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]

Imaginary numbers are used in engineering all the time to represent actual physical quantities. So I'm not sure where why you suggest that imaginary numbers should be an example of something that is metaphysical.

Because there the root of a negative number exist only in the imagination. If that qualify as non-metaphysical, then neither would modal logic.

Well, I certainly don't want to get into a discussion about mathematics with you at this point, but actually our mathematical formalism is logically flawed as well.

There is no need for any "negative numbers" at all. In fact, it's impossible to have a "negative" quantity of anything actually. A negativity means in mathematics really is just an offset from an arbitrarily chosen reference point.

So there is no need for "negative numbers" at all. Negativity is actually just a vector direction. And once you understand that you can quickly see that the same is true of imaginary numbers. The "i" or "j" used to denote an imaginary number is actually just an indication of a direction vector.

Therefore, it's actually wrong to say that root of an imaginary number only exists in the imagination. That VECTOR actually exists in the real world. And if this wasn't true then imaginary numbers would be useless to engineers.

A lot of what you have been taught about mathematics and logic is actually flawed before you ever learned about it.

I won't argue that you weren't "taught" these things or that these things are held up to be true by specific man-made invented formalisms. But that doesn't make them true.

If you actually work with imaginary quantities as an engineer you quickly realize that they are as real as can be. The idea that they only exist in the imagination is clearly a bad idea.

How can you be sure that there is only one actual world? Physicist have been suggesting that there may be infinitely many actual worlds.

Physicists have been suggesting that there may be infinitely many actual universes. If they are correct, then these infinitely many actual universes exists in the one and only actual world.

But you are already wrong because in Modal Logic they always speak in terms of many different possible "worlds" plural. And they also clearly recognize that some things that can exist in some worlds could not exist in others.

This is why the MOA needs to go out of its way to proclaim that its MGB exists in "ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS".

Of course, then we can get into the semantic argument of what we mean by a "world".

There ought not be any arguments, it's standard language used in logic. Any semantic argument would be the result of your unfamiliarity with logic. It's best if you just adopt the language instead of arguing about it.

You clearly haven't been listening to my position.

I agree with Stephen Hawking. Pure philosophy is DEAD.

I don't need to agree with what proponents of pure philosophy or pure logic claim. They are clearly WRONG.

Apparently you never caught that.

Go argue with Stephen Hawlking. After you convince him, then come and talk to me about it.

In the meantime you are arguing for PURE PHILOSOPHY and I have already stated that as far as I'm concerned it's a DEAD field. Period.

So that's my position on that. You haven't been LISTENING.

If you had been listening you'd know better than to try to argue in the way that you are arguing.

In fact, that is my position with the MOA.

As long as they want to make arguments based on pure philosophy, they can claim whatever they like. I couldn't care less if they "prove" their God exists in some imaginary philosophical world.

But the moment they claim that their God exists on OUR WORLD it's OVER.

And that's why I object to step #4 and point out why step #4 kills any argument they thought they might have had.

Otherwise they could claim that their MGB exists in possible worlds just like you claims that Catherine Zeta-Jones is every man's wife in some imaginary "possible" worlds.

As long as you hold that to be TRUE, then you are talking about pure imaginary philosophy that has absolutely nothing to do with the REAL WORLD.

In fact, in your statement above you claimed that there is only ONE WORLD. That pretty much shoots the legs off your Catherine Zeta-Jones theory.

Pure Philosophy is nothing but empty hot air. That's why it's DEAD just as Stephen Hawking has pointed out.

And that's what you are trying to argue for here. You are trying to argue for unbridled logic that is based on nothing more than pure imagination. You have even claimed that if you can imagine it then it must be "possible" in some purely philosophical imaginary world.

That ideology is DEAD. It's meaningless.

That's my position.

I'll stick with Stephen Hawking. When you convince him otherwise, come and see me. Until then, don't bother.

In fact, look at the following. You did EXACTLY what I predicted you would do:

Moreover, if the only way you can say that step #4 of the MOA is "True" is be recognizing that it's proposition must be false then you're still using step #4 as proof by contradiction that the MOA and its MGB are a logical contradiction.

Not necessarily, there are other ways of showing step #4 of the MOA is true - alternatively you could show it is true using second order logic; but more to the point, why not just look at it:

If there is a sock in every drawer then there is a sock in this drawer.
If there is a car in every garage then there is a car in this garage.
If there is a sandwich in every lunchbox then there is a sandwich in this lunchbox.
If there is a book on every shelf then there is a book on this shelf.
If there is a bug in every program then there is a bug in this program.
If there is a woman on every show then there is a woman on this show.
If there is a ghost in every basement then there is a ghost in this basement.

It's so trivial that it is true by observation. You even don't need to know a thing about the entities being mentioned:

If there is a "cobite" in every "sotaz" then there is a "cobite" in this "sotaz."

I totally agree with what you have just stated above and already said as much. What is important here is NOT the truth value of the overall conditional statement but rather what is important is WHY it is true or false.

Take your FIRST example.

If there is a sock in every drawer then there is a sock in this drawer.

So now imagine there is a drawer before you and you open it to discover there is NO sock in this drawer!

Now what?

Well, if you are going to maintain that the conditional statement overall must retain its truth value of "TRUE", then the proposition "P = there is a sock in every drawer" must be FALSE and was never true to begin with!

So by finding a drawer that has no sock in it you have PROVEN that the proposition of this conditional statement MUST BE FALSE. Especially if we are going to hold this conditional statement to be TRUE and VALID overall.

So if the proponent of this argument wants to continue to hold that this conditional statement is TRUE, then they have no choice but to concede that the proposition "P = there is a sock in every drawer" is FALSE.

And that's what I've done with the MOA.

For someone who claims to understand logic so well, you should have realized this from the GET GO!

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 94 by Bust Nak]

Oh? Name one.

I'll give this a try...how about reversing entropy?

That's not impossible. That happens all the time. I can certainly imagine it (not that I think that's the test).

[Bust Nak]

Well, I certainly don't want to get into a discussion about mathematics with you at this point, but actually our mathematical formalism is logically flawed as well.

There is no need for any "negative numbers" at all...

Well there you go, are you now going to say negative numbers are metaphysical? Are you then going to say they are completely unless and meaningless?

If you actually work with imaginary quantities as an engineer you quickly realize that they are as real as can be. The idea that they only exist in the imagination is clearly a bad idea.

That's the point - the imaginary worlds in modal logic are as real as can be, in the same sense. I was drawing parallel between the two.

But you are already wrong because in Modal Logic they always speak in terms of many different possible "worlds" plural. And they also clearly recognize that some things that can exist in some worlds could not exist in others.

How does that make what I said wrong?! There ARE many different possible "worlds" plural; and there ARE some things that can exist in some worlds but could not exist in others. Neither of these facts change what I said about there being one and only one actual world. Of the many different possible worlds plural, one and only one is the actual world.

You clearly haven't been listening to my position.

You keep saying that, it's not true.

I don't need to agree with what proponents of pure philosophy or pure logic claim. They are clearly WRONG.

You don't need to agree with them to use their language, common language is there to facilitate communication, no more, it's there so we don't have to argue over terms. I am not going to change my vocabulary for you, so it's up to you to adopt mine, as used by mathematicians and logicians.

Go argue with Stephen Hawlking. After you convince him, then come and talk to me about it.

He is not here, you are.

So that's my position on that. You haven't been LISTENING.

I am attacking that position. That's different from not listening.

As long as they want to make arguments based on pure philosophy, they can claim whatever they like. I couldn't care less if they "prove" their God exists in some imaginary philosophical world.

And that's why I object to step #4 and point out why step #4 kills any argument they thought they might have had.

But #4 is 100% correct though.

And that's what you are trying to argue for here. You are trying to argue for unbridled logic that is based on nothing more than pure imagination.

It is possible that it will rain today; I need an umbrella if it rains; therefore it is possible that I will need an umbrella today.

What exactly is so offensive about this example of "unbridled logic that is based on nothing more than pure imagination?" Be explicit.

That is all modal logic is. Just because you don't recognise modal logic when you do it informally, doesn't make it useless or meaningless. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because apologists appeal to moral logic in their attempts.

You have even claimed that if you can imagine it then it must be "possible" in some purely philosophical imaginary world.

Because it's true by definition. There is nothing controversial about that claim.

In fact, look at the following. You did EXACTLY what I predicted you would do:

...If there is a sock in every drawer then there is a sock in this drawer...

It's so trivial that it is true by observation. You even don't need to know a thing about the entities being mentioned:

If there is a "cobite" in every "sotaz" then there is a "cobite" in this "sotaz."

I totally agree with what you have just stated above and already said as much.

You say that now, but you fought tooth and nails against it to begin with though, it's only after a week of plodding did you finally turned to agreed with me, and I not even sure you are agreeing with me "totally:" In your previous post you were objecting to the claim that these statements must always be TRUE.

What is important here is NOT the truth value of the overall conditional statement but rather what is important is WHY it is true or false.

You say it's important to know why it is true, but just moments before you were ready to dismiss the why bit out of hand. Let me remind you, you weren't interested at all in finding out exactly why the MOA failed, you were satisfied with pointing out that the MOA cannot possibly be sound because we can rule MGB out via the problem of evil.

The conditional statement I listed are true because they are tautologically true, they cannot fail but be true, they are necessarily true. You know they are true without knowing a single thing about the entities being mentioned, re: "cobite" and "sotaz."

In short they are true because of Pure Philosophy. You are contradicting yourself when you say it is important to know why it is true, at the same time dismissing the why as dead philosophy. Hawking is not here to defend himself, would you?

Take your FIRST example.

If there is a sock in every drawer then there is a sock in this drawer.

So now imagine there is a drawer before you and you open it to discover there is NO sock in this drawer!

Now what?

Now nothing. Whether there is a sock in the drawer or not, have zero bearing on the truth value of the conditional statement.

Well, if you are going to maintain that the conditional statement overall must retain its truth value of "TRUE", then the proposition "P = there is a sock in every drawer" must be FALSE and was never true to begin with!

That's irrelevant, the conditional statement retain its truth value of "TRUE" regardless of what you find in the drawer. It MUST be true, nothing in the drawer can possibly make it false. We know it is true using pure philosophy.

By looking in the drawer, all you are doing is confirming that the conditional statement is consistent with reality, supporting my claim that logical truth matches up with reality 100% of the time without exception.

So by finding a drawer that has no sock in it you have PROVEN that the proposition of this conditional statement MUST BE FALSE. Especially if we are going to hold this conditional statement to be TRUE and VALID overall.

So if the proponent of this argument wants to continue to hold that this conditional statement is TRUE, then they have no choice but to concede that the proposition "P = there is a sock in every drawer" is FALSE.

First of all, a few words on terminology, P->Q, the whole thing, is the proposition; P is referred to as the hypothesis or antecedent; Q is referred to as the conclusion.

By finding a drawer that has no sock in it I have PROVEN that the antecedent of this conditional statement MUST BE FALSE, because we have no option but to hold this conditional statement to be TRUE and VALID. There is not ifs here, the conditional statement cannot be false.

And that's what I've done with the MOA.

For someone who claims to understand logic so well, you should have realized this from the GET GO!

That much is fine, I was never in support for the MOA, so kindly stop projecting all the flaws of the proponents of the MOA onto me. I was getting tired of calling you out on strawman arguments.

The problem is you said step #4 was false; you said step#4 was invalid; then later on you said the only reason we know step #4 is true was because the conclusion was false. When in fact step #4 is perfectly logical and perfectly true; when in fact we know step #4 is true because it is a logical necessity. Those points I cannot let slide exactly because I understand logic so well.

I ask you to confirm for the record, the statement "IF a MGB exists in all possible worlds THEN a MGB exist in this world" as necessarily true, and we know it is true using pure logic, without having to appeal to any physical observation. Do that and we can call this a day.

[Divine Insight]

Well, I certainly don't want to get into a discussion about mathematics with you at this point, but actually our mathematical formalism is logically flawed as well.

There is no need for any "negative numbers" at all...

Well there you go, are you now going to say negative numbers are metaphysical? Are you then going to say they are completely unless and meaningless?

They are totally unnecessary. There is no need for negative "numbers" at all. That idea is indeed a totally useless and meaningless idea. Just recognize the positive and negative signs as directions vectors instead of being part of an actual "number" and you're fine.

So yes, the idea of "negative numbers" is indeed a totally useless and meaningless idea.

If you actually work with imaginary quantities as an engineer you quickly realize that they are as real as can be. The idea that they only exist in the imagination is clearly a bad idea.

That's the point - the imaginary worlds in modal logic are as real as can be, in the same sense. I was drawing parallel between the two.

Totally false. In fact, in modal logic you can "imagine" that negative "numbers" actually exist. Which is totally a figment of the imagination and has nothing at all to do with the real world.

But you are already wrong because in Modal Logic they always speak in terms of many different possible "worlds" plural. And they also clearly recognize that some things that can exist in some worlds could not exist in others.

How does that make what I said wrong?! There ARE many different possible "worlds" plural; and there ARE some things that can exist in some worlds but could not exist in others. Neither of these facts change what I said about there being one and only one actual world. Of the many different possible worlds plural, one and only one is the actual world.

But in pure imaginary Modal Logic you could not determine which of these imaginary worlds is the Actual World. In fact, if the actual world didn't actually exist you may NEVER even dream it up in Modal Logic.

Therefore Modal Logic and NEVER lead you to the any truths about the actual world. This is why pure logical thinking is DEAD in terms of any meaningful truths.

You need to be having this discussion with Stephen Hawking.

You clearly haven't been listening to my position.

You keep saying that, it's not true.

Well you certainly aren't acting like it. You keep insisting that I need to accept totally imaginary gobbledygook just because you THINK you can imagine such things.

But I've already pointed out that what you THINK you can imagine may actually contain logical impossibilities that you simply aren't aware of because you either haven't considered all the possibilities, or you are simply unaware of information that would prevent what you THINK you can imagine.

Just like you THINK you can imagine a world with no beings in it. But maybe that's not possible. How do you know that such a world is possible? You don't. Therefore just because you THINK you can imagine it doesn't automatically make it logically consistent.

And besides how WEAK is an argument where your only objection is that you THINK you can imagine something contrary to what is being proposed.

That has to be the weakest argument ever.

I don't need to agree with what proponents of pure philosophy or pure logic claim. They are clearly WRONG.

You don't need to agree with them to use their language, common language is there to facilitate communication, no more, it's there so we don't have to argue over terms. I am not going to change my vocabulary for you, so it's up to you to adopt mine, as used by mathematicians and logicians.

I have no need to bow down and worship your preferred choices of how to view reality. Where do you get off demanding that?

There are actually many physicists who agree with Stephen Hawking. We don't need to entertain what you THINK you can imagine.

Go argue with Stephen Hawlking. After you convince him, then come and talk to me about it.

He is not here, you are.

We'll you aren't going to win your argument with me because I reject your imagination.

So that's my position on that. You haven't been LISTENING.

I am attacking that position. That's different from not listening.

You can attack it till you are blue in the face. It won't do you any good.

Your solution to the MOA is to claim that you can imagine a world with no beings in it, thus showing a logical contradiction in a premise that claims that the MGB exists in all worlds.

I can't see why anyone would need to accept your imagination as proof that what they have proposed cannot exist.

Your argument isn't even remotely logical. It's just an OPINION. You can't show that a world with no beings in it is possible because you don't even know what is required for a world to exist in the first place.

My argument stabs the MOA Argument right smack in the HEART of the matter. I prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that their conditional statement in their step #4 must necessarily contain a FALSE PROPOSITION if they want to claim that the conditional statement is TRUE overall.

And that is what you have originally objected to. But my proof that their proposition is FALSE is perfectly legitimate and there is nothing you can say against it despite your arguments against for days on end now.

And it doesn't depend on my OPINION or on what I THINK I can imagine.

Your attempt to shoot down the MOA does indeed rely solely on your OPINION of what you THINK you can imagine. (i.e. you claim that you can imagine a world that has no beings)

That's your argument against the MOA.

Personally I wouldn't accept that argument.

So I hold that my logical proof that the MOA cannot hold as argued is far superior to you opinion that you think you can imagine a world with no beings in it.

As long as they want to make arguments based on pure philosophy, they can claim whatever they like. I couldn't care less if they "prove" their God exists in some imaginary philosophical world.

And that's why I object to step #4 and point out why step #4 kills any argument they thought they might have had.

But #4 is 100% correct though.

Correct in what way? This is where you are making a GRAVE mistake.

You mean that it's TRUE. That's not the same as being "Correct" in the context of their argument.

I've already been through this a thousand times. The ONLY WAY their step #4 can be TRUE is if its proposition is FALSE.

As along as they recognize this fact, then their argument falls flat on it's face.

And that's what you are trying to argue for here. You are trying to argue for unbridled logic that is based on nothing more than pure imagination.

It is possible that it will rain today; I need an umbrella if it rains; therefore it is possible that I will need an umbrella today.

What exactly is so offensive about this example of "unbridled logic that is based on nothing more than pure imagination?" Be explicit.

Excuse me? You have FAILED to do what the MOA does!!!

You have NOT Then concluded that therefore it WILL RAIN TODAY!!!

I'm not singling out step #4 in the MOA as being somehow "false" in general. As you point out, in general it's true. If an MGB exists in all worlds then it exist in our world. That's true. But so what?

Taken OUT OF CONTEXT of the rest of the MOA who cares? You couldn't conclude from step #4 ALONE that the MGB must then exist. So who would care?

That is all modal logic is. Just because you don't recognise modal logic when you do it informally, doesn't make it useless or meaningless. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because apologists appeal to moral logic in their attempts.

I'm sorry Bust Nak, but I actually used Modal Logic CORRECTLY to prove that the MGB cannot exist. If you think otherwise then you are simply WRONG.

You have even claimed that if you can imagine it then it must be "possible" in some purely philosophical imaginary world.

Because it's true by definition. There is nothing controversial about that claim.

I REJECT YOUR CLAIM that because you THINK that you can imagine a world that does not contain any beings and is also logically consistent that this then MUST BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE has nothing at all to do with Modal Logic.

Show me the axiom in Modal Logic where it states that I MUST ACCEPT AS TRUE whatever Bust Nak happens to THINK he can imagine as a logically consistent world?

Show me that axiom and I'll accept your opinion. Otherwise your imaginary world with no beings in it is nothing more than an unproven premise of your own imagination.

So this isn't about Modal Logic.

In fact, look at the following. You did EXACTLY what I predicted you would do:

...If there is a sock in every drawer then there is a sock in this drawer...

It's so trivial that it is true by observation. You even don't need to know a thing about the entities being mentioned:

If there is a "cobite" in every "sotaz" then there is a "cobite" in this "sotaz."

I totally agree with what you have just stated above and already said as much.

You say that now, but you fought tooth and nails against it to begin with though, it's only after a week of plodding did you finally turned to agreed with me, and I not even sure you are agreeing with me "totally:" In your previous post you were objecting to the claim that these statements must always be TRUE.

This is like arguing semantics. We've gone through this countless times already. What part aren't you getting? In the MOA the proposition of this conditional statement is being held up as being TRUE. But I show where the proposition of this conditional statement must necessary be FALSE.

Apparently that's what you never understood from the get go. But if you know anything about how conditional statement work you should have known EXACTLY what I meant.

What is important here is NOT the truth value of the overall conditional statement but rather what is important is WHY it is true or false.

You say it's important to know why it is true, but just moments before you were ready to dismiss the why bit out of hand. Let me remind you, you weren't interested at all in finding out exactly why the MOA failed, you were satisfied with pointing out that the MOA cannot possibly be sound because we can rule MGB out via the problem of evil.

I believe that I made it clear that the MOA has multiple problems. I just prefer to focus on step #4 before that step proves that the MGB cannot exist in OUR WORLD and that's all I was interesting in demonstrating. Where it could exist anywhere else is totally unimportant to me.

The conditional statement I listed are true because they are tautologically true, they cannot fail but be true, they are necessarily true. You know they are true without knowing a single thing about the entities being mentioned, re: "cobite" and "sotaz."

Totally irrelevant. And I've explained that countless times over. I can't believe you are still harping on this.

In short they are true because of Pure Philosophy. You are contradicting yourself when you say it is important to know why it is true, at the same time dismissing the why as dead philosophy. Hawking is not here to defend himself, would you?

In the MOA it's CRYSTAL CLEAR that they aren't using step #4 as a tautology where it would be acceptable for it to be true when its proposition is FALSE.

So you are just making totally useless and meaningless arguments at this point.

Take your FIRST example.

If there is a sock in every drawer then there is a sock in this drawer.

So now imagine there is a drawer before you and you open it to discover there is NO sock in this drawer!

Now what?

Now nothing. Whether there is a sock in the drawer or not, have zero bearing on the truth value of the conditional statement.

So what?

It has EVERYTHING to do with HOW the conditional statement could then be said to be TRUE.

And if you fail to recognize this point then you aren't even recognizing the VALUE of conditional statements at all. Conditional statements can be used to tell you much more than just whether they are true or false, understanding WHY they are true or false is where the real value lies.

This is why I LOVE conditional statements in arguments. They are extremely valuable in this way. Yet you seem to be ignoring this extreme valuable property of conditional statements entirely.

That's your loss, not mine.

Well, if you are going to maintain that the conditional statement overall must retain its truth value of "TRUE", then the proposition "P = there is a sock in every drawer" must be FALSE and was never true to begin with!

That's irrelevant, the conditional statement retain its truth value of "TRUE" regardless of what you find in the drawer. It MUST be true, nothing in the drawer can possibly make it false. We know it is true using pure philosophy.

Again, so what?

What you find in the draw DOES determine the TRUTH VALUE of the proposition of the conditional statement.

You seem to want to totally IGNORE that entirely. But why? That is extremely important information that can demonstrate that the MGB cannot exist in our world.

So you are done right there if you simply pay attention to the information this conditional statement is providing you with. You seem to want to totally ignore this extremely valuable information. Why would you do such a thing?

By looking in the drawer, all you are doing is confirming that the conditional statement is consistent with reality, supporting my claim that logical truth matches up with reality 100% of the time without exception.

No. What I'm doing by looking in the drawer and finding NO SOCK is confirming that the proposition of this specific conditional statement is then necessarily FALSE.

You seem to be so focused on the truth value of the entire conditional statement that you have lost sight of the important information that can be discovered by testing your P's and Q's.

And now I feel like I'm teaching basic logic 101 to someone. You should know that the P's and Q's are ultimately what's important here.

So by finding a drawer that has no sock in it you have PROVEN that the proposition of this conditional statement MUST BE FALSE. Especially if we are going to hold this conditional statement to be TRUE and VALID overall.

So if the proponent of this argument wants to continue to hold that this conditional statement is TRUE, then they have no choice but to concede that the proposition "P = there is a sock in every drawer" is FALSE.

First of all, a few words on terminology, P->Q, the whole thing, is the proposition; P is referred to as the hypothesis or antecedent; Q is referred to as the conclusion.

Semantics. Now you are just trying to distract form the real issues.

By finding a drawer that has no sock in it I have PROVEN that the antecedent of this conditional statement MUST BE FALSE, because we have no option but to hold this conditional statement to be TRUE and VALID. There is not ifs here, the conditional statement cannot be false.

Fine. Then you have just proven that the MOA overall is logically inconsistent! Because it GOES ON to conclude that the MGB must exist, when in fact, it should have stopped right here at step #4 recognizing at this point that the MGB cannot exist.

Congratulations! You finally see it.

And that's what I've done with the MOA.

For someone who claims to understand logic so well, you should have realized this from the GET GO!

That much is fine, I was never in support for the MOA, so kindly stop projecting all the flaws of the proponents of the MOA onto me. I was getting tired of calling you out on strawman arguments.

I think you took offense to the fact that I happened to mention that I agree with Stephen Hawking and you somehow felt that you need to come to the "rescue" of pure philosophy. But that's a whole different argument. And one that I'm not even interested in having actually.

I'll just agree with Stephen Hawking. I actually came to the same conclusion before I learned that also do. But just the same I don't need to force that position onto anyone. If you prefer to dabble into pure logic be my quest. Just don't try to use it to prove anything to me unless you can back your conclusions up with evidence in the real world.

That's my only point on that.

The problem is you said step #4 was false; you said step#4 was invalid; then later on you said the only reason we know step #4 is true was because the conclusion was false. When in fact step #4 is perfectly logical and perfectly true; when in fact we know step #4 is true because it is a logical necessity. Those points I cannot let slide exactly because I understand logic so well.

I hold that step #4 is the BEST way to prove that the MOA overall is false. And I still hold to that.

I ask you to confirm for the record, the statement "IF a MGB exists in all possible worlds THEN a MGB exist in this world" as necessarily true, and we know it is true using pure logic, without having to appeal to any physical observation. Do that and we can call this a day.

It's ONLY TRUE when you agree that P is false.

If you DEMAND that P is true, then it's clearly false, because Q can be shown to be false.

That's how conditional statements work.

Of course you can argue that anyone who DEMANDS that P is true is a lunatic. But you'd need to go and talk to the supporters of the MOA for that.

Try asking Dr. William Lane Craig. I'm sure he holds that P is TRUE and that the entire statement #4 is TRUE too!

And to make matters far worse he'll also demand that Q is true TOO! Even though he'll also argue that our world is far from benevolent.

Once you start arguing with a theist all LOGIC goes right out the window anyway.

[Divine Insight]

I ask you to confirm for the record, the statement "IF a MGB exists in all possible worlds THEN a MGB exist in this world" as necessarily true, and we know it is true using pure logic, without having to appeal to any physical observation. Do that and we can call this a day.

I'll tell you what I'll do for you on this.

I will agree that this conditional statement is a tautology overall. No question about that.

But I absolutely need to add that this does not make it useless. This doesn't mean that we can skip over step #4 without examining this conditional statement and just check it off as being obviously "True".

As a thorough logician you still have the right to exam the statement to see under which conditions it's TRUE. Because remember it can be TRUE in THREE different ways! And those three ways tells us something different about how the world must be.

So you don't want to just breeze past it checking it off as a "tautology" that has no informational value.

That would be a HUGE MISTAKE.

[Bust Nak]

They are totally unnecessary. There is no need for negative "numbers" at all. That idea is indeed a totally useless and meaningless idea. Just recognize the positive and negative signs as directions vectors instead of being part of an actual "number" and you're fine.

Seems rather redundant to point that out, what did you think negative numbers are, if not going in the opposite direction on the number line?

So yes, the idea of "negative numbers" is indeed a totally useless and meaningless idea.

Totally false. In fact, in modal logic you can "imagine" that negative "numbers" actually exist. Which is totally a figment of the imagination and has nothing at all to do with the real world.

And yet it has its uses, we deal with negative numbers all the time.

But in pure imaginary Modal Logic you could not determine which of these imaginary worlds is the Actual World.

Our world, is by definition the actual world.

In fact, if the actual world didn't actually exist you may NEVER even dream it up in Modal Logic.

That's moot, since the existence of the actual world cannot be disputed.

Therefore Modal Logic and NEVER lead you to the any truths about the actual world. This is why pure logical thinking is DEAD in terms of any meaningful truths.

That doesn't follow. I've given you an example of modal logic that lead you to truths about the actual world - it is possible that I need an umbrella today. It's so simple, anyone can understand it.

You need to be having this discussion with Stephen Hawking.

Well, bring him here and I'll set him straight.

Well you certainly aren't acting like it. You keep insisting that I need to accept totally imaginary gobbledygook just because you THINK you can imagine such things.

What made you think insisting that you need to accept the possibility of "totally imaginary gobbledygook" implies I haven't been listening to you though? I heard you, and still I am insisting that what is imaginable is by definition possible.

But I've already pointed out that what you THINK you can imagine may actually contain logical impossibilities that you simply aren't aware of because you either haven't considered all the possibilities, or you are simply unaware of information that would prevent what you THINK you can imagine.

If I have done that, then I have made a mistake - what I have mistakenly thought I could imagine, I couldn't in fact imagine, I would in fact be imagining something else. That doesn't change the fact that what could be imagine (as opposed to what I thought I could imagine) by definition is possible.

Just like you THINK you can imagine a world with no beings in it. But maybe that's not possible. How do you know that such a world is possible? You don't. Therefore just because you THINK you can imagine it doesn't automatically make it logically consistent.

If it is impossible then prove it. If you are just going to say well maybe I a mistake then well, maybe I did. Maybe you made a mistake about the world being morally imperfect.

And besides how WEAK is an argument where your only objection is that you THINK you can imagine something contrary to what is being proposed.

You say that, but you can imagine an empty world too, can't you?

I have no need to bow down and worship your preferred choices of how to view reality. Where do you get off demanding that?

Simple, because the facts are on my side.

There are actually many physicists who agree with Stephen Hawking. We don't need to entertain what you THINK you can imagine.

Then entertain what you think you can imagine. Think of a world with no beings.

We'll you aren't going to win your argument with me because I reject your imagination.

What made you think I am not already winning this argument despite your rejection of my imagination?

Your solution to the MOA is to claim that you can imagine a world with no beings in it, thus showing a logical contradiction in a premise that claims that the MGB exists in all worlds.

I can't see why anyone would need to accept your imagination as proof that what they have proposed cannot exist.

Because they too can imagine a world with no beings in it, that's why.

Your argument isn't even remotely logical. It's just an OPINION. You can't show that a world with no beings in it is possible because you don't even know what is required for a world to exist in the first place.

Nothing! it requires nothing, that's why it's so easy to imagine. You kept meandering around this, confirm for me whether you think you can imagine an empty world or not.

My argument stabs the MOA Argument right smack in the HEART of the matter. I prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that their conditional statement in their step #4 must necessarily contain a FALSE PROPOSITION if they want to claim that the conditional statement is TRUE overall.

Assuming a reader grants you that a MGB does not exist in this world. They are more likely to grant me an empty world. More to the point, if a reader is smart enough to question whether a claimed of something imagined, can actually be imagined, they would be able to apply the same question to premise 1.

And that is what you have originally objected to.

Wrong again. The record will show you, that I was very specific that I was objecting to your claim that step # 4 is false, that step #4 is invalid. It's time you stop this strawman.

But my proof that their proposition is FALSE is perfectly legitimate and there is nothing you can say against it despite your arguments against for days on end now.

I can say that a) you are using the wrong terminology; and b) that's wasn't what you said before.

And it doesn't depend on my OPINION or on what I THINK I can imagine.

But it does depend on your opinion that this world is not compatible with an MGB.

Your attempt to shoot down the MOA does indeed rely solely on your OPINION of what you THINK you can imagine. (i.e. you claim that you can imagine a world that has no beings)

Incorrect, it helps if others can imagine it, if they can't, I fall back on the question begging aspect I mentioned before.

Personally I wouldn't accept that argument.

So I hold that my logical proof that the MOA cannot hold as argued is far superior to you opinion that you think you can imagine a world with no beings in it.

It's just the typical problem of evil argument. If theists accept that to begin with, they wouldn't be theists.

Correct in what way?

True and valid.

This is where you are making a GRAVE mistake.

You mean that it's TRUE. That's not the same as being "Correct" in the context of their argument.

You accused me of arguing semantics, and yet have the nerve to come up with this. In what sense would a TRUE statement not be CORRECT?

I've already been through this a thousand times. The ONLY WAY their step #4 can be TRUE is if its proposition is FALSE.

Or the conclusion is TRUE, don't forget that. (Again the thing you are referring to, is not the proposition, its the antecedent.)

As along as they recognize this fact, then their argument falls flat on it's face.

Good luck convincing the proponents of the MOA of that.

Excuse me? You have FAILED to do what the MOA does!!!

Correct! That's a good thing, given the MOA is unsound.

You have NOT Then concluded that therefore it WILL RAIN TODAY!!!

Correct, that's because it is not a logical necessity. Pretty self explanatory really.

I'm not singling out step #4 in the MOA as being somehow "false" in general.

You might not have meant to single out step #4 in the MOA as being somehow "false" in general. That's what you stated, repeatedly, over a week, despite my constant objection.

As you point out, in general it's true. If an MGB exists in all worlds then it exist in our world. That's true. But so what?

So you were wrong when you repeated called it false and invalid.

Taken OUT OF CONTEXT of the rest of the MOA who cares? You couldn't conclude from step #4 ALONE that the MGB must then exist. So who would care?

I do. I care very much about truth and rationality.

I'm sorry Bust Nak, but I actually used Modal Logic CORRECTLY to prove that the MGB cannot exist. If you think otherwise then you are simply WRONG.

Well there you go, see how modal logic is useful? Yet you wanted to throw out modal logic as "unbridled logic that is based on nothing more than pure imagination."

I REJECT YOUR CLAIM that because you THINK that you can imagine a world that does not contain any beings and is also logically consistent that this then MUST BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE has nothing at all to do with Modal Logic.

This is yet another strawman argument. The record will show that the claim I was referring to as true by definition and controversial, was "if something is imaginable, then that something is possible by definition."

So this isn't about Modal Logic.

Which is why I am accusing you of a strawman, I was talking about Modal Logic, and you are talking about something that isn't about Modal Logic.

This is like arguing semantics. We've gone through this countless times already. What part aren't you getting? In the MOA the proposition of this conditional statement is being held up as being TRUE...

You mean "antecedent"...

But I show where the proposition of this conditional statement must necessary be FALSE.

Which means the conditional statement must necessary be TRUE!

Apparently that's what you never understood from the get go. But if you know anything about how conditional statement work you should have known EXACTLY what I meant.

Don't blame me for your mistakes, I have already complied a list of quotes from you, explicitly saying step #4 is false and/or invalid; not to mention the numerous times you disagreed with me when I stated step #4 is true and valid.

It was not until last Friday before you changed your tone on step #4.

I believe that I made it clear that the MOA has multiple problems. I just prefer to focus on step #4 before that step proves that the MGB cannot exist in OUR WORLD and that's all I was interesting in demonstrating. Where it could exist anywhere else is totally unimportant to me.

Apparently whether conditionals statements are true or not is totally unimportant to you also.

Totally irrelevant. And I've explained that countless times over. I can't believe you are still harping on this.

I will keep harping on this until you affirm that step #4 is true and valid and necessarily so, I won't let you brush that under the carpet.

In the MOA it's CRYSTAL CLEAR that they aren't using step #4 as a tautology where it would be acceptable for it to be true when its proposition is FALSE.

Correct and hardly worth mentioning, they are using step #4 as a tautology where both the antecedent and the conclusion are true.

So what?

So you were wrong when you claimed that such statements was false and/or invalid.

It has EVERYTHING to do with HOW the conditional statement could then be said to be TRUE.

Incorrect. The truth value of those conditional statements does not depend on any drawers or any sock at all. See the example re: "cobite" and "sotaz."

And if you fail to recognize this point then you aren't even recognizing the VALUE of conditional statements at all. Conditional statements can be used to tell you much more than just whether they are true or false, understanding WHY they are true or false is where the real value lies.

This is why I LOVE conditional statements in arguments. They are extremely valuable in this way. Yet you seem to be ignoring this extreme valuable property of conditional statements entirely.

I am not the one who asked "so what" if conditional statements is true or not. So much for valuing them.

Again, so what?

So you were wrong when you said that finding no sock in a drawer, "has EVERYTHING to do with HOW the conditional statement could then be said to be TRUE."

What you find in the draw DOES determine the TRUTH VALUE of the proposition of the conditional statement.

You mean "antecedent"...

You seem to want to totally IGNORE that entirely. But why?

Simple, because the truth of those statements does not depend on the truth value of the "antecedent" what so ever.

That is extremely important information that can demonstrate that the MGB cannot exist in our world.

So you are done right there if you simply pay attention to the information this conditional statement is providing you with. You seem to want to totally ignore this extremely valuable information. Why would you do such a thing?

What you called "extremely valuable" is actually irrelevant. The statement in question is true regardless. How is that not immediately obvious?

You seem to be so focused on the truth value of the entire conditional statement that you have lost sight of the important information that can be discovered by testing your P's and Q's.

That's because for the past week, you have repeatedly stated, that the truth value of the entire conditional statement, is false. Despite my clear objections.

And now I feel like I'm teaching basic logic 101 to someone. You should know that the P's and Q's are ultimately what's important here.

Not when we are talking about conditional statements are logical necessities. The truth value of P's and Q's are irrelevant, we know without a doubt that P necessarily implies Q, (P & !Q) is a literal impossibility. So much for teaching basic, that's a bit rich coming from someone who weren't sure what soundness meant.

Semantics. Now you are just trying to distract form the real issues.

I would say it is your incorrect usage of terms that is distracting from the real issues.

Fine. Then you have just proven that the MOA overall is logically inconsistent!

Hurray for me, can we no go back to the real issues at hand?

Because it GOES ON to conclude that the MGB must exist, when in fact, it should have stopped right here at step #4 recognizing at this point that the MGB cannot exist.

Or stopped sooner at premise #3. You can still appeal to the incompatibility between an imperfect world and an MGB without touching step #4.

I think you took offense to the fact that I happened to mention that I agree with Stephen Hawking and you somehow felt that you need to come to the "rescue" of pure philosophy.

That too, but I was mostly offended because you said step#4 was false and/or invalid, and felt that I need to come to the "rescue" of logical truths.

But that's a whole different argument. And one that I'm not even interested in having actually.

Then drop the matter.

I hold that step #4 is the BEST way to prove that the MOA overall is false. And I still hold to that.

Don't care. The problem is you said step #4 was false; you said step#4 was invalid; then later on you said the only reason we know step #4 is true was because the conclusion was false. When in fact step #4 is perfectly logical and perfectly true; when in fact we know step #4 is true because it is a logical necessity. And that's still the sticking point.

It's ONLY TRUE when you agree that P is false.

Incorrect. It's true regardless of whether P is true or false, since Q is necessarily true if P is true. (P & !Q) is self contradictory.

If you DEMAND that P is true, then it's clearly false, because Q can be shown to be false.

I am not demanding that, what I did demand is P->Q is true. What I did demand is you affirm that "IF a MGB exists in all possible worlds THEN a MGB exist in this world" as necessarily true, and we know it is true using pure logic, without having to appeal to any physical observation."

I'll tell you what I'll do for you on this.

I will agree that this conditional statement is a tautology overall. No question about that.

Mission completed. This is all I asked for.

But I absolutely need to add that this does not make it useless.

No need to tell me that, I weren't the one who were trying to convince others that "pure philosophy" is dead.

As a thorough logician you still have the right to exam the statement to see under which conditions it's TRUE. Because remember it can be TRUE in THREE different ways! And those three ways tells us something different about how the world must be.

Examine away, confirm for yourself that the only way where the statement can potentially be FALSE is actually a logical contradiction.

[Divine Insight]

And besides how WEAK is an argument where your only objection is that you THINK you can imagine something contrary to what is being proposed.

You say that, but you can imagine an empty world too, can't you?

I can't say with any degree of certainty that I can imagine a "logically consistent" world that is empty. And therein lies the problem.

I used to believe that I could imagine a "perfect circle". But then I came to the realization that even an imaginary perfect circle is a logical contradiction. So I was actually wrong to think that I could imagine it in a logically consistent way.

The same thing goes for a number line that is a continuum. Apparently mathematicians believe that they can imagine such a thing. They actually use this idea in mathematics as though it is a logically consistent concept. But in truth it's not. It can't even be imagined without logical contradiction. :S

So just because we THINK we can imagine something is no guarantee that what we think we are imagining is without logical contradictions.

So no, I can't imaging an "empty world" that I can be certain is without logical contradiction. In fact, a totally empty world would indeed be a logical contradiction. Kind of like a married bachelor. If a so-called "world" is totally empty, then it's not a "world" at all.

There are actually many physicists who agree with Stephen Hawking. We don't need to entertain what you THINK you can imagine.

Then entertain what you think you can imagine. Think of a world with no beings.

Just because I can imagine in my mind a world with no beings does not mean that such a world is logically consistent. There may be things I don't know about worlds that require the existence of beings in order for the worlds to exist.

In fact, if I am imagining such a world even that imagination is created by a living being. Therefore I can't see where even the imagination of a world without beings could exist without at least a being who can imagine it.

Maybe this is the truth of all reality? Is so, then a world that is not at least being imagined by a being cannot exist. And if you THINK you can imagine such a world you are actually wrong.

This is why pure philosophy is dead and Stephen Hawking is right.

You can imaging things that may indeed be totally impossible and/or grossly logically contradictory. Like a perfect circle, for example.

Assuming a reader grants you that a MGB does not exist in this world. They are more likely to grant me an empty world.

I already reject your imagination that an "empty world" could exist without logical contradictions. So I'd rather go with my argument since I clearly reject yours already.

By the way, are you aware that in General Relativity it's considered absolute nonsense to try to imagine a world that has absolutely no gravity in it at all? Yet that is precisely what your "Empty World" would need to be like.


I'm not going to respond to every line of your post because you are clearly ranting on and on about the same old issues that have already been fully addressed.

I'll just end by replying to your last comment:

As a thorough logician you still have the right to exam the statement to see under which conditions it's TRUE. Because remember it can be TRUE in THREE different ways! And those three ways tells us something different about how the world must be.

Examine away, confirm for yourself that the only way where the statement can potentially be FALSE is actually a logical contradiction.

And this doesn't matter at all. The entire IF-THEN statement itself does not need to be false. Yet this seems to be what you are demanding.

As long as you can show that the conclusion of the IF-THEN statement is False Then you have PROVEN that the hypothesis of the statement must also be false IF AND ONLY IF you want to maintain that the statement overall retains its TRUTH VALUE, which clearly you are all for. You are demanding that this statement is a tautology, therefore if the conclusion of the statement is FALSE then the hypothesis of the statement must also be FALSE if the statement overall is to be held to be "TRUE".

Look at the truth table:



Once I have shown that Q is false, then there are only two possibilities left.

Either P is STILL TRUE, in which case the overall conditional statement is then necessarily FALSE.

Or P is necessarily also FALSE, if we want to claim that the conditional statement is a tautology (i.e. always true).

So in showing that Q is false (and accepting that this statement is necessarily a tautology), I have proven that P must also be FALSE.

That's my proof.

The fact that we are demanding overall that this specific conditional statement must ALWAYS be TRUE is what actually WORKS in favor of my proof.

Notice that not ALL conditional statements are tautologies. But I agree that in this case this particular conditional statement has to be a tautology. This is why it WORKS as a proof for me.

It is the fact that this statement is indeed a tautology that proves that the MGB cannot exist!

If this conditional statement wasn't a tautology then showing that Q is false would not prove that P is false. Why not? Because P could still be TRUE and the entire conditional statement could just be checked off as being false entirely as in line 2 of the truth table.

The fact that this particular conditional statement has to be a tautology is what proves that the MGB cannot exist.

So your continual harping that the statement is a tautology is irrelevant.

And we've already been though this countless times before.

The fact that its a tautology in this argument is what PROVES that the MGB cannot exist.

If it wasn't a tautology then it couldn't be used to prove that the MGB cannot exist.

[Bust Nak]

I can't say with any degree of certainty that I can imagine a "logically consistent" world that is empty. And therein lies the problem.

I used to believe that I could imagine a "perfect circle". But then I came to the realization that even an imaginary perfect circle is a logical contradiction. So I was actually wrong to think that I could imagine it in a logically consistent way.

Don't you mean that a perfect circle is incompatible with our discrete/non-continuous world? I struggle to think how a perfect circle (and real numbers) is a logical contradiction.

So just because we THINK we can imagine something is no guarantee that what we think we are imagining is without logical contradictions.

I will give you that much.

So no, I can't imaging an "empty world" that I can be certain is without logical contradiction.

Taking the certainty aspect out, can you or can't you, mistakenly or otherwise, imagine an empty world?

Just because I can imagine in my mind a world with no beings does not mean that such a world is logically consistent. There may be things I don't know about worlds that require the existence of beings in order for the worlds to exist...

That sounded very much like you THINK you can imagine a world with no beings. Can I get an affirmative here?

By the way, are you aware that in General Relativity it's considered absolute nonsense to try to imagine a world that has absolutely no gravity in it at all? Yet that is precisely what your "Empty World" would need to be like.

You are taking about physical possibility. We were talking about metaphysical possibility. General Relativity may well be true in our world, it need not be true in any other worlds. Bear in mind the distinction I made re: multiple universes and multiple possible worlds.

And this doesn't matter at all. The entire IF-THEN statement itself does not need to be false. Yet this seems to be what you are demanding.

I was demanding that you accept the IF-THEN statements in questions are self evidently and trivially true. You've already met that demand. I don't have anything to add on this matter, other than to say...

The fact that we are demanding overall that this specific conditional statement must ALWAYS be TRUE is what actually WORKS in favor of my proof.

... That was never in dispute. The record will show that I was very specific with my objection - You called step #4 false and/or invalid, but it is true and valid...

So your continual harping that the statement is a tautology is irrelevant.

... It was relevant when you recorded as saying the statement is false. I now consider that matter to be resolved.

[Divine Insight]

The fact that we are demanding overall that this specific conditional statement must ALWAYS be TRUE is what actually WORKS in favor of my proof.

... That was never in dispute. The record will show that I was very specific with my objection - You called step #4 false and/or invalid, but it is true and valid...

I'm saying that step # 4 is what shows that the MOA is a False Argument.

One LAST TIME (hopefully:

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.

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 to based on those definitions alone. We would need to bring in "outside evidence" that isn't already contained within the MOA arguments. 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".

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.

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.

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.

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

Notice how arguments #2, #3 AND #4 are ALL tautologies! But they are meaningless 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 contained the PROOF that the MGB cannot exist.

~~~~~

Note: Could you have brought in external arguments at Argument #1 to try to argue that the MGB could not be possible at that point in the MOA? Sure. But then you wouldn't be using the MOA to disprove itself.

I actually used the MOA to disprove itself.

Also, if you had to point to anything in the real world as a reason why the MGB is not possible, then you would basically be using Argument #4 anyway, even though you didn't bother referencing it directly.

The fact that in Argument #4 you can show that the conclusion of that tautology is FALSE is what proves that the MGB cannot exist. And it's actually the very fact that Argument #4 is indeed a tautology that allows that PROOF.

If Argument #4 didn't need to be a tautology then all you could do is toss out Argument #4 and you still wouldn't have proven that the MGB is not possible.

Argument #4 is what allows you to PROVE that the MGB is impossible.

That is my argument against the MOA.

[Bust Nak]

I'm saying that step # 4 is what shows that the MOA is a False Argument.

The records shows otherwise.

One LAST TIME (hopefully: ...

That is my argument against the MOA.

You know full well what you said. Don't make me quote you again.