Profile

Cover photo
Bob H
1 follower|2,250 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Bob H

commented on a channel on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
well I see you are buying into uninspiring philosophy bullshit. why don't you take some college classes in philosophy of religion and see why Ip is full of it. 
1
Add a comment...

Bob H

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
More flaws in Ip's MOA hypothesis. 

1). Staying strictly with the four corners of the argument, the argument is valid for any mind-depend object of the imagination, therefore the argument can not be sound, even for something called God. 

2). Necessity is not a predicate. Something is either possible (it is necessary or contingent) or impossible. Modal notions of possible would have to include contingencies ( it is not the cases that X is necessary). Necessary and contingencies are not properties, but states of affairs.

3). Knowledge and power are not compossible. For God to exists, she must engaged in causal processes. God is omnipotent. According to Swinburne “a person P is omnipotent at time t IFF P is able to bring about the existence of any logically contingent state of affairs”. However, according to Ip's concept; for God to be omniscience, God  must be outside of time. Therefore, God is engaged in causal process (her divine act of will) that are outside of time, with effects that are temporal/spatial. This is untenable therefore,  God is impossible.


4). Ip argues that God is logically necessary and metaphysically possible. According to possible world semantics metaphysical possibilities are contingencies. You have a concept of God that is necessary and contingent at the same time. This is a contradiction, and therefore impossible.
1
Add a comment...

Bob H

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Nice try but no cigar. Your concept of God is still a contradiction and therefore is impossible.

Let me enumerate some of the flaws in your hypothesis. 

1). Staying strictly with the four corners of the argument, the argument is valid for any mind-depend object of the imagination, therefore the argument can not be sound, even for something called God.

2). Necessity is not a predicate. Something is either possible (it is necessary or contingent) or impossible. Modal notions of possible would have to include contingencies ( it is not the cases that X is necessary). Necessary and contingencies are not properties, but states of affairs.

3). Knowledge and power are not compossible. For God to exists, she must engaged in causal processes. God is omnipotent. According to Swinburne “a person P is omnipotent at time t IFF P is able to bring about the existence of any logically contingent state of affairs”. However, according to your concept; for God to be omniscience, God  must be outside of time. Therefore, God is engaged in causal process (her divine act of will) that are outside of time, with effects that are temporal/spatial. This is untenable therefore,  God is impossible.


4). You argue that God is logically necessary and metaphysically possible. According to possible world semantics metaphysical possibilities are contingencies. You have a concept of God that is necessary and contingent at the same time. This is a contradiction, and therefore impossible.
1
Add a comment...

Bob H

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Lynne, I just read your replies to Jack Punch and Dick Scandura. The problem is the dialectic of faith versus reason. The belief's of Jack and Dick are pure unadulterated Fideism. However, for them to convince themselves that they are not insane, they must conjure up meaningless and untenable explanations. A true believer in an eternal God would, like Kierkegaard, take the leap into the absurd.
I agree with you that there is not one bit of independent and objective evidence, matters of facts or state of affairs that gives us, reasonable agents, the knowledge to conclude a supernatural entity is actualized. 
From Epistemology we understand S knows that p IFF: 1. S believes that p, 2. p is true, and 3, p is justified (JTB). In the case of Dick and Jack, they only have one of the three (belief) requirements. In other words they have no epistemic rights to the claim of a eternal God's existence.
1
Bob H's profile photodisastron30's profile photoLynne Atwater's profile photo
9 comments
 
disastron30
I didn't say that arrogance had anything at all to do with disbelief. 
I think that if you were to have stopped at the idea of one being certain of oneself you would have gotten a little closer to what arrogance can, sometimes can manifest itself.  However, when something is self-evident, I don't think it would be arrogant of one to simply state the obvious.  Would it be 'arrogant' of you to state, out loud and for all to hear, that you believed that you existed and that you were absolutely positively sure of that?   Just wondering.   Lynne
Add a comment...

Bob H

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Charles Watts was an English writer, lecturer and publisher, who was prominent in the secularist and free thought movements in both Britain and Canada. Here is an excerpt from his essay “Evolution and Special Creation” (1880). 

“if he (an infinite being) is infinite, he is everywhere if everywhere, he is in the universe; if in the universe now, he was always there. If he were always in the universe, there never was a time when the universe was not; therefore, it could never have been created.
If it be said that this being was not always in the universe, then there must have been a period when he occupied less space than he did subsequently. But "lesser" and "greater" cannot be applied to that which is eternally infinite. Further before we can recognize the soundness of the position taken by the advocates of special creation, we have to think of a time when there was no time -- of a place where there was no place. Is this possible? If it were, it would be interesting to learn where an infinite God was at that particular period, and how, in "no time," he could perform his creative act. Besides, if a being really exists who created all things, the obvious question at once is, "Where was this being before anything else existed?" "Was there a time when God over all was God over nothing? Can we believe that a God over nothing began to be out of nothing, and to create all things when there was nothing?" Moreover, if the universe was created, from what did it emanate? From nothing? But "from nothing, nothing can come." Was it created from something that already was? If so, it was no creation at all, but only a continuation of that which was in existence. Further, "creation needs action; to act is to use force; to use force implies the existence of something upon which that force can be used. But if that 'something' were there before creation, the act of creating was simply the reforming of preexisting materials.”

The believer in an infinite God can only justify the act of transformation or origination from energy everlasting.  Creation ex nihilo, or the direct act of special creation can only be an article of faith and not a subject of research or reason. 
1
Add a comment...

Bob H

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Hi Dr. Lynne,

The Catholic encyclopedia is available online. I have used it for understanding comments by the youtuber Fr. Robert Barron. Here is the entry for creation:  

http://newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm

It does not refute your argument. 

God's creating 'ex niliho' presupposes God. Therefore, the act of creation "begs the question".

Since your argument is a creating God is impossible, The theist's job is to prove that God exists. 

BH
1
Lynne Atwater's profile photo
 
Bob,

For some reason Google decided to place your last comment into its SPAM file therefore making it invisible to me.  Just in case that's what had happened, I looked there and voilà, there you were.  Got the message after all.  Thank you.  Lynne
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
1 person
Fox in the Know's profile photo

Bob H

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Immanuel Kant in his remarkable work “Critique of Pure Reason” tells us that existence is a second order predicate. Necessary exsistence is still a second order predicate. Necessary existence is not telling us anything new about God, but simply affirms concepts such as omnipotence. If there are such things as necessary beings that entails necessary existence. Necessary existence cannot be a postive property of God. 

From Ip's video necessary entities are such things as numbers (2), shapes (triangles), and some truths as in the truth of logic. Accordingly the number 2 and triangles exist in all possible worlds. The existence of these objects are an abstract concept. Plantinga's possible worlds semantics certainly argues for abstract objects to exist necessarily. However, most philosophers would not accept that the number 2 exists. The best that could be argued for is that the number 2 subsist. 
— The assertion about premise 1 is true in that something can be possible or impossible. If God is possible then God is necessary by definition. However, if necessary existence is entailed by the definition then God is defined into existence. The argument then collapse to one premise and a conclusion. (i) God has necessary existence by definition, (ii) God exists. The argument fails. Secondly, if the nature of God is to be a creator, then there is somethings that he is unable to create (his omnipotence fails to obtain), namely necessary objects (necessary existence) like the number 2 and squares. Therefore, a creating God is impossible. The argument fails. 
— If the notion of God is a Maximal Greatest Being, then premise 1 does not obtain. An MGB is either impossible or contingent. Relying on our friend Aristotle, there can only be a potential (contingent) Maximal properties, so it is not the case that MGB is necessary. The argument fails. Plantinga's property of being maximally great can be instantiated in some possible world w only if the actual world contains a being with omni-competent essences. Since the argument is trying to prove that a MGB exists in the actual world, the argument fails. In addition, Plantinga admits that there is a No-Maximal Greatness parody to his argument. Premise 1' (prime) states that it is not the case that it possible for maximal greatness to exists. Since we cannot know whether premise 1 or premise 1' obtains, the argument fails as a piece of natural theology.
1
Add a comment...

Bob H

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Here is my response to Ip's “Answers to objections (part duo)”.

The concept of God is a contradiction and therefore is impossible.

Some of the flaws in the MOA hypothesis:

1). Staying strictly with the four corners of the argument, the argument is valid for any mind-depend object of the imagination, therefore the argument can not be sound, even for something called God.

2). Necessity is not a predicate. Something is either possible (it is necessary or contingent) or impossible. Modal notions of possible would have to include contingencies ( it is not the cases that X is necessary). Necessary and contingencies are not properties, but states of affairs.

3). Knowledge and power are not compossible. For God to exists, she must engaged in causal processes. God is omnipotent. According to Swinburne “a person P is omnipotent at time t IFF P is able to bring about the existence of any logically contingent state of affairs”. However, according to your concept; for God to be omniscience, God  must be outside of time. Therefore, God is engaged in causal process (her divine act of will) that are outside of time, with effects that are temporal/spatial. This is untenable therefore,  God is impossible.


4). Arguing that God is logically necessary and metaphysically possible. According to possible world semantics metaphysical possibilities are contingencies. You have a concept of God that is necessary and contingent at the same time. This is a contradiction, and therefore impossible. 
1
Add a comment...

Bob H

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Lynne, et al

The contradiction (impossibility) argument is not that straight forward. The argument entails at least four circuitous dialectal inferences.

1. (Genesis 1.1 NIV) : “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.
Problem, the statement begs the question.
2. From 1, there is a first cause or first state of affairs (according to Aquinas, this we call God).
Problem, there is insufficient conditions, that make this factual, for example a valid and sound ontological and cosmological arguments for the existence of God.
3. From 1, it is implicit that God's creation is “creatio ex nihilo : creation out of nothing”.
Problem, creation is equivocal; (i) act of creation and (ii) the act of special (God's) creation. Condition (i) can be transformation while condition (ii) can not. 
4. Nothing is the privation of existence.
Discussion; From 4, God could not exist prior to creation, for God's existence depends upon creation.
Hence, the contradiction is between premise 3 and premise 4.

Objection:
Following Anselm, “The supreme Substance, then, does not exist through any efficient agent, and does not derive existence from any matter, and was not aided in being brought into existence by any external causes. Nevertheless, it by no means exists through nothing or derives existence from nothing; since, through itself and from itself, it is what it is” (Monologium). In words, then, God has a mode of existence of aseity.

Replies:
I answer that; How can that be? St. Anselm's ontological (No Greater Being) argument is a miserable failure, even Aquinas rejected it. Anything that can be considered a supreme Substance can exist from itself, for example a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Hence, Anselm's characterization is untenable.

Conclusion:
A God over nothing is impossible! A God over nothing that began from nothing, and creates all things when there is a privation of existence is logically absurd and metaphysically impossible.
1
Add a comment...

Bob H

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Hi, Dr. Lynne,

You have the patience of Job (pun intended). This video has been up for seven years with 16,500 comments. It must be your training in Psychology and as a professor that you tolerate such stupidity (excuse me, intellectually challenged) by the overwhelming majority of posters. I appreciate the level of integrity that you try to maintain in the comment section ( I could not do it). 

Bob
1
Lynne Atwater's profile photo
 
Bob H,

You are ever so kind to have written those words.  I found them most encouraging.  It's most uplifting to sense that there are those out there that understand what this video is about and agree with its approach.

I am now 73 and must admit that I can't remember any time during my 33 years of university teaching, ever being spoken to quite like I am frequently spoken to in this comment section.  Here in Europe, it is unthinkable to discuss any academic topic with a fellow student or teacher in such a fashion.  That said, I do feel responsible for answering those who take the time to post their comments; some of which are clearly emotional reactions to my proof rather than ones born of any sort of critical thinking process. I answer all comments the way I do simply because I'd like to set some sort of example although, I fear, such often falls on deaf ears.

I also want to thank you for your frequent well researched and clearly articulated rebuttals that you occasionally offer some of the videos participants.  It is most supportive to hear what you have to say and, I must confess, refreshing to hear how you sometimes say it.

Onward!  Lynne
Add a comment...

Bob H

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Michael A and to whom it may concern. Whats up with disabling replies?

>> as long as I don't repeat the conclusion as a premise, it isn't circular. 

P1. It is necessary for God to exist. 
Conclusion : God exists.

CIRCULAR to the max...

All that has been stated is: God exists, therefore God exists.

Ridiculous!
1
Add a comment...

Bob H

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
Since you have been talking up, P. Williams defense of the OA, I had a look-see.

About the 19:00 minute mark, Williams offers up the following syllogism:

1. If it is possible that God exists then God exists.

2. It is possible that God exists.

3. God exists.

Logically it is in the following form:

1. (P ⊃ Q)

2. P

3. /∴ Q

This is valid under the rules of inference, modus ponens.

Discussion:

William's states the P1 is true by definition. However, we don't know by who's definition. Philosophers such as Lewis, Quine and Armstrong would disagree about a necessary object, pace Plantinga. The true by definition can also be challenged if the definition is based on Axiom S5.

William's claims that the real problem is P2. His defense is that the idea of God is coherent. He goes on to say the concept of God is not incoherent in the since of a square circle. Anybody that already beliefs in God will accept P2 (circular?). Williams did not tells us under which system of modal logic that God is possible. Is it epistemic, metaphysical, logical, or what! Williams claims there is knowledge that supports P2. However, this is foundationalism and/or Plantinga's reformed epistemology. Skepticism has defeated both of these notions. William's completely ignored Everitt. Why? Because he knows that Everitt has a bullet proof case showing that God is impossible.

Just because the argument is valid does not make it sound. He claims that although the argument is suppose to be a priori, the conclusion has no a priori appeal. In order to find in truth in the conclusion he has to jump to a posteriori natural theology. This just shows that the OA is worthless and cannot stand on its own two feet. 

Williams does concede that Plantinga's argument only warranted a rationalization for believers in God. 

The claim that St. Anselm had two arguments, was not postulated until some apologist (Malcolm?) dug around because the original argument had so many objections.

Is the (M)OA arguments good for apologetics? Yes, if you believe in God. Is it meaningless? Yes, if you are an atheist.
1
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
1 person
Fox in the Know's profile photo
Links
YouTube
Basic Information
Gender
Male