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.

[Goose]

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.

Here are my thoughts from the first two posts.

Why assume the existence of God, instead of letting the argument 'prove' that organically?

This question from rikuoamero reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. The argument doesn’t assume the existence of God. It begins with the premise that the existence of a maximally great being (God) is possible. There is a marked difference.

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

His only option here is to argue that this premise is false; that is, that God’s existence is impossible. But on what logical grounds can he successfully argue this?

rikuoamero then tries to knock down a classic strawman in an attempt to show the argument is invalid.

I am going to replace the phrase 'maximally great being' wherever it appears in the argument, with what he defined it as (as existing).

This argument, as presented by For_The_Kingdom, is defended by philosophers such as William Lane Craig and has been around in one form or another for a millennium. The logic itself, as presented in the argument, is impeccable. rikuoamero hasn’t shown it to be invalid and won't be able to; it's a valid argument. His only option is to argue against the premises themselves.

[Willum]

Probably the cardinal disqualifier is simple.

Logic can be used to prove anything if it does not begin with something physical from which to start.
For example, even logic that is pure logic: Changing a 1 to a 0 cannot be applied if there is a only zero, or nothing to apply it to to begin with.

Can anyone think of anything that can be proven, using logic, without a basis in physical reality?

In addition, even assuming a maximally great being (MGB), doesn't mean that you aren't describing Trump.
How do you know what or who is this ARBITRARY concept?

You can substitute just about anything for MGB.

So, what basis of reality do you apply this logic to, such that any conclusion can be arrived at?

[Divine Insight]

Here are my thoughts from the first two posts.

Why assume the existence of God, instead of letting the argument 'prove' that organically?

This question from rikuoamero reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. The argument doesn’t assume the existence of God. It begins with the premise that the existence of a maximally great being (God) is possible. There is a marked difference.

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

His only option here is to argue that this premise is false; that is, that God’s existence is impossible. But on what logical grounds can he successfully argue this?

Actually there are quite a few logical grounds upon which this can be argued.

For_The_Kingdom is already in grave trouble with the following demands of his so-called MGB:

From the H2H Debate Post#1

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

God, at least as defined by Christian theism, is a maximally great being (MGB). By maximally great, we mean that God is..

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

Let's go through theses one at a time.

Premise #1.) Omniscient: All knowing, knowing the truth value of all propositions.

No problem with premise #1

Premise #2.) Omnipotent: Can do anything that is logically possible.

We already have a problem here with the restriction of "logically possible". What exactly are the restrictions here? Logic itself is not a restriction on anything. Logic is itself restricted by the arbitrary premises that are given before logical reasoning can even begin.

Logic is just a means of reasoning after premises have been given. We see this easily in mathematics with the three different types of logical geometries. Euclidean, Spherical, and Hyperbolic. All three geometries are logically self-consistent, but they do not share the same premises at their foundation.

So what premises restrict God? If there premises restricting God, then God can do anything at all, no need to even mention "logic". God could make anything "logical" by simply changing the foundational premises.

So For_The_Kingdom's second premise is already ill-defined.

Premise #3.) Omnipresent: Presence is manifested, whether physically or spiritually, everywhere, at any given time

This would actually then be pantheism and not in support of the Abrahamic picture of a God that is "Separate" from humans. If God is omnipresent then everyone must necessarily be God.

So this approach to defining God already rejects the Monotheistic jealous God of the Bible that could supposed condemn souls that exists separate from itself.

So if For_The_Kingdom (or William Craig) think that these arguments could be used to support Christianity or any of the Abrahamic religions they are sadly mistaken and not paying attention to their own premises.

This argument could, however, be made for a religion like Buddhism or any other pantheistic or panentheistic religion. But it fails dramatically for a monotheistic religion that claims that God is separate from humans or could condemn a human in anyway. An omnipresent God could only condemn itself. For there is nothing else to condemn.

Premise #4: Omnibenevolent: The ultimate source of goodness, morally perfect.

Well, this fails instantly in the case of our world. Our world is not omnibenevolent (by our judgement). A supposed omnibenevolent God could not create anything less than perfect benevolence. And the idea that it could give out "Free Will" that could be used for malevolence by creature external to it violates premise #3.

Therefore this entire argument for an imaginary "God" fails instantly due to its own self-contradictory premises. At least if this is going to be held up for a monotheistic God that supposedly exists separate from humans. Humans who are both less than benevolent and could be condemned or killed separate from God. If humans are separate from God, then humans must be something OTHER than God. But that throws a wrench in this whole argument.

So this argument cannot be used in support of a monotheistic religion where humans are separate entities from God.

The only way this argument could be made to work at all would be to support a pantheistic religion (like Buddhism) and to also recognize that everything that happens must then ultimately be "benevolent" if we're going to insist on keeping premise #4.

At this point a philosophy of Secular Naturalism seems more reasonable since Secular Naturalism has no need to propose premise #4.

Therefore Secular Naturalism is the stronger worldview and more likely to be the truth of reality.

So I agree with Goose. There is no need to even discuss any arguments based on these premises. All you need to do is address the premises alone to show that they are already problematic. Why bother arguing about logical reasoning that is already based upon faulty premises?

And again, I need to add this is especially true if this is being used to argue for a monotheistic Godhead who is supposedly separate from humans. That clearly violates premise #3 anyway. So this argument can't be used to support a religion like Christianity in any case. Buddhism maybe. This argument requires pantheism, not classical monotheism.

So this argument doesn't support the God of Christianity anyway. Even if premise #4 could be justified as in Buddhism.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Action

Thread moved to appropriate sub-forum.



______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[benchwarmer]

Why assume the existence of God, instead of letting the argument 'prove' that organically?

This question from rikuoamero reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. The argument doesn’t assume the existence of God. It begins with the premise that the existence of a maximally great being (God) is possible. There is a marked difference.

The trouble is the meaning of the word 'possible'. Are we using the word as is done in everyday conversation or are we using a very specific definition in relation to a specific form of logical argument.

For if we accept this premise:

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

Then we must also accept this premise:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being DOES NOT exist.

All the semantics in the world are not going to poof something into existence.

If one is going to hang their hat on word games rather than actual observation, then one's hat will hit the floor in the real world.

[Divine Insight]

Why assume the existence of God, instead of letting the argument 'prove' that organically?

This question from rikuoamero reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. The argument doesn’t assume the existence of God. It begins with the premise that the existence of a maximally great being (God) is possible. There is a marked difference.

The trouble is the meaning of the word 'possible'. Are we using the word as is done in everyday conversation or are we using a very specific definition in relation to a specific form of logical argument.

For if we accept this premise:

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

Then we must also accept this premise:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being DOES NOT exist.

All the semantics in the world are not going to poof something into existence.

If one is going to hang their hat on word games rather than actual observation, then one's hat will hit the floor in the real world.

Well not only that, but there are serious problems with the first premise. Let's keep in mind here that what we are talking about supposedly being "possible" includes the following:

Premise #3.) Omnipresent: Presence is manifested, whether physically or spiritually, everywhere, at any given time

Shouldn't we demand an explanation of how this could be "possible"?

It's pretty easy to say that such a requirement must be met by this imaginary God, but where is there any reason to think that this would be "possible"?

Therefore we can easily argue that it's not obvious why such a MGB could be "possible". So there's no rational reason to accept this premise in the first place.

We also have a problem with the following:

Premise #4: Omnibenevolent: The ultimate source of goodness, morally perfect.

If this MGB is the creator of all that exists and the MGB is the maximally good and perfectly moral, then how in the world did the creation overall become so immoral?

This is the well-known "Problem of Evil" which is difficult for any theology to deal with. Although Buddhism actually handles this problem far better than Christianity in any case, because Buddhism ultimately proclaims that there is no such thing as "evil" and that this is just a manmade judgement in any case. So they do away with the problem of evil by proclaiming that it doesn't actually exist in the bigger picture at all. Although, that solution is difficult for many people to accept.

And finally everyone needs to recognize that there is no such thing as a "Problem of Evil" in a Secular Naturalistic worldview because there's no reason to think that a purely secular natural world should be "Perfect" in the first place.

So Secular Naturalism WINS again! Hands down.

If we don't make the arbitrary premise that an imagined MGB exists, then there are no problems to try to explain away.

The argument for the existence of an MGB is actually a very poor argument. There is no reason to accept the premise that a ideal MGB could "possibly" exist. So to premise that it is "possible" is already a flawed premise that basically is nothing more than an arbitrary premise that assumes the conclusion! The conclusion that such a being "could" exist and therefore "must" exist.

Keep in mind that the whole MOA argument embraces the premise that such a being is "possible" and therefore "must" exist. But there is nothing in the actual "argument" that makes a case for why an MGB could be "possible".

So the MOA truly never gets off the ground to begin with. There's nothing to argue about until it can be shown that such a being is actually "possible". Otherwise it's just an empty premise.

This whole argument is nothing more than extremely poor attempt at trying to use logic to prove premises that are fundamentally unprovable. And premise #4 of what an MBG must be is extremely problematic. If an MBG created our universe then our universe, and everything in it including us, should be perfectly moral.

So the argument falls apart before it even gets on the runway much less tries to take off.

Goose is right. If you blindly accept these unprovable premises then there's nothing to argue about. It's finished already by the mere acceptance of the premises. The premises determine the conclusion!

I don't accept the premises as being reasonable, or possible, so there the argument has no foundation and can't even move forward at that point.

I can see premise #3 in pantheism where we are a direct manifestation of God. But that's not going to work for Christianity because in Christianity we aren't permitted to be God.

And premise #4 is problematic in all religions. If premise #4 were true the world we live in should be perfectly moral including us. But again, according to Christianity that a BIG no-no! Christianity demands that we are ALL immoral!

[Kenisaw]

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

[quote]God, at least as defined by Christian theism, is a maximally great being (MGB). By maximally great, we mean that God is..

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

Some have already noted the logical paradoxes that these definitions create. There are multiple, but I will note the issue with the 3rd and 4th trait. If god is present everywhere, at all times, and is morally perfect, than nothing can happen that is not morally perfect. How can a god that is present physically and spiritually everywhere, be present in a hand holding a gun that just killed another person?

The big problem that every believer faces is that the more characteristics they give their particular flavor of supernatural being, the more logical paradoxes those characteristics create. But if they don't start lumping omni-title stuff on their choice, they can't claim it has the ability to create whole universes and be a moral authority and so forth. It's quite the catch-22 for them.

[Divine Insight]

We've already covered these things but I would like to make clear where the problem truly lie for For_The_Kingdom's argument:

For_The_Kingdom posted in the OP of the H2H the following:

B. Prove that God does not exist based logical absurdities that arise based on the definition of "God". So he would have to prove that God does not exist based on the simple fact that the mere idea of God is logically incoherent. In other words, the concept of God is absurd.

If my opponent feels this way, then the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate to us where the absurdity lies.

It's easy to prove that the God For_The_Kingdom has proposed is indeed absurd with respect to our world.

His premises number 3 and 4 simply don't hold true in our world simultaneously:

Premise #3) Omnipresent: Presence is manifested, whether physically or spiritually, everywhere, at any given time
Premise #4) Omnibenevolent: The ultimate source of goodness, morally perfect.

These two premises could potentially hold true in some imagined possible world, but they clearly don't hold true in our world, as both myself and Kenisaw have already pointed out. If this God simultaneously possesses Omnipresence and Omnibenevolence and existed in our world then our world would need to be omnibenevolent as well.

So For_The_Kingdom's argument is dead before it even starts.

For_The_Kingdom proclaims the following:

I maintain that the concept of God, as defined in the argument, does not violate any laws of logic and is a logically coherent concept, making such a being's existence conceivable and at the very least POSSIBLE.

Sure, that may be true in some "Imagined Perfect World", but it's clearly not true of our world. So if this is an argument for a God of our world then the argument is done and cannot apply to our world.

That was easy enough.

[wiploc]

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

His only option here is to argue that this premise is false; that is, that God’s existence is impossible. But on what logical grounds can he successfully argue this?

The logic itself, as presented in the argument, is impeccable.

May I have the next dance? I'd be pleased to go up against you after this debate is finished.