/lit/ - Literature

If it exists in your mind then it exists in reality.

>>2061229
more nuanced version:

1) you can conceive of a perfect being
2) existence is a perfection
3) therefore, the perfect being you conceive of must exist, or it would not be a perfect being

>>2061229
This is the argument of holocaust believers.

>>2061237

>>2061235
>existence is a perfection

this is where the ontological argument fails. Harlequin fetus.

>>2061242
Both premises are bullshit

Thanks guys.

Why was it treated so seriously for so long in philosophy if it is such a weak argument?

>>2061247
because stuffy old men in positions of academic power put so many years of their life into proving it correct that they could not bring it upon themselves to give it up. and they would instill this into all they taught, etc.

even philosophers are people, and people hate changing what they want to be right.

>>2061247
cuz philosophy is a load of shit.

It's shit. Everything can be explained biologically. Everything biological can be explained chemically. Everything chemical can be explained with physics.

>>2061252
>>2061260

>>>/sci/
this board is for literate people

>>2061272
I'm interested in truth, not human distinctions.

It is the most elegant (and elegantly deceptive) argument for God's existence.

Essentially, you treat of God as you would the term 'bachelor.' Just as 'A bachelor is unmarried' is categorically true by definition, so is 'God exists.' The traditional ontological argument Anselm proposed held that existence is a necessary condition of greatness, which is built into the very idea of God. More recent philosophers (e.g. Plantinga) use modal wankery to do more or less the same. At the heart of each instance is the idea that the definition of god requires its existence.

>>2061283

so basically, God exists because I say so

It's pretty smart stuff if you really think about it, it just brings in God where it doesn't need to. I find it similar to Wittgenstein talking about how you cannot express in words what doesn't exist at least in parts.

>>2061292
No, god exists because a necessary quality of god is existence.

>>2061298
Don't you mean gods exist.

>>2061273
>I'm interested in truth, not human distinctions.
Well, science is a pretty silly route to take though, you know, with all the anthropocentric projections and all. Explain consciousness you motherfucker (its caused by the brain lol)

>>2061305
why would I mean that?

>>2061306

in order to explain a phenomenon, you have to exist on a level above said phenomenon. Thus, you will never be able to "explain" consciousness

>>2061306
also looking for 'truth' is the same as looking for a 'purpose'.

>>2061260
Okay how about this. If everything can be explained biologically, what does the act of self-starvation mean? Is that person not going against his inherent self-preservation instincts? From a biological standpoint, how do you explain why a person would want to do this or why that person is even able to do this?

>>2061311
5-HT2A receptors is increased in brain regions of depressed in suicide victims.

>>2061298
Why is it that the Judeo-Christian god is the one that exists, and not all the myriad gods and dead gods?

>>2061306
Anthropocentric it might be, but all of Heidegger and the rest of them, have they contributed to the understanding of human motives as much as scientists?

>>2061320
That has an equal likelihood of being on either side of the causal chain.

>>2061325
It's you that is imposing that it is the judeo-christian god, it could mean any god, it was originally the judeo christian god because the people who came up with the argument were judeo christian.

>>2061329
That's what I meant, they meant the Christian god, but there are so many gods

>>2061328
All I'm saying is that biology might help to explain this shit better than endless wanking.

>>2061311
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorexia_nervosa#Causes

>>2061333
I'm just butting into the argument for a second. I'm not trying to deny science's clearly observable effects in the world.
Many scientific explanations for human behavior are reductive or recursive. Many very famous scientists agree with this, it's why they rely on studies, not conclusions. Conclusions are for newspapers and applications for funding.

>>2061336
And for philosophers

>>2061336
I don't dispute that, I'm just saying that it's our best tool.

>>2061338
If you think that, you don't understand philosophy. It's a discourse.
You're also completely denying that science is at its core a philosophy of extrapolation and deductive logic.

>>2061343
It's "supposed" to be a discourse, but let's face it, even here in on this board, it's just people shouting at each other that "I AM RIGHT" and the world keeps on going.

>>2061350
>here on this board
Yeah, it is like that here on this board. Because it's teenagers and 20-somethings who want to be right. I'm guilty of this plenty of times myself, it's where I'm coming from when I say this.

Out there, in the world, it's practiced and written by people who either live it, think it, or propose it, and are aware that it's been an ongoing conversation for thousands of years and they're merely tossing in their 2 cents.

The people here who figure out this difference just might have somebody pick up their pennies. The rest will give up and settle on conclusions, and keep on shouting how right they are. Like the rest of the people on the planet who don't bother with philosophy and look around themselves at some point and have completely and utterly lost their way on a very complicated roadmap. And then guess where they turn for answers? To the people who kept stopping and asking for directions.

And there's something very hollow in your implication that the world would somehow come to a stand-still if other things were discarded.
If we lost science tomorrow, people would still fuck and have babies the day after.
If the world lost people tomorrow, the world would still keep going.

>>2061362
The greater part of that ongoing discussion has already moved on, it's called Science, stripped of its role as Natural Philosophy.

>>2061320
And why is that? And why do some people not end up committing suicide even with such an imbalance?

>>2061235
>>2061242
etc.
*sigh*
Seriously, NONE of you could look up and repost the *actual* Ontological Arguments? Anselm doesn't use the word 'perfect' anywhere.
Yes, because there are a handful of them. And before you get all worked up philosophers from Aquinas on have been pointing out that the Ontological argument is not really an argument that proves God exists. What it *does* demonstrate is about as interesting, though. Here is Plantinga's version;

"A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Therefore (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists."

Which, Plantinga points out, does not prove that God exists, but *does* demonstrate that *belief* that God exists is just as rational and logical as the belief that God does not exist.

>>2061331
Read up on the elephant and the blind men.

>>2061390
>but *does* demonstrate that *belief* that God exists is just as rational and logical as the belief that God does not exist.
replace being with Island

>>2061390
>Anselm doesn't use the word 'perfect' anywhere
because maximal excellence is so much milder

>>2061422
in Anselm's case, something for which nothing greater can be conceived

>>2061390
There's nothing interesting about that sorry

>>2061421
*yawn*
It took you that long to find the Wikipedia article and you didn't realize that A) this is a different formulation of the argument, so your interjection is a nonsequitor and B) that the island objection was BS when it was proposed?

>>2061422
because phrases like 'perfect', 'maximal excellence', and 'necessary existence' actually have *meanings* that are different and matter

>>2061429
Then perhaps you don't grasp the implications

>>2061435
>>2061435
differentiate perfect and maximal excellence for me
I am skeptical it will be a meaningful distinctin for the purposes of the argument being put forward and the objection

>It took you that long to find the Wikipedia article and you didn't realize that A) this is a different formulation of the argument, so your interjection is a nonsequitor and B) that the island objection was BS when it was proposed?
This is a very long non-response

>>2061440
how is it a non response?

>>2061435
>Then perhaps you don't grasp the implications
Or maybe the implications aren't that interesting

>>2061325
>Judeo-Christian
Jews have absolutely nothing to do with christianity you fucking retard.

Believing in God is just as rational as believing in no God?? Wow, welcome to like 200+ years ago!!

>>2061442
implying it wasn't pertinent to what he said, which it was, and also saying it was bullshit, but not explaining why.

>>2061445
>Jews have absolutely nothing to do with christianity you fucking retard.

L o L

>>2061446
I hope to god you're trolling. Why do most atheists have the retard theist understanding of God?

>>2061440
>>Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good island exists

Like I said, different formulation of the argument, therefore a nonsensical reply by someone who doesn't understand the argument, doesn't understand the counter-argument, and hasn't taken the time to learn either.

Just like you didn't take the 2 seconds to realize the insertion of the word 'island' is nonsensical.

>>2061452
but of course, putting in 'being' is implicitly sensical, as well as the suggested attributes

post hoc logic at it's finest

>>2061443
Maybe.

>>2061450
Because for many they have been convinced that 'atheist = more rational, more logical, and smarter" so they have never bothered to learn about that which they reject

>>2061453
Is English your second language? Because I am unaware of any island that is capable of perception or action....
Let me guess, you read the'island' portion of Wikipedia, didn't realize it is a response to a different form that of Plantinga (which I posted) and tried to plug in the 'island' response believing it to be some sort of generic refutation, right?

Like theodicy, the ontological argument is a lot more complicated than it looks and there is a half-millenia+ of involved discussion by a number of philosophers on all sides.

Personally, I think that it is not a strong argument for the existence of God in any way, but it does point out that the arguments that God cannot exist/are impossible are axiomatic.

>>2061454
But why the Christian God?

Maximal excellence means being 'in the zone' where most human beings perform at their best.

>>2061460
>the ontological argument is a lot more complicated than it looks and there is a half-millenia+ of involved discussion by a number of philosophers on all sides
as with God itself, but it doesn't lend specific arguments credence

>Because I am unaware of any island that is capable of perception or action
you're going to tell me it's inappropriate to apply these attributes to an island but a sentience that can do anything makes perfect sense? It's because you already have the idea of god and the idea of an island worked out.

>but it does point out that the arguments that God cannot exist/are impossible are axiomatic
how so

>>2061465
And that is Pure Consciousness.

>>2061464
You are the one projecting the christian element into it, The name Yahweh isn't an inherent attribute of the god of the ontological argument, jesus.

>>2061460
>God cannot exist
Most atheists I know don't make this claim. Maybe it's just they don't get angered enough to considering I don't live in Biblefart, USA.

What use is it to say that a God could exist? You'd go about your life the exact same way since theis argument has nothing to do with the various human religions.

>>2061471
The poster I replied to is the board's resident Christfag. You newfag.

>>2061475
>atheists
>rational and intelligent

All of them are just dope smoking bastards who think life is about having sex and fun 24/7. And that the government should coddle them through life

Other then the "head atheists" which run their secular religion, they are vehemently anti-christian, anti-western, anti-white.

>>2061464
??
see >>2061471


>>2061468
I wasn't attempting to lend credence to any argument but rather to encourage anon to actually read about a complicated topic rather than skim the internet for talking points.

Dude, just admit that the entire 'replace being with island' thing was an error and move on!

'How so?'...
OK, the implication of Plantinga's formulation is that it is impossible to claim that God cannot exist without proving that it is impossible for God to exist in any logically consistent universe; in other words, be show that atheism is logical you must either prove omniscience is impossible, prove omnipotence is impossible, or prove that if they are possible no being can posses them. Since this is proving a negative, it is a bit of a hassle. Thus, belief is as rational and logical as disbelief.

Again, it is just a fascinating bit of logic that gets people upset far out of proportion.Personally, I find the Argument from Contingency much more interesting

>>2061475
Ah! The other implication of Plantinga's argument is that if God *can* exist, then He *MUST* exist!
No, really, go read it again.

Again, it is a logical refutation of any form of atheism stronger than agnosticism. In short it boils down to 'to claim to be an atheist you must be able to prove that the existence of God is impossible'.

>>2061488
??
see
>>2061488

>>2061491
Re-read my post. Especially last paragraph.

>>2061488
>I wasn't attempting to lend credence to any argument but rather to encourage anon to actually read about a complicated topic rather than skim the internet for talking points
If you are going to make reccomendations, be specific. Otherwise don't use indulge; it comes off as evasiveness

>Dude, just admit that the entire 'replace being with island' thing was an error and move on!
please explain why, and not by being lazy linking to a previous post, then we'll just be here forever

>[to] show that atheism is logical you must either prove omniscience is impossible, prove omnipotence is impossible, or prove that if they are possible no being can posses them
That would be showing it was true, rather than logical
The internal logic of omnipotence or the literal possibility of omniscience is not something necessary to discuss here
You simply should not confound the claim that God 'cannot' with 'does not' exist, the latter being the typical atheist claim.
What you typify as beleif, presumably theism, is not that god 'can' exist but that he does. This is were, if you were to say belief and non belief were equally rational, you would be comitting a false equivalence beforehand for it to be true

What the real issue here is, however, is that your series of premises doesn't engender this point
It has attackable presises and a very clear conclusion, one for which the island is very relevant

>>2061495
I did. I have no idea what the beliefs of any major religions have to do with this. OP asked for an explanation of the Ontological argument, not a discourse on its impact on Taoist thought, after all.

>>2061498
How about this as a recommendation "Don't pretend you understand a philosophical topic you know almost nothing about"?

>>please explain why
>>notsureiftrollingorclinicallyretarded.jpg
Plantinga is formulating a modal logic argument about a being that is conscious, capable of perception, and capable of independent moral action and you want to know why you can't replace 'being' with 'island'? Really? If, and I mean *IF*, you are serious I suggest that you start with the Nicomachean Ethics and Gorgias and work your way up to The Nature of Necessity.

>>That would be showing it was true, rather than logical
*sigh*
OK, you are either a troll or too ignorant to deal with any more. Assuming the latter, please see my book recommendations, above.

>>2061511
>>2061511
>How about this as a recommendation "Don't pretend you understand a philosophical topic you know almost nothing about"?

>Plantinga is formulating a modal logic argument about a being that is conscious, capable of perception, and capable of independent moral action and you want to know why you can't replace 'being' with 'island'? Really? If, and I mean *IF*, you are serious I suggest that you start with the Nicomachean Ethics and Gorgias and work your way up to The Nature of Necessity.
how about you quite deflecting it and explain it yourself.
You have up until now been content to reference decades of thought and names, but not your own understanding
Not only that, but the attributes you are sticking to aren't a necessity of perfection or maximal excellence
please remove your head from your anus

>OK, you are either a troll or too ignorant to deal with any more
In fact, I'm simply not letting you get away with false equivalence, assuming I'm to even accept such flawed premesis as

>Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

>>2061306

This kind of bullshit coming out of your mouth leads me to believe you wouldn't accept science as an answer to anything until every single thing in the observable universe is explained in a simple manner that is understandable to your pea-sized brain.

If this was 1850 you'd be all "yeah science is great and all but does it explain where humans came from? I don't think so faggot. FUCKING TOLD! " In 1900 you'd be all "yeah science is great and all but does it explain how the universe came to existence? I don't think so faggot. FUCKING TOLD!". And now you've moved on to consciousness and the like (for which there actually are neuroscientific models, dipshit) because there is always going to be more things to understand about the universe.

>>2061390

wait, so believing in any kind of creature/monster/being is perfectly logical? a shadow-being of maximal darkness? cool

So... it's a philosophical version of "god is eternal," supporting the claim by suggesting that the existence of god is inferred (or outright implicit) in the fact of existence itself. Hmm.

>>2061534

No. It's nothing to do with that.

>>2061390
>>2061390
>>2061390
>>2061390

>Which, Plantinga points out, does not prove that God exists, but *does* demonstrate that *belief* that God exists is just as rational and logical as the belief that God does not exist.

THANK YOU

THANK YOU SO FUCKING MUCH

I have explained this over 9,000 times to fuckwits in real life and on the 'chons; but here we have the underlying logical proof and the resultant conclusion nicely laid out.

Any real scientist, no matter his belief, understands the truth of this. They shrug their shoulders and go on believing in the FSM, the Mole King, or abso-fucking-lutely nothing at all, because without a shred of evidence in favor of either side of the argument, who fucking cares? There's nothing to talk about. Now, the validity of real-world policy decisions predicated entirely on unprovable premises, yes, we can get worked up about that, but the issue of God(s) itself is perfectly immaterial.

The people who go around screaming LOL GAWD IS BULLSHEET UR ALL SO STHUPID UNLIKE ME MR. SCIENCE GUY are almost always insecure 20-year-olds looking for some strawman to beat the fuck out of so they can inflate their own self-image as being superior to somebody else.

To be fair, same goes for people who blindly swallow their religious upbringing without ever rubbing two fucking brain cells together. The same people who say "we cannot possibly know or understand something as far beyond our limited understanding as God" will turn right around and scream about how this or that scientific theory is TOTAL BULLSHIT because they know EXACTLY how God formed the earth, humans, when he invented BLTs, why, and who made the first one for him.

blhalralraraararr

>>2061536

... oh, I see. I see. "God" has only two absolute traits that consistently define it/him:

1. God exists.
2. God is perfect.

"Perfect" is a descriptor, conveying the state and/or nature of a noun, a thing. So for the POSSIBILITY of God to be greater then 0, there is only one necessary factor:

1. Existence.

Reality itself does, indeed, exist, ergo it's *possible* that a perfect, divine being exists.

Am I reading this right?

"A being is the tooth fairy in a given possible world W if and only if it has wings, and
trades teeth for coins and cannot be detected unless desired, in W; and a being is most like the tooth fairy if it is the tooth fairy in every possible world.
It is possible that there is a being that has wings, trades teeth for coins and cannot be detected unless desired . (Premise)
Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that there is a being that has wings, trades teeth for coins and cannot be detected unless desired.
Therefore (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that a being that has wings, trades teeth for coins and cannot be detected unless desired.
Therefore, a being that has wings, trades teeth for coins and cannot be detected unless desired exists"

>>2061390

I don't get it. What other point does that have apart from

>It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)

And what the fuck does this mean:

>possibly it is necessarily true

?

>>2061545
>Some readers may be unfamiliar with modal logic terminology such as "exists necessarily". In modal logic, statements of possibility are generally regarded as relating to "possible worlds". Saying that something is "possible" means that there is a possible world in which it is the case. Saying that something is "necessary" means that it is the case in all possible worlds. Plantinga defines God as necessary. This does not mean that he is assuming that God really does necessarily exist based merely on his definition. The idea is that necessary existence is part of God's definition, so that for something to be called "God" it must exist in all possible worlds. God, then, either does not exist or he exists in all possible worlds.

>>2061550
from
http://www.paul-almond.com/ModalOntologicalArgument.htm
which claims to refute Plantinga

>>2061544

It appears you have a strawman in steps 4 and 5.

>>2061550
>>2061551

Thanks.

What are these "possible worlds" talked of here, though? Surely it can't be related to the many-worlds interpretation of QM so what exactly is it referring to?

Existence is not a great making property and you cant know anything a priori. ontological argument is widely considered a joke.

>>2061553
I there is a strawman fallacy, you would do best to refer to step 1
If there is a fallacy in the logic of 4 and 5, it's not a strawman fallacy.

>>2061564

'twas an analysis of that post as a satiric rebuttal, which it clearly was.

>>2061530
Proving my point for me
>>false equivalence
>>the island rebuttals applies to all versions of the ontological argument

>>2061556
"I say take the philosopher that believe existence is no different than non-existence and beat him with rods; then, afterward, explain to him that there is no difference between being beaten with rods and not being beaten with rods"

>>2061537
>The people who go around screaming LOL GAWD IS BULLSHEET UR ALL SO STHUPID UNLIKE ME MR. SCIENCE GUY are almost always insecure 20-year-olds looking for some strawman to beat the fuck out of so they can inflate their own self-image as being superior to somebody else.
Even if they do, don't pretend most are saying that God couldn't be the creator of the universe or big bang or whatever. It is almost always religion they are railing against.

The ontological argument is a complete waste of time. No wonder you think people get unnecessarily angry about it. There's no need for it to be brought up in religion vs atheism debates. Since it supports neither.

>>2061574
you are at the point where you are saying almost nothing of substance
You also seem to misunderstand what a false equivalence is.

>>2061390
I don't understand how you go from the premise "It is possible" to "it is necessarily true."

And so, in conclusion...?

>>2063281
God exists. Now run along to a catholic church and confess all your sins.

>>2063285
A bit far to go, but sure

>>2063726

isn't proving the existence of god using logic kind of stupid? I mean, don't you realize that for it to work you have to violate everything that logic should stand for?

I want you to ask yourself a question.

Why did this thread not die after the second post?

Do you have a answer, contemplate it, meditate on it.

Now, ask yourself do you feel the need to post your thoughts or correct my punctuation in any kind of way?

Do you have a answer, contemplate it, meditate on it.

Stop posting when you have nothing to say.

>>2063737
In other words, you don't know what 'logic' actually means?
You see, formal logic doesn't mean 'agreeing with OP', it means 'inference within a formal system'

>>2063756
Because an accurate version of the ontological had not been posted as of yet and it is (obviously) an interesting topic

>>>Stop posting when you have nothing to say.
You first

just so you know guys marrield oldfart only knows all of this stuff through his wife, he himself is actually a buffoon of the highest order

>>2063777
Something I have always admitted!

>>2063777
So he's like you, only you're alone.

That's so sad.

>>2063762

if logic has brought you to the conclusion that sky santa as described by any organized religion is kind of plausible then I suggest you to get another hobby. I hear fishing is nice

>>2063790
>So he's like you, only you're alone.
But I'm not alone, and I do my own reading. So how are we alike?

>>2063798
Except you don't. You read exactly how your professors want you to read. Muahahahahaha.

so guys do you think married oldfart is like a househusband or what

>>2063801
None of the literature I've read in the past few months has been directed to me by professors

>>2063792
Logical arguments for the existence of God both exist and are, yes, actually logical. I understand that this may bother you, even upset you, but that doesn't make it not true.
In my personal experience I have found that people who *do* get upset about things like the Argument from Contingency, etc. usually don't understand what logic really is (for which I blame Star Trek and its lousy presentation of Spock's outlook as 'Logic').
Logic, as I said before, does not mean 'secular humanistic conclusions', it means 'formal methods of inference'.

>>2063806
Actually, D&E, if you had paid attention you'd know - I am in sales, work odd hours, and often have free time where I am literally waiting for the phone to ring.
I also have a degree in Catholic Theology, so this thread is something I am sorta' interested in.

>>But I'm not alone
And how is your mom doing? She upstairs making you a snack?

>implying we can conceive a perfect being

We can use blanket terms to describe "he can do anything and he looks like nothing", but this concept is ridiculous. To imply that one can conceive an entity like God, if I remember correctly, is considered blasphemous to most religious people. Really, go ask your local cleric to describe God perfectly and he'll either tell you it's impossible or give you a shpeal of vagaries depending on how much of a bullshitter he is.

The Ontological argument boils down to "That God thing? I totally understand him. What? Yes, I know that's impossible, but it actually is possible, because God said so. How else would it be possible? So obviously that means that god exists and because I say so god exists."

That's even ignoring the fact that any logical argument for the existence of the supernatural is a reductio ad absurdum

>>2063810

look, I really just came in here to insult you and get you tp keep talking because you amuse me. would love to hear how logic showed you which religion was the most logical. turning water to wine is kind of plausible but a god with four arms is just too good to pass up

>>2063815
>I also have a degree in Catholic Theology
>I am in sales, work odd hours

no surprise there then

>>2063828
making valuable contributions to threads as usual, I see

>>2063820
"Supernatural:
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe;
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature"

Let us assume that the current physics model of the Big Bang is correct, meaning that a non-infinite amount of time in the past the universe (defined as that volume of space bounded by the laws of physics) did not exist and that there was an event that caused the universe to come into being.
After this event there was a brief period of time when the laws of physics as we understand them did not apply because the nature of the universe was not the same then as now.
Before the even, called the Big Bang, the laws of physics as we understand them did not exist in a coherent space to which we have any form of access.
Therefore, the Big Bang theory agrees with the Argument from Contingency that the origin of the universe is, *by definition*, supernatural.

So, does this mean that the Big Bang theory is illogical? That the Argument from Contingency is a reductio ad absurdem? Or that, perhaps, you are mistaken?

>>2063835
There's plenty of value in em for me bro

>>2063827
Simple answer? Thomism. Look it up. Your local university library should have a complete Summa Theologica.

>>2063838
Does not understand current cosmology

>>2063860
thanks for proving him wrong

except you didn't, so I guess I'm not really thanking you at all

quantum fluctuations created this thread

>>2063876
so does it exist or doesn't it?

unfortunately it does

>>2063866
Okay fine, if he won't do it I will.

>Let us assume that the current physics model of the Big Bang is correct, meaning that a non-infinite amount of time in the past the universe (defined as that volume of space bounded by the laws of physics) did not exist
>the universe (as he defined it) did not exist
Just because it didn't have volume, that certainly doesn't mean it did not exist.

>After this event there was a brief period of time when the laws of physics as we understand them did not apply because the nature of the universe was not the same then as now.
>the laws of physics...did not apply
Nope. We don't know exactly what was going on during that time with our current understanding of physics, but that certainly doesn't mean that they did not apply.

This argument rests on statements like "the universe did not exist" and "the laws of physics did not apply", things which the poster and current scientists cannot say for certain. Calling the origin of the universe "supernatural" for the reason that it is outside of our current understanding of science is foolish and defeatist.

I'm well humored to watch that three men walk intowards a thread on /lit/.

One is slightly knowingable, one has a very, very basic know how of the philosophy terminals, and another is super well educational about philosopher.

One makes posts relating to his ideas, one makes posts relating to his ideas with points about herp no logic in arguing religion, and the other observes that the former two are completely retardation.

>>2063894
>>We don't know exactly what was going on during that time with our current understanding of physics, but that certainly doesn't mean that they did not apply.

But you can't prove that they did. Perhaps physics took a while to become what it is?

>>2061390
I still don't buy how Plantinga goes from the premise "It is possible" to "therefore (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true." A quick google search shows that "S5 is widely but far from universally accepted" and "the 'possibility premise' begs the question."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Plantinga.27s_modal_form
http://www.paul-almond.com/ModalOntologicalArgument.htm

>>2063894
Ah, yes, the old 'despite the limits of science science has no limits' gambit.
So tell me - in this infinetely dense, infinitely hot universe without dimensions, how, exactly, did the current laws of physics apply? Oh, and *before* it existed? Also, 'outside' of its no-dimensionally tiny self?

[Fun facts!: the originator of the the theory, Georges Lemaitre, began studying civil engineering at the age of 17; after WWI, where he was a decorated soldier, he received his doctorate in Math before studying astronomy at Cambridge and getting a doctorate in Physics from MIT. He published a derivation of Hubble's Law 2 years before Hubble published it. He was also a Catholic priest]

>>2063954
Try this...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/

>>2063954
Oh, also try
http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/logic-and-formal-reasoning/the-s5-axiom-of-modal-logic
-%11-false?/

>>2063896
most entertaining post in the thread

Bump, wondering why this thread died and if it was for the reasons of tards giving up on there fallible arguments.