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]

Step #4 is fine logically, but only if we recognize and acknowledge that the MBG cannot exist in our world becasue our would is not omnibenevolent.

NO NO NO. Step #4 is fine logically, REGARDLESS of MBG can or cannot exist in our world! THIS IS NOT NEOGOTIABLE. I am getting angry just from reading this. Quit it.

IF X exists in every possible world, THEN it exists in the actual world (our world.) FOR ALL X, even married bachelors. The fact that married bachelors cannot exist, does not change a thing.

We'll just have to disagree on this then.

It may be fine in terms of "pure imaginary logic", but you can't make statements about our world that are clearly not true and claim those to be logically valid statements.

What you are basically saying is the same as claiming that it's perfectly valid to claim that everything in our world is orange without that actually being true.

Maybe in pure imaginary logic you can do that. But as far as I'm concerned the moment you make statement about the real world that are demonstrably false, then whatever it is that you are claiming to be "logical" at that point is moot.

It's not logical to claim that our world is omnibenevolent when it's clearly not.

If fact, I hold to you that you have indeed fallen into the trap of accepting purely philosophical arguments without holding them accountable to the real world facts.

This is why I agree with Stephen Hawking that pure philosophy is DEAD.

Basically all you are trying to do is claim that it's still alive in some sense.

Sorry, but if this logical argument makes statements about our world that are demonstrably false, then it's clearly a misuse and abuse of logic.

I would AGREE with you in terms of PURE IMAGINARY PHILOSOPHY.

In that case, we couldn't argue that our world isn't perfectly moral.

In fact, if I grant you that this logic is "valid" that the conclusion we would necessarily need to come to is that our world is indeed perfectly moral.

That would need to be part of the CONCLUSION of the MOA.

So if you want to grant that to the proponents of the MOA be my quest.

Even so as I had pointed out several times, even if we ignore the real world the MOA still hasn't justified it's conclusion in #6.

All it could say in any case is that its proposed MGB "might" exist. It hasn't demonstrated that it would need to exist even in pure philosophical imagination.

So the MOA is logicallly flawed on many levels.

Argument #2 is non sequitur too.

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

The above isn't even valid in pure philosophy. Just because something is possible it doesn't automatically follow that it must then exist in some possible world. Unless you're going to claim that imagination is a possible world? But if you do that then we can imagine even illogical things occurring in the world of imagination. So that would be totally meaningless.

This is why pure philosophy is meaningless. We can imagine illogical things in pure philosophy.

[Bust Nak]

We'll just have to disagree on this then.

No, not good enough, you cannot disagree with logic. Truths are non negotiable.

It may be fine in terms of "pure imaginary logic", but you can't make statements about our world that are clearly not true and claim those to be logically valid statements.

That's moot since no one is doing that. I am making statements about our world that are clearly true and claim those to be logically valid statements. You on the other hand, are claiming statements about our world that are both clearly true and logically valid statements, as false and/or invalid; what's more is you let slipped false statement and granted it valid.

What you are basically saying is the same as claiming that it's perfectly valid to claim that everything in our world is orange without that actually being true.

Incorrect. I am claiming IF X is orange THEN it is orange, for all X, i.e. everything in our world, even those that are not orange. It is both perfectly valid and 100% actually true. For example, it is indeed true that "if the sky is orange then it is orange." You can call that moot and I will grant you that, but you cannot call it false because it is absolutely, necessarily true.

But as far as I'm concerned the moment you make statement about the real world that are demonstrably false, then whatever it is that you are claiming to be "logical" at that point is moot.

But that's what you are guilty of, you are the one making statement about the real world that are demonstrably false, when you called step 4 invalid.

It's not logical to claim that our world is omnibenevolent when it's clearly not.

Clearly. That's why I am not claiming that.

Sorry, but if this logical argument makes statements about our world that are demonstrably false, then it's clearly a misuse and abuse of logic.

That's moot since this logical argument makes statements about our world that are demonstrably true. There is no misuse or abuse of logic.

So if you want to grant that to the proponents of the MOA be my quest.

I only want to be the proponent of truth. MOA is faulty but not for the reason you stated.

Even so as I had pointed out several times, even if we ignore the real world the MOA still hasn't justified it's conclusion in #6.

That's the same point as before, if you granted its premises then it is justified. This is about soundness, as the argument is valid.

All it could say in any case is that its proposed MGB "might" exist.

That's granting premise 1, you are saying that it is possible. Big mistake.

It hasn't demonstrated that it would need to exist even in pure philosophical imagination.

You were already half way there demonstrating it by granting that MGB might exist.

Argument #2 is non sequitur too.

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

Incorrect. This too is perfectly valid. It's very clear you have some misconception about modal logic.

Let me be very explicit: The problem steps are #1 and #3. Not 2, not 4, not 5 and not 6. The steps other than 1 and 3 are both perfectly valid and perfectly true.

Just because something is possible it doesn't automatically follow that it must then exist in some possible world. Unless you're going to claim that imagination is a possible world?

Absolutely, I am claiming that. If you can imagine it then it is a possible world. If something is possible it automatically follow that it must then exist in some possible world.

But if you do that then we can imagine even illogical things occurring in the world of imagination.

Incorrect. No one can imagine illogical things occurring in the world of imagination. You might be able to entertain the concept of a married bachelor, but try imagining one, you can't do it.

[Bust Nak]

Pardon my laziness for not looking it up, but the one I always remember had to do with Lois Lane believes Clark Kent works at the Daily Planet, and Lois Lane believing Superman works at the Daily Planet. Even though Clark Kent and Superman are the same, you can't swap them in that statement, affecting the outcome. I think they call that intenstional context. There was a website that went into all that, but the last time I looked for it I couldn't find it.

You are referring to identity of indiscernibles. The critique section seems to cover all the important points.

They aren't logical truths now. They were then. All based on observation too.

You are suggesting that some logical truths are mutable. How would you discern between immutable truths and the mutable ones? Are there even immutable truths, can the law of identity ever change?

I say it's easier to reserve the term "logical truths" for those statements that are immutably and necessarily true, and not classify valid conclusions from potentially false premises as logical truths.

[Kenisaw]

Pardon my laziness for not looking it up, but the one I always remember had to do with Lois Lane believes Clark Kent works at the Daily Planet, and Lois Lane believing Superman works at the Daily Planet. Even though Clark Kent and Superman are the same, you can't swap them in that statement, affecting the outcome. I think they call that intenstional context. There was a website that went into all that, but the last time I looked for it I couldn't find it.

You are referring to identity of indiscernibles. The critique section seems to cover all the important points.

From the link: "This argument is criticized by some modern philosophers on the grounds that it allegedly derives a conclusion about what is true from a premise about what people know. What people know or believe about an entity, they argue, is not really a characteristic of that entity." So doing a logical proof of an entity by first assigning characteristics to that entity (like omnipotence) seems like a failure in general? So how is the MOA a valid argument then?

[Divine Insight]

No, not good enough, you cannot disagree with logic. Truths are non negotiable.

Sure I can. If logic doesn't line up with reality then it's FALSE.

I've already made the case for this. There is nothing illogical about imagining that our universe (basically pretty much as we see it today) is eternal, never having a beginning, and never ending.

There is nothing illogical about that assumption. But that assumption doesn't match our reality. This is why Pure Philosophy is dead. It cannot lead you to actual truths about the real world because it can be used to make logically TRUE statements that are clearly false in reality.

You continually demand that Pure Logic alone must necessarily lead to truth. That's wrong. And apparently that's where you and I ultimately disagree.

That's moot since no one is doing that. I am making statements about our world that are clearly true and claim those to be logically valid statements. You on the other hand, are claiming statements about our world that are both clearly true and logically valid statements, as false and/or invalid; what's more is you let slipped false statement and granted it valid.

The MOA doesn't do that. In fact, the MOA is already non-sequitur by line #2:

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

It does not follow logically that if something is "possible" it must then exist in some world. Why would you think that is valid logic?

What you are basically saying is the same as claiming that it's perfectly valid to claim that everything in our world is orange without that actually being true.

Incorrect. I am claiming IF X is orange THEN it is orange, for all X, i.e. everything in our world, even those that are not orange. It is both perfectly valid and 100% actually true. For example, it is indeed true that "if the sky is orange then it is orange." You can call that moot and I will grant you that, but you cannot call it false because it is absolutely, necessarily true.

Absolutely necessarily true based on what premises?

You can clearly make a premise to make the world ANY color you like. Does that then mean that logic based on all those different premises must be true?

Sorry, but if you accept that, then you can prove that ANYTHING is true using logic in that way. And besides, you can just arbitrarily make up unproven premises and demand that they must be true.

The proof by contradiction of the irrationality of the square root of 2 demonstrates that.

If you could demand by premise that the square root of 2 is rational then you'd have to accept that this is true no matter what!

That appears to be your argument. That's utterly absurd.

But as far as I'm concerned the moment you make statement about the real world that are demonstrably false, then whatever it is that you are claiming to be "logical" at that point is moot.

But that's what you are guilty of, you are the one making statement about the real world that are demonstrably false, when you called step 4 invalid.

And if you go back and read more carefully I think you'll find that I also AGREED with you that if we didn't have the real world to examine then we would indeed need to accept step #4 as being TRUE based on purely "imaginary" logic.

However, if we accept that logic than we must also CONCLUDE that our world is perfectly moral. Just like you had demanded that the sky must be orange if the logic says so!

That's fine and dandy in blind armchair philosophy. Just don't go outside and look at the sky or you'll SEE that it's wrong! Unless you happen to get lucky and the sky just happens to be fairly orange on that day.

And I've already AGREED with you that if we ignore reality and go solely by purely imagined logic we would NEED to accept a whole lot of things that aren't true!

However, the MOA actually fails in step #2 anyway. There is no reason that just because something is "possible" that it logically follows that it must then exist.

For example, there were many things in my life that I would have liked to have built. They were all "possible". But I never got around to doing them for whatever reason. Therefore those "possible" things never came into existence. Thus just becasue they are "possible" doesn't mean that the need to necessarily exist in ANY world.

Unless you want to call my "imagination" a valid "world". But that is the folly of pure philosophy right there!

It's not logical to claim that our world is omnibenevolent when it's clearly not.

Clearly. That's why I am not claiming that.

Well, then you can see that step #4 is CLEARLY false. But step #4 would NEED to be true if you had already accepted step #2 of the MOA.

Sorry, but if this logical argument makes statements about our world that are demonstrably false, then it's clearly a misuse and abuse of logic.

That's moot since this logical argument makes statements about our world that are demonstrably true. There is no misuse or abuse of logic.

It can go either way!

It all depends on what premises you accept to build your logical reasoning on. As I had pointed out before you can start with a premise that out universe is eternal and unchanging in any majorly significant ways. That would then lead to "perfectly logical" conclusions that do not match up with our reality.

So logic does not always match up with our reality even when it's TRUE logic.

In fact, for all we know our world may not even be logical ultimately. Why do you demand that our world must be logical? We have already made observations about it that appear to fly in the face of what we "deem" to even be logical.

Keep in mind we INVENTED logical formalism. The universe is under no obligation to obey our sense of reasoning.

We can't even be sure that logic is all that reliable when it comes to making statement about the "True nature" of reality. We just HOPE that it works!

So if you want to grant that to the proponents of the MOA be my quest.

I only want to be the proponent of truth. MOA is faulty but not for the reason you stated.

I never said that step #4 was the ONLY thing wrong with it. But it's clearly one obvious fail.

In fact, there's really no reason to even bother with step #4 since the MOA already fails in step #2.

Therefore step #4 is non sequitur anyway.

There's no justification for the final conclusion in step #6 either. That's also non sequitur.

But I think you'd be hard pressed to find a provably false claim made in the original premises or in step #1.

Even so as I had pointed out several times, even if we ignore the real world the MOA still hasn't justified it's conclusion in #6.

That's the same point as before, if you granted its premises then it is justified. This is about soundness, as the argument is valid.

No, you are totally wrong here. Step #2 was already logically flawed anyway.

And conclusion #6 DOES NOT follow from step #5. Step #5 DOES NOT demonstrate that the MBG exists.

Remember step #5 says:

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

But it had never been shown that the MGB actually exists in the actual world. Because step #2 was non sequitur to begin with.

All it could say in any case is that its proposed MGB "might" exist.

That's granting premise 1, you are saying that it is possible. Big mistake.

You mean STEP #1?

Granting that it could be possible for the sake of allowing the argument to move forward is no problem at all. Because AT THAT POINT in the argument you really don't have any reason to deny that it could be possible UNLESS you already want to use step #4 to demonstrate WHY it can't be possible.

How are you going to prove that it's impossible for this MGB to exist? Without referring to anything known about the real world?

SHOW ME!

It hasn't demonstrated that it would need to exist even in pure philosophical imagination.

You were already half way there demonstrating it by granting that MGB might exist.

Why? Look at the proof by contradiction for the square root of 2 again.

We GRANTED that a rational solution to the square root of 2 is "possible", only to discover later that this leads to a contradiction.

That's how proofs by contradiction are done. So there's no harm in accepting the "possibility" of something just to allow an argument to move forward.

That's not a problem.

Granting that something might possibly exist, is not the same as granting that it must exist.

In fact, technically you could demand that step #1 only state that the MGB "May be possible", we just don't have enough information at that step to make that determination yet.

In fact, this is yet another extreme problem with pure philosophy. Pure philosophers are too quick to accept that something might be possible before they actually know that to be the case.

And again, WHERE are we agreeing that this thing is "Possible?"

In pure imagination? Perhaps it could be possible in pure imagination!

But it's clearly not possible in the REAL WORLD. That's the difference!

Argument #2 is non sequitur too.

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

Incorrect. This too is perfectly valid. It's very clear you have some misconception about modal logic.

Let me be very explicit: The problem steps are #1 and #3. Not 2, not 4, not 5 and not 6. The steps other than 1 and 3 are both perfectly valid and perfectly true.

But again you are not LISTENING to what I'm saying.

You are allowing for PURE PHILOSOPHY unbounded by anything other than pure imagination.

So you're basically allowing pure unbound imagination to be a "possible world".

Also, you are wrong about step #3.

If you accept step #2 then you have no choice but to accept step #3 because step #2 has already established that if the MGB is possible then it must exist in some possible world. But since the MGB is omnipresent (by original premises) then step #3 must be accepted once you have granted step #2.

It's actually step #2 that is faulty.

Just because something is "possible" doesn't mean that it necessary must exist.

Just because something is possible it doesn't automatically follow that it must then exist in some possible world. Unless you're going to claim that imagination is a possible world?

Absolutely, I am claiming that. If you can imagine it then it is a possible world. If something is possible it automatically follow that it must then exist in some possible world.

Well this is where we disagree BIG TIME!

I can imagine that I can float through space without any technological aid or protection from the vacuum or radiation of space. I can imagine flying over to the sun. I can even imagine flying THROUGH the sun and looking at its burning interior as I fly through it with nothing more than a pair of blue jeans and T-shirt to protect me. I can imagine flying MUCH FASTER than the speed of light and bopping over to Andromeda Galaxy in less than a minute's time. Again wearing nothing but my blue jeans and T-shirt for protection. I'm just magically levitating.

So now according to you since I can imagine this then it must exist in some possible world? I must be out there magically flying through some universe faster than the speed of light, because according to you, if I can imagine it it must exist in some possible world.

All I have to say to that is what this emoticon says:

So I totally disagree with the pure philosophical notion that if you can imagine it then it must exist in some possible world.

But if you do that then we can imagine even illogical things occurring in the world of imagination.

Incorrect. No one can imagine illogical things occurring in the world of imagination. You might be able to entertain the concept of a married bachelor, but try imagining one, you can't do it.

But now all you are doing is arguing SEMANTICS!

The word Bachelor is DEFINED as being an unmarried person. Therefore the terms "Married Bachelor" simply violate the definitions of these terms.

But what about the scenario I had just imagined above?

There is nothing you can point to OUTSIDE OF THE PHYSICS OF THE REAL WORLD that would violate my imagination of me flying around the universe at faster than the speed of light in my bluejeans and T-shirt.

And if you are going to argue against my imagination based on physics, then you are actually in AGREEMENT with me! The REAL WORLD wouldn't allow it!

Otherwise how can you deny my imagination?

[Bust Nak]

You are referring to identity of indiscernibles. The critique section seems to cover all the important points.

From the link: "This argument is criticized by some modern philosophers on the grounds that it allegedly derives a conclusion about what is true from a premise about what people know. What people know or believe about an entity, they argue, is not really a characteristic of that entity." So doing a logical proof of an entity by first assigning characteristics to that entity (like omnipotence) seems like a failure in general? So how is the MOA a valid argument then?

It is a failure in general, but it is a weakness of its premises i.e. it a matter of soundness, not of its validity.

[Kenisaw]

You are referring to identity of indiscernibles. The critique section seems to cover all the important points.

From the link: "This argument is criticized by some modern philosophers on the grounds that it allegedly derives a conclusion about what is true from a premise about what people know. What people know or believe about an entity, they argue, is not really a characteristic of that entity." So doing a logical proof of an entity by first assigning characteristics to that entity (like omnipotence) seems like a failure in general? So how is the MOA a valid argument then?

It is a failure in general, but it is a weakness of its premises i.e. it a matter of soundness, not of its validity.

So it can be logically valid, but it cannot be stated that it is actually valid?

[Bust Nak]

Sure I can. If logic doesn't line up with reality then it's FALSE.

That cannot ever happen. Logical truth always line up with reality. If something doesn't line up with reality, then you've made a mistake either with your reasoning or your observation.

I've already made the case for this. There is nothing illogical about imagining that our universe (basically pretty much as we see it today) is eternal, never having a beginning, and never ending.

There is nothing illogical about that assumption. But that assumption doesn't match our reality.

Which is why it is so important to distinguish between soundness and validity. An eternal universe is logically valid, but not sound. An eternal universe is not a logical truth.

This is why Pure Philosophy is dead. It cannot lead you to actual truths about the real world because it can be used to make logically TRUE statements that are clearly false in reality.

Incorrect. Pure Philosophy cannot lead one to make logically TRUE statements that are clearly false in reality. Try it, you won't be able to make any logically TRUE statements that are clearly false in reality.

The MOA doesn't do that. In fact, the MOA is already non-sequitur by line #2:

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

It does not follow logically that if something is "possible" it must then exist in some world. Why would you think that is valid logic?

Incorrect. It does follow logically that if something is "possible" then it MUST exist in some world. I think it is valid logic because it is a logical necessity, it cannot fail to be true under any circumstances. You are arguing against logical axioms.

Absolutely necessarily true based on what premises?

Base on no premise at all, it's a logical truth.

You can clearly make a premise to make the world ANY color you like. Does that then mean that logic based on all those different premises must be true?

That depends on what "logic" you are talking about. If it is valid then yes, valid logic plus true premises, necessarily mean the conclusion is true. Always, without exception.

Sorry, but if you accept that, then you can prove that ANYTHING is true using logic in that way. And besides, you can just arbitrarily make up unproven premises and demand that they must be true.

I'd like to see you to try it. Prove ANYTHING is true given what I've stated here.

If you could demand by premise that the square root of 2 is rational then you'd have to accept that this is true no matter what!

Why would I accept a false premise?

That appears to be your argument. That's utterly absurd.

You appear to have some misconception on what my argument is. Can you outline what you think my argument is?

And if you go back and read more carefully I think you'll find that I also AGREED with you that if we didn't have the real world to examine then we would indeed need to accept step #4 as being TRUE based on purely "imaginary" logic.

However, if we accept that logic than we must also CONCLUDE that our world is perfectly moral. Just like you had demanded that the sky must be orange if the logic says so!

Read carefully what I said. IF the sky is orange, THEN the sky is orange. That much I do demand. Go ahead, tell me it is not true. State for the record that "IF the sky is orange, THEN the sky is blue." Can you do that? Do that and I will drop the whole thing.

That's fine and dandy in blind armchair philosophy. Just don't go outside and look at the sky or you'll SEE that it's wrong!

I am looking the sky right now, I do NOT see that it is wrong. It is indeed the case that IF the sky is orange, THEN it is orange.

And I've already AGREED with you that if we ignore reality and go solely by purely imagined logic we would NEED to accept a whole lot of things that aren't true!

Like what? Give me an example of something that isn't true, but have to accept given "purely imagined logic." Let see what else you can come up with after your two previous attempts re: eternal universe and orange sky.

For example, there were many things in my life that I would have liked to have built. They were all "possible". But I never got around to doing them for whatever reason. Therefore those "possible" things never came into existence. Thus just becasue they are "possible" doesn't mean that the need to necessarily exist in ANY world.

Incorrect. That's exactly what it means. They necessarily exist in SOME world.

Well, then you can see that step #4 is CLEARLY false. But step #4 would NEED to be true if you had already accepted step #2 of the MOA.

I have no problem affirming that: I cannot see that step #4 is false at all. Step #4 is clearly true.

It can go either way!

It all depends on what premises you accept to build your logical reasoning on. As I had pointed out before you can start with a premise that out universe is eternal and unchanging in any majorly significant ways. That would then lead to "perfectly logical" conclusions that do not match up with our reality.

So logic does not always match up with our reality even when it's TRUE logic.

Again, note the difference between validity and soundness. Only sound arguments can get you true results. Giving me endless examples of valid arguments with false premises, that gave false conclusion, does nothing to strengthen your position. Give me one example of a sound argument that gave false conclusion, just one.

In fact, for all we know our world may not even be logical ultimately. Why do you demand that our world must be logical?

Because it cannot be any other way.

We have already made observations about it that appear to fly in the face of what we "deem" to even be logical.

Keep in mind we INVENTED logical formalism. The universe is under no obligation to obey our sense of reasoning.

Now we need to distinguish between the difference between what someone deem logical and what IS logical. You deemed premise #1 and #3 logical, you were mistaken.

I never said that step #4 was the ONLY thing wrong with it. But it's clearly one obvious fail.

In fact, there's really no reason to even bother with step #4 since the MOA already fails in step #2.

And you were incorrect. There is nothing wrong at all with step #4, or #2 for that matter.

No, you are totally wrong here. Step #2 was already logically flawed anyway.

Nop. Step #2 is perfectly fine.

You mean STEP #1?

Yep. Step #1 and #3 are the premises.

Granting that it could be possible for the sake of allowing the argument to move forward is no problem at all.

It is if you also grant #3, which you did.

How are you going to prove that it's impossible for this MGB to exist? Without referring to anything known about the real world?

SHOW ME!

That's easy, assume such a thing exist then generate a logical contradiction. You already know how, re: morally perfect world and our decidedly imperfect world.

Why? Look at the proof by contradiction for the square root of 2 again.

We GRANTED that a rational solution to the square root of 2 is "possible", only to discover later that this leads to a contradiction.

That's how proofs by contradiction are done. So there's no harm in accepting the "possibility" of something just to allow an argument to move forward.

Again, proof by contradictions labelled their assumption clearly, they start with IF square root of 2 is rational THEN....

Granting that something might possibly exist, is not the same as granting that it must exist.

It does if you throw in premise #3. That's the point. You were arguing step 2 4 5 and 6, when you should be arguing against 1 and 3. You granted 1 and 3 therefore 6 necessarily follows.

Perhaps it could be possible in pure imagination!

But it's clearly not possible in the REAL WORLD.

You need to familiarise yourself with modal logic, what you stated here is incoherent. If something is not possible in the real world, then it is not possible in any world, include your pure imagination.

But again you are not LISTENING to what I'm saying.

You are allowing for PURE PHILOSOPHY unbounded by anything other than pure imagination.

So you're basically allowing pure unbound imagination to be a "possible world".

I heard ya. I AM allowing pure imagination to be a "possible world," not unbounded though, all worlds are bounded by logic.

If you accept step #2 then you have no choice but to accept step #3

Incorrect. Step #3 does not follow from step #2.

because step #2 has already established that if the MGB is possible then it must exist in some possible world. But since the MGB is omnipresent (by original premises) then step #3 must be accepted once you have granted step #2.

Which is why I said #3 is a premise. Only if you accept that MGB is omnipresent would #3 hold. Step #2 could be true without step #3 being true for non logically necessarily beings.

Just because something is "possible" doesn't mean that it necessary must exist.

If does if it is logically necessarily.

I can imagine that I can float through space without any technological aid or protection from the vacuum or radiation of space...

No problems there, there exist one possible world where you can indeed float through space without any technological aid or protection from the vacuum or radiation of space. There is one possible world where you are float through space without aid right now. There is one possible world where you are flying through the sun and looking at its burning interior with nothing by jeans and T-shirt on. There is a possible world where you have just flew to Andromeda in under a minute.

So now according to you since I can imagine this then it must exist in some possible world? I must be out there magically flying through some universe faster than the speed of light, because according to you, if I can imagine it it must exist in some possible world.

Absolutely correct.

The word Bachelor is DEFINED as being an unmarried person. Therefore the terms "Married Bachelor" simply violate the definitions of these terms.

But what about the scenario I had just imagined above?

Those scenarios are fine, but not married bachelor, in no possible world, not in your imagination, does a married bachelor exist.

Otherwise how can you deny my imagination?

I don't need to. You can imagine flying through space unaided, but you cannot imagine a married bachelor. Thus confirming the claim that if something is possible, then it exists in some possible world.

[Divine Insight]

That cannot ever happen. Logical truth always line up with reality. If something doesn't line up with reality, then you've made a mistake either with your reasoning or your observation.

What "observation"? According to you observations aren't permitted!

Which is why it is so important to distinguish between soundness and validity. An eternal universe is logically valid, but not sound. An eternal universe is not a logical truth.

What do you mean when you say it's not "sound"? Not sound relative to what exactly?

Not sound relative to KNOWN PHYSICS? If so then you are in AGREEMENT with me once again.

There's no reason why an eternal universe can't be "Logically Sound" in pure imagination. You could imagine physics that would accommodate that.

You can't say anything against an eternal universe save for pointing to the fact that it violates OBSERVED PHYSICS! But then you are back in agreement with me again.

This is why Pure Philosophy is dead. It cannot lead you to actual truths about the real world because it can be used to make logically TRUE statements that are clearly false in reality.

Incorrect. Pure Philosophy cannot lead one to make logically TRUE statements that are clearly false in reality. Try it, you won't be able to make any logically TRUE statements that are clearly false in reality.

Why not? There is nothing illogical about claiming that I can levitate. But that's not going to match up with reality.

Incorrect. It does follow logically that if something is "possible" then it MUST exist in some world. I think it is valid logic because it is a logical necessity, it cannot fail to be true under any circumstances. You are arguing against logical axioms.

In that case how can you argue against an eternal universe? Just take ENTROPY out of the picture and you're all set!

But you can't even KNOW about entropy until you have OBSERVED the real universe.

If you were a pure philosopher sitting in an armchair you would have absolutely no reason or need to arbitrarily invent entropy.

This is why you are totally WRONG if you think that Pure Philosophy can lead you to truth. Without the REAL UNIVERSE demanding that entropy must be true, you would have absolutely no logical reason to invent it arbitrarily.

Logic alone cannot lead you to truth.

You can clearly make a premise to make the world ANY color you like. Does that then mean that logic based on all those different premises must be true?

That depends on what "logic" you are talking about. If it is valid then yes, valid logic plus true premises, necessarily mean the conclusion is true. Always, without exception.

What do you mean by "true" premises?

Does a premise need to agree with the REAL WORLD in order to be true?

Is so, then you are in agreement with me once again.

If not, then what would make a premise true?

Sorry, but if you accept that, then you can prove that ANYTHING is true using logic in that way. And besides, you can just arbitrarily make up unproven premises and demand that they must be true

.

I'd like to see you to try it. Prove ANYTHING is true given what I've stated here.

I already did prove that an omnipresent Jolly Green Giant must exists. Especially if you allow me argument #2 that anything that it is "possible" must exist in some possible world.

If you allow for that then you'd need to prove that a Jolly Green Giant can't exist in any possible world.

How are you going to do that?

If you could demand by premise that the square root of 2 is rational then you'd have to accept that this is true no matter what!

Why would I accept a false premise?

For the same reasons mathematicians do this ALL THE TIME. By accepting a premise that might be false you can potentially prove by contradiction that it must be false.

Also note too that you might not be able to conclude anything. Proof by contradiction doesn't always work out the way you might have hoped.

But you can't even begin a proof by contradiction until you accept a potentially false assertion to start with.

You appear to have some misconception on what my argument is. Can you outline what you think my argument is?

My argument is that if logical reasoning makes statements or conclusions about OUR WORLD that can be demonstrated to be false within OUR WORLD then that logical argument is necessarily false.

You seem to be arguing AGAINST that.

I also argue that if logical reasoning draws conclusions that make absolutely no statements that can be demonstrated to be false, then we can't necessarily say that it a flawed argument. Although it may indeed contain logical flaws as well, in that case then we can point to those and show that it's not even logical in any case.

But you seem to want to claim that the MOA is perfectly logically valid (I disagree).

What you seem to be saying is that you believe you can argue against it because you believe that it's not a "sound" argument. But it's unclear what you even mean by "sound".

You have already claimed that to premise that our universe is eternal is "unsound" but why? It seems to me that the ONLY reason you could give is to point to the actual universe and show that there is evidence for why it's not eternal.

But then you'd be in agreement with me! So at that point I have no clue what you attempting to argue for.

Read carefully what I said. IF the sky is orange, THEN the sky is orange. That much I do demand. Go ahead, tell me it is not true. State for the record that "IF the sky is orange, THEN the sky is blue." Can you do that? Do that and I will drop the whole thing.

That wasn't my argument. My argument was that if you made a premise that the sky is orange and the actual sky is not orange then your wrong.

Obviously if the sky actually is orange then it's orange. Who would argue with that?

But that doesn't require any logical reasoning. All you need to do is LOOK at the actual sky and you can see what color it is. No logic required.

I am looking the sky right now, I do NOT see that it is wrong. It is indeed the case that IF the sky is orange, THEN it is orange.

That's fine. At this point you are talking to yourself because I NEVER suggested that an actually orange sky is not orange.

You've totally lost it at this point.

For example, there were many things in my life that I would have liked to have built. They were all "possible". But I never got around to doing them for whatever reason. Therefore those "possible" things never came into existence. Thus just becasue they are "possible" doesn't mean that the need to necessarily exist in ANY world.

Incorrect. That's exactly what it means. They necessarily exist in SOME world.

Where? In the "world" of my imagination?

That's precisely the absurdity of pure philosophy.

I have no problem affirming that: I cannot see that step #4 is false at all. Step #4 is clearly true.

Step #4 is making a statement about the ACTUAL WORLD we live in.

Therefore if you accept that step #4 is TRUE then you have no choice but to take the position that our world is omnibenevolent according to the logic of the MOA.

And you could even ALLOW for that. But let's not forget that Christians are the ones who are often arguing for the MOA and they do NOT allow that our world is perfectly benevolent. So they demand that their very own MOA must necessarily be false.

At least at step #4 if nowhere else.

Again, note the difference between validity and soundness. Only sound arguments can get you true results. Giving me endless examples of valid arguments with false premises, that gave false conclusion, does nothing to strengthen your position. Give me one example of a sound argument that gave false conclusion, just one.

Please take a moment and explain to me what you mean by a SOUND argument.

What is the requirement for an argument to be SOUND?

I'll stop right here until you explain what you mean when you say that an argument needs to be "Sound".

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 69 by Divine Insight]

Try it, you won't be able to make any logically TRUE statements that are clearly false in reality.

I'm in agreement with DI on this one. Try this logical argument.

Premise 1: All men are immortal
Premise 2: Tom is a man
Conclusion: Therefore, Tom is immortal.

That is logically valid. It does not contradict itself, the conclusion flows logically from the premises.
However, sound it is not, given that it contradicts observed reality (no man has been observed to be immortal).

----
Also, hi people. I think I can chime in here, now that the debate is effectively over. FtK threw in the towel and hasn't been on the site in almost a week.