4 is invalid; step #4 is only true when P is false; step #4 can technically be false or whatever variation on that same theme.

You STILL have yet to conceded that step #4 cannot ever be false, technically or otherwise, it is a tautology, it is true by necessity. Is affirming a necessarily truth, really too much to ask for?

[Divine Insight]

I would say the conclusion that the MGB cannot possibly exist is the distraction. Right from the get go I asked you not to call it false when it is a tautology, and much of your response revolve around explaining that the MGB cannot possibly exist, despite me telling you repeatedly that it was not being disputed.

Well, the theists aren't in agreement with you. Apparently they continue to dispute the claim that their MGB cannot possibly exist. And they clearly haven't accepted your argument that the MOA can be dismissed simply because it's "question begging".

So I don't see where you are in any position to be claiming that it cannot be disputed that the MGB cannot possibly exist. Your argument against it is extremely weak.

My argument against the MGB is air-tight and impossible to deny. I prove that the MGB cannot exist in the same way that mathematicians have proven that a rational solution to the square root of 2 cannot possibly exist.

And yes, when we come at it from that perspective step #4 technically becomes "false" until you realize that this is the contradiction.

Do I need to take you through the argument yet again?

Here it is again, copied from my post 109 with additional commentary for even more clarity.

The MOA:

The following are given as definitions that must be accepted in the MOA. (accepting these definitions in no way says that this thing must exist. It merely defines the object that we are about to argue about) In fact, we have every right to demand that these defining properties must hold, because if they fail, then the MOA has to start all over again from scratch with new definitions.

P1. Omniscient: All knowing, knowing the truth value of all propositions.
P2. Omnipotent: Can do anything that is logically possible.
P3. Omnipresent: Presence is manifested, whether physically or spiritually, everywhere, at any given time
P4. Omnibenevolent: The ultimate source of goodness, morally perfect.

So the above premises are just arbitrary definitions that must hold true throughout this argument. (This is necessarily the case because it is the possible existence of this arbitrarily defined entity that the argument is about)

Argument #1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

This cannot be offered up as a "premise". It can only be an argument. Yet there is no evidence given in the MOA for why the MGB should be possible. So this "argument" is not supported.

We could attempt to prove that it's impossible for the MGB to exist based on the previous definitions, however, that would be quite difficult to do based on those definitions alone. We would need to bring in "outside evidence" that isn't already contained within the MOA argument yet at this point. A person could choose to take that route, but I hold that it's unnecessary because the MOA will eventually shoot itself in its own foot on Argument #4.

In the meantime there is nothing in the MOA that can decide whether Argument #1 is true or false. So we can just let it slide for now as being "unknown".

We accept it as an unproven assumption, just as mathematicians accept that a rational solution to the square root of 2 exist. They accept this as an assumption to see where it leads.

Argument #2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

Here we have an apparent tautology. But it's no help to the MOA because the MOA hasn't yet established that the MGB is possible. So at this point in the argument this Argument #2 is irrelevant. It doesn't provide any new information.

Argument #3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Argument #3 is also a tautology (GIVEN the definition of the MGB). The MGB has been defined as omnipresent, so if it exists, then it must exist in all possible worlds. But once again, Argument #3 adds nothing because we still haven't yet demonstrated conclusively whether or not the MGB is possible. So again, no new information has been obtained and Argument #3 at this point is meaningless.

Argument #4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world).

And now we come to the step that allows us to prove conclusively that the MGB cannot exist.

If it did exist, then it would need to exist in our actual world. But NOW we can point to our actual world and show that our world is not benevolent. This violates the original definition of the MGB that must be accepted throughout this entire argument. The MGB is defined to be omnibenevolent, our world is not omnibenevolent.

Thus Argument #4 PROVES that the MGB is not possible.

At this point it's YOUR CHOICE to call Argument #4 "False" because my the truth table you can do this. P has been declared (in this argument) to be TRUE whilst Q is clealy FALSE. Therefore (in this argument as presented thus far) Argument #4 is "False". Like it or not.

Of course, you can and WILL argue: "But no no no! Argument #4 MUST BE TRUE! It's an obvious tautology. It's BULLETPROOF!

Ok, fine. I'll be more than happy to totally AGREE with that observation.

It's not "false" after all!

However, now that we have agreed that it MUST BE TRUE, then we need to look at what's going on:

We were arguing about the possible existence of the MGB right?

It's the possible existence of the MGB that is in question here. There is NO QUESTION that our world is not benevolent. So we know that Q is False.

Therefore if we want to demand that Argument #4 is TRUE, we have no choice but to conclude that P MUST BE FALSE! That's the only way that Argument #4 can be true at this point because the reality of the non-omvibenenvolence of our world cannot be changed.

So now we have rock-solid air-tight PROOF that this MGB cannot exist.

Q. E. D.

Now we can go back and strike out arguments #1 thru #3 since their conclusions and implications in favor of the MOA would only need to be true if the MGB actually existed. And if their implications don't support the existence of the MGB then they are meaningless as an argument for the existence of the MGB.

Notice how arguments #2, #3 AND #4 are ALL tautologies! But they are meaningless for the MOA if the MGB is not possible and it's Argument #4 that PROVES that the MGB is not possible.

No need to even mention arguments #5 and #6 at this point.

Argument #4 contains the PROOF that the MGB cannot exist.

~~~~~

So all your complaining that Argument #4 can NEVER BE FALSE is moot. It's nothing more than a totally unnecessary distraction from this proof.

In fact, we neither NEED nor WANT Argument #4 to be false!!!

Therefore your demand that Argument #4 can NEVER be false only seals the tomb of the MOA.

It's actually the fact that in the MOA Argument #4 would NEED to be false if the MGB existed that proves that the MOA fails.

Now I know you are going to claim that Argument #4 wouldn't be false if the MGB existed. INSTEAD our world would magically become omnibenevolent by PURE LOGIC forcing Q to be TRUE!

But that's NOT an option. We can't change reality to make logicians happy.

So it was under the FALSE ASSUMPTION that the MGB could exist that made Argument #4 appear to be false based on the assumptions we had granted up to that point. At that point we were assuming P to be TRUE and we couldn't deny that Q is clearly FALSE. But the truth table then that makes Argument #4 FALSE under those assumptions.

Clearly those assumptions were WRONG. And this then ends in a proof of why the MGB cannot exist.

Because remember it was the existence of the MGB that was the focus of inquiry. And therefore the MGB is the only thing that could be in error.

So this is a rock-solid air-tight proof that the MGB cannot exist at all, period.

Your nit-picking that you don't like it that Argument #4 can be said to be "false" when incorrect assumptions are made about the truth values of P and Q has been noted. But it's certainly not worth the weeks you are spending complaining about it.

The truth table backs me up. If we ASSUME that P is true and we observe that Q is false, then what does the truth table say?

You tell me.

[Bust Nak]

Well, the theists aren't in agreement with you. Apparently they continue to dispute the claim that their MGB cannot possibly exist....

You are STILL talking about your counter-argument, when I've just told you, in the very point you were replying to, I am not interested in that. The point was and still is, your claims along the lines of step #4 is false. Focus on that please.

Do I need to take you through the argument yet again?

No, you need to affirm explicitly "step #4 cannot ever be false, technically or otherwise. It is necessarily true, it is a tautology." You did that last Friday, then went back on it.

Ok, fine. I'll be more than happy to totally AGREE with that observation. [re: Argument #4 MUST BE TRUE! It's an obvious tautology. It's BULLETPROOF]

Right, no exception; no caveat; no "it's a tautology only if..."

So all your complaining that Argument #4 can NEVER BE FALSE is moot.

Call it moot if you like, but never, ever call it false, because it is a tautology and trivially so.

Clearly those assumptions were WRONG. And this then ends in a proof of why the MGB cannot exist.

So call those assumptions wrong, but never, ever call step #4 false, because it is necessarily true.

Your nit-picking that you don't like it that Argument #4 can be said to be "false" when incorrect assumptions are made about the truth values of P and Q has been noted. But it's certainly not worth the weeks you are spending complaining about it.

I decide what is and isn't worth it. It matters to me that much that you don't call a tautology false.

The truth table backs me up. If we ASSUME that P is true and we observe that Q is false, then what does the truth table say?

It says either your assumption P is false, or your observation of Q is wrong (or both.) That's what it says.


PS

...Notice how arguments #2, #3 AND #4 are ALL tautologies!

You are already in enough trouble with the self-appointed logic police. Please don't dig yourself any new holes - #3 is not a tautology.

[Divine Insight]

So call those assumptions wrong, but never, ever call step #4 false, because it is necessarily true.

So you are going to insist on being the LOGIC POLICE demanding that anyone who recognizes that an obvious tautology would be necessarily FALSE when incorrect assumptions/assertions are being made about the truth values of the P and Q of a conditional statement and that they should be tossed into the logic penitentiary for life.

As far as I can see that's just unnecessary nit-picking.

Especially, when I made every honest attempt to clarify this from the very beginning.

Actually if Argument #4 could be false in any consistent and meaningful way, then it couldn't be used to disprove the existence of the MGB. At best, all that could be said is that Argument #4 clearly isn't true and would need to be rejected from the overall argument, potentially replaced with something else.

That fact that it MUST BE A TAUTOLOGY is what makes my argument WORK.

So I've clearly recognized that from the onset.

My argument would be null and void if Argument #4 could actually be false legitimately. It's only "False" (by truth table) if you assert that P is TRUE whilst acknowledging that Q is FALSE.

When you start screaming "But Argument #4 can't ever be false!" you are just CONFIRMING MY PROOF that the MGB cannot exist.

And besides I have NEVER demanded that Argument #4 is False. It's only false if you DEMAND that P is TRUE whilst observing that Q is clearly FALSE. So says that Truth Table.

And this is why you need to then discover what's WRONG. Because it clearly can't be false, but under the proposed circumstance it would NEED to be false according to the Truth Table.

So I'll see you in court Mr. Logic Police Officer.

To just argue that it's a tautology and is therefore "Bulletproof" is what the proponents of the MOA try to do. But it can't be true of they insist that their MGB exists. Because then P would be TRUE and Q would clearly be FALSE, because the truth value of Q is non-negotiable. Q represent a fact of reality.

You then argue, "But P can't be TRUE then!"

Fine. Tell that to the proponents of the MOA.

That's the PROOF that their MGB cannot exist.

You are attempting to arrest the wrong person.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 127 by Divine Insight]

I still don't see an explicit "step #4 cannot ever be false, technically or otherwise. It is necessarily true, it is a tautology." That's all I asked for. Is affirming a tautology, really too much to ask for?

Is "that fact that it MUST BE A TAUTOLOGY" the affirmation I was hoping for?

And besides I have NEVER demanded that Argument #4 is False.

But you did say it was false.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 127 by Divine Insight]

I still don't see an explicit "step #4 cannot ever be false, technically or otherwise. It is necessarily true, it is a tautology." That's all I asked for. Is affirming a tautology, really too much to ask for?

Is "that fact that it MUST BE A TAUTOLOGY" the affirmation I was hoping for?

And besides I have NEVER demanded that Argument #4 is False.

But you did say it was false.

It would be false by the truth table if we assert that P cannot fail but to be TRUE, because Q is clearly FALSE in reality.

You seem to be totally ignoring that the proponents of the MOA demand to their death bed that their MGB cannot fail to exist.

Everything I'm talking about is within the context of the MOA argument as it has been presented.

Complain to the proponents of the MOA for that.

Get them to confess that P is FALSE.

I'll stand behind you 100%.

The moment they confess that P is FALSE the MOA fails and their imagined MGB dies.

They are the ones who are refusing to concede that P is false.