If it is logically possible, then it follows that it is possible in some possible world.
It does not. Modal logic'll assume that it does, but modal logic has a very large flaw in that it assumes that anything that's not illogical must be possible and therefore exists somewhere. Modal logic is not infallible, mind you, and has not existed before the dawn of man, it is not timeless, and it is not entirely sound, and I think it's assumption that possibility means existence in some possible world or another is its biggest flaw. Logical possibility does not equal absolute possibility.(For we do not possess absolutely infallible logic.) Again. Infinite possibilities does not mean that all things are possible, and this includes all other possible realities where the laws of the universe are different.
Anyways, let me just sum up with brunt of my argument here: Humans are stupid. We don't know enough about anything to make any logical conclusions that are entirely sound. Modal logic isn't sound. We don't know enough about how other possibilities work and what keeps everything together to possibly have the logical confidence to make such grand assumptions.
Its because He is real and you don't want to accept that there is no contradiction.
And someone is getting tired of debating it seems like.
I think I'm going to stop. This was really fun for awhile, but I think we're at a brick wall here. Either way, I think I learned a little, so that's good. Thanks for talking with me, and I apologize if I insulted you in some fashion. Sometimes I do that in the heat of the moment.
Actually, yes it does. If God is not equivalent to a married-bachlor, then He is possible in some possible world.
Logically possible. Not scientifically possible. There's a difference.
God is either logically possible or logically impossible. There is no in between.
Logical possibility or impossibility. There is an in between. We don't have hard proof that he's scientifically possible or impossible. Without hard proof, everything comes down to logic, and logic can't prove god. It's a very convincing argument and it's interesting, but when it comes down to it, without accurately measuring the possibility of a maximal being, we're back down to logic. And modal logic is something of a peculiarity because it assumes that things that aren't logically incomprehensible must be possible. Logically possible. Key word being logic.
Anyways, assuming that something is possible because you can't prove that it's impossible is a good assumption to make, but a lot of people forget about the whole assuming that something isn't possible.
But.
God impossible or necessary?
He is, right now a logical possibility. But. Buuuut.
It's also not logically incomprehensible right now that god's impossible in all possible universes.
Furthermore, we don't have enough information to correctly make an entirely sound affirmative or negative. We don't have enough information to correctly know if he's logically incomprehensible or not.
Again, it's a cheap parlor trick because it makes the assumption that we know enough about our universe to know whether or not god is possible. We don't.
Yeah. The first premise assumes that god is possible. And we don't know that. Which means it's is a leap in logic.
He could be possible. He's not logically incomprehensible, but, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's possible. It's also possible that people find out that god is impossible.(With hard evidence, mind you.) You can't discredit that possibility. Despite his logical possibility, his logical impossibility can't be discredited. See. This argument uses a lot of really silly leaps in logic. By saying that god is in the gaps, and that we don't have to prove anything because nobody knows, it makes the argument moot. It's a lovely argument to pitch to people who don't have much of a brain.
Personally, I'm fairly on the fence here, and I'm not too afraid of death because I want to know where everything is going, but using cheap parlor tricks and twisting words and logic to make an argument that -seems- to stand on its own without any hard proof doesn't work on me.
I might not be able to entirely articulate what point I'm getting at, and if that's the case, I apologize, but the first premise of this argument is the reason it fails. It makes an assumption and tries to prove that assumption with its further premises. It's a ridiculous little anecdote, but ultimately, the argument is moot, because it doesn't prove anything. What I think I can compare it to the easiest is Pascal's Wager. Not that I'm saying the logic is the same, nor the point, but Pascal's Wager is one of those cheap arguments that tries to sway people, though it does it in a more direct and brutish manner.
Logic can't prove or disprove god. We're human, our thoughts are inherently flawed. Again, infinite possibilities does not necessarily mean that all things are possible. I'm a skeptical believer.
The argument, as philosophers, both theistic and atheistic, have agreed upon, can only be defeated at premise 1, which is whether God is possible or not. Hence, the only way to defeat it is to say that God is logically incomprehensible. If He is not logically incomprehensible, then He is real, by definition. Plantinga even admitted that this is up the the person to decide; however, in what way would He be illogical?
Nonsense! The first premise takes a leap in logic by assuming that such a maximal being is possible in any possible universe.
It's the burden of the person who makes the argument to prove that they are indeed possible. And then we get back into the classic argument of 'you can't prove that god isn't real' and 'well you can't prove that he is.'
It's not a very brilliant formula because it doesn't work, ya dork.
Possible because we don't currently possess the knowledge to prove or disprove his possibility.
Really this is a weird failure of language because it's possible for someone to develop cancer or catch a cold, etc, and we know why these things are possible because we can observe and measure these things.
We really don't have any tools for measuring the validity of a god. The idea here insists that god is possible? But what if it's possible that he's not possible? In any possible universe? You can't really discredit the possibility that god is simply an impossibility in all possible realities. Infinite possibilities doesn't necessarily translate to all things being possible, you see.
Or to put it another way, a maximal being doesn't necessarily have to be possible in one universe or any universe, and the current possibility of such a maximal being hinges solely on our inability to observe and accurately measure the possibility of such a being. Y'know, it's like there's multiple kinds possible.
It's really a silly train of logic, I think.
That's like. Communism. Almost. I mean it's kind of communism. It's at least y'know, economic communism or communismish. But I mean whatever you've gotta do -some- taxes at least and I'd rather be in a society where everyone is forced to work together than the lack of a society where people just shoot eachother and take what they want.
GROW A PAIR OF TESTICLES.
Or something similar. I dunno. If you really want to quit somethin', you'll quit it. And I imagine people are going to flail and weh about that but I have been chemically addicted to things before. And withdrawals are not fun but they are totes manageable.
So really the best way to fight an addiction is to not be a bitch about it.
Without employees, a company can't very well run. They're not going to get fifteen an hour because in this economy, people'd suck dick to get a job at Mickey Dee's, but the average worker deserves more pay. They're the foundation of the company that hired them. They do all of the pain in the ass menial day-to-day tasks that nobody else up the proverbial foodchain wants to do. I'm not saying they should be treated like royalty or have outrageous salaries, but fifteen bucks an hour isn't outrageous by any means.
Not that I'm saying people shouldn't try to better themselves, nor should they keep their criticisms to themselves, but ladies n' gents, especially around here, people tend to forget their own glaring flaws, in favor of pointing everyone else's. In the context of Christianity, there's definitely a lot of hypocritical statements and braggings of knowing what's right and what's wrong.
Or really, I guess my point is, really, pointing out what's wrong with what everyone else is doing in such an aggressive manner is just... kinda dickish.
Allow me to make a small amendment:
I said, "The main difference between homosexuality and all of these terrible things that people really shouldn't do..."
This statement also works:
"The main difference between heterosexuality and all of these terrible things that people really shouldn't do..."
Just sayin'.
It is. It's pretty terrible that I have to explain why, too. The main difference between homosexuality and all of these terrible things that people really shouldn't do, is that consensual sex between two consenting, adult males or females doesn't have any real negative consequences.(Actually, there's no risk of pregnancy! So even -less- consequences!) And I'm going to stop you right there, because one of you is going to bring up the idea of STDs. There's a difference between being a homosexual and being a slut. I need you to read the previous sentence and really grasp its meaning. Anyone can pass along STDs if they have them, and I understand that homosexuals are supposed to be more sexually active and promiscuous than straight individuals, but there's a whole subculture of straight punks who fuck like animals, too. And not every homosexual is looking to screw everything in sight.
Right. Let me continue here. Children can't be trusted to offer consent because children are generally innocent and don't know what the fuck they're doing. Sex can be mentally scarring and can fuck a kid up for life. They don't know any better.
Let's talk about Incest. Pregnancy from incest produces a more shallow genepool and can cause children to have serious birth defects and intensify disorders that are already present.(Although I will submit you don't really have a risk of pregnancy from gay incest, but I still really hope that's not a line people decide to cross. Eugh.)
Alright. So how about zoophilia. Or. However the fuck you spell it. Sex with animals. Animals don't really have the intelligence to offer consent, and they'll fuck anything offered if they're horny enough. I'm just going to say it's wrong because someone's taking advantage of something that can't offer consent, but it's also dangerous as hell. People have died trying to screw the wrong animal.(Or getting screwed by the wrong animal.)
Okay. So how about necrophilia? Desecration of a corpse? Yeah that's going to piss off some loved ones who'll want some retribution. Kind of a no-brainer. Although there's always the risk of catching a disease from a rotting corpse.
You can compare them if you want, I guess. But. There's no other reason to do it than to be a straight up dick or a bigot. I'm not going to answer any disputes on this wall of text, because you should really be ashamed of yourselves if you're really going to try to make a logical, reasonable person's dispute, and religious disputes just make me giggle.
Do I care what people on this site think of me? No, not really. I mean. This place is as bad as it gets. But in my life? With my friends and family, and with other communities I'm in? I'm positively terrified by leaving a bad impression or being excluded or knowing someone hates me or thinking someone hates me. It gets to the point where my anxiety is so overwhelming that I start to develop psychosomatic responses in the form of my heart literally hurting(A lot), loss of vision, shakier breathing, uncontrollable trembling. That kind of stuff. I've had to leave in the middle of college classes before. Which is. Frightfully embarrassing and only makes it worse later.
And I realize how stupid it is, but there's a disconnect between my emotions and my thoughts and I really haven't been able to mend it. It uh. It sucks. A lot.
Hey I did question the bible when I was a youngin'. Now I'm not Christian! Of course I'm... not athiest either but let me tell you that was a fun phase. It's a good thing my folks are heathen now because during that period of time? Whew. Talk about being disowned.
It's all a misunderstanding of language here. Possible means a lot of things. Admittedly, it's a lot easier to believe there's a super-powered being that exists out there that isn't maximal than one there is.
But my point is that the ontological argument is inherently flawed in that it presents possibility as reality,(As long as as that possibility is maximal) and there is more than one state of possibility. However, 'god' is only a possibility because we don't have the data to prove that he's impossible as opposed to other things that are possible that we have the data to confirm. Imagine there being an affirmative possibility and a negative possibility, and in the negative case, something only retains possibility because there isn't enough evidence to entirely disprove it, and things in the positive possibility are -absolutely- possible, because we have the data to confirm that they are possibilities.
It's not a matter of god being not-impossible, because there is a very strong chance that he -is- impossible. We just don't know. And because we don't know, the ontological argument is moot. Mostly because it assumes we -know-, that is, have the data to prove, god is a positive possibility.
Or some shit. I dunno. It's four in the morning and logic is stupid.
Or you could just say like, god's only possible right now because we don't have enough information to know if he's impossible or not. It's not the same kind of possibility as say, flipping a coin and getting heads. We have enough information to know that a coin can land on heads or tails, or in very rare and peculiar cases, on its side. Very different from possibility hinging on a lack of information.
I'm going to reword what I just said because I dunno if I'm making myself clear enough. The notion is usually that god exists because he's possible, right? But that's not true! Because we don't -know- if he's legitimately possible. The results of flipping a coin are all legitimate possibilities. However, we just know that he -might- be possible. We only put him under the possible category because we don't have enough information to prove or disprove him.
Drugs are too often merely a way of hiding the problem so that we can pretend it doesn't exist for a little longer.
S'what the CBT is for.
I'm far too tired to get into an argument over much anything else, but I'll say something along the lines of 'buyer beware.' And that the field of psychology is full of poor practices because the mind is a terribly hard thing to figure out.
The drugs do help people. It's a crutch. Not something people are meant to take forever, but something that helps them maintain their life while they seek real help.
Because advancing medical science in ways that could help save lives in the future is totally way fucked up. The stem-cell controversy was one of those things that was kind of a hilariously blatant smokescreen. It worked, too. Fuck I don't remember what was going on then in politics besides everyone being shocked that we could possibly use aborted embryos to try to save lives. No. We should y'know. Waste 'em instead. Much smarter. Way more beneficial.
In a perfect world, more people'd have the understanding and techniques to deal with mental problems without resorting to drugs. That being said, most parents these days are terrible and they should be held accountable for the things they sign their kids up to take. As for the big companies, they're not exactly doing anything wrong. They're providing quick fixes for people who want quick fixes.
From my personal experience, I have been on anti-depression and anxiety medication. But it disgusted me. I was happy when I was on them, yeah, but I couldn't think straight. And whenever I came down, it felt so bad. So. About four months after being on them, I just quit cold turkey. Which is, by the way, quite a ride. Moving my eyes caused jolts down my spine. Every little noise caused me to grow irritable, and I wanted to strangle anyone who said anything remotely stupid. And that went on for two weeks. Still. There are people out there who aren't as strong or as clever to deal with these problems. It's taken me years to come to terms with my depression. I'm never going to be an ecstatic and bubbly person. And I'm going to stay awake at night depressed and worried. But. That's my burden and I can handle it. Other, weaker people might blow their own brains out or shoot up a school.
Drug 'em up and inflict some cognitive behavioral therapy smackdowns on them.
Besides the added benefit of some lovely population control, I really don't think the government should be all too invasive when it comes to the needs and desires of the individual.
That being said, a lot of these drugs are outlawed because of what people who take them do to others. Although, strangely, alcohol is still legal. Not that I hate that. Boozin' is fun.
That's a touch tangential, because if I had implied that I want the army that's supposed to protect us to police the world, I certainly didn't mean to. I do believe that we need a standing army, yes. That's as far as my argument goes. I'm not going to get into american politics because it's a mess.
I hear thunder but, there's... no rain.
