Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl: September 2018

Saturday, 8 September 2018

Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ...

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Richard Carrier · Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ... · somewhere else : Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God? · Various Responses to Carrier · A Fault in Carrier's Logic Perception

Me to Carrier
as in previous: btw, see you tomorrow, time is close to up in the library
Carrier to me: You do realize that this doesn't work right? That if you start with a premise "maybe x," you only get a conclusion "maybe y" not a conclusion "y"? And maybe "y" isn't anywhere near "probably y" and if you don;'t have "probably y" you have no reason to believe y. This is true of every possible y. Every God. Every sorcerer. Every statement being false. Every statement being true. Even "maybe we are on the back of a giant turtle and aliens are hiding it from us" and "maybe we are in The Matrix" and "maybe solipsism is true and only you exist" and so on. Maybe is not an argument. It proves everything and consequently justifies nothing. That's why no one needs to respond to it.

I have a logical demonstration. You do not. That's the difference between us. It's the same difference between someone who claims "maybe 1+1=3" and someone who claims it's been formally proven that 1+1=2.
Me to Carrier
mar 20:04: // You do realize that this doesn't work right? That if you start with a premise "maybe x," you only get a conclusion "maybe y" not a conclusion "y"? //

Would you mind rereading and informing me when you have done so, Mr. Strawman?

You were trying to demonstrate, a hypothetic nothing would produce lots of universes without God.

BUT you weakened "nothing" to "nothing except what is logically necessary".

If that is even "maybe God" you can't have a certainty "nothing" would produce universes without God, since you cannot exclude that "nothing except what is logically necessary" actually means God.

Now, re-read, admit that is what I was saying, and adapt your answer to THAT, not to the strawman you like to replace for it!
Carrier to me: Wow. I can't believe you are this dense. "Gravity explains the motion of the planets." "Maybe it doesn't, because angels do it. It's possible! Therefore you cannot conclude gravity causes it." "We have logically demonstrated that 1+1=2." "Maybe some hypothetical future logical demonstration will prove 1+1 doesn't = 2. It's possible! Therefore you cannot conclude it has been logically demonstrated or even that it's true that 1+1=2!" "Fermat's Last Theorem has been formally proven." "Maybe there is an error in the proof, some logically necessary fact we don't yet know about that entails the theorem is false. It's possible! Therefore Fermat's Last Theorem has not been formally proven and we shouldn't believe it's true." And on and on. This is how you are arguing. It's the stupidest argument on the planet. Because it entails you should deny all knowledge, because "maybe" some unknown fact refutes it. It displays total ignorance of how logic works, how probability works, how knowledge works, and how sanity works.
Me to Carrier
mer 10:37: I am sorry, but you WERE trying to respond to "ex nihilo nihil fit" -> there is a necessary existence -> which we call God.

Now, in responding, you are first weakening "nihil" to "nihil praeter quod logice necessarie", and you have not excluded God from being that. That is what I pointed out and what you need responding to.

Bc if you don't, you have simply provided no such atheist solution as you were pretending to.

It seems the density is not really on my side, if there is any density which would be dangerous in swimming. It could of course be just a let's pretend on your side.
Carrier to me
mer 20:08: I haven't excluded Dr. Who or a magical rabbit from necessary beings either. Or literally every other thing. Because everything "could be" logically necessary. It is useless to thus propose it. You can't challenge a logical demonstration by just saying it "could be" wrong. You have to prove it wrong. Otherwise, it stands as proved. That's how logic works.
Me to Carrier
mer 22:02: I am not challenging the demonstration.

I am only saying it has a side you did not count on.

The PURPOSE of the demonstration, as you made it was to show a possibility of nothing leading to everything without God.

With literally nothing, as in nothing, not even the logically necessary, that would automatically have excluded God.

But with the logically necessary NOT excluded, you have indeed shown a way in which "nothing" (of sorts) could lead to everything, but you have not shown what you intended to, that it could happen without God.
Carrier to me: "I am only saying it has a side you did not count on." And that's a useless statement. I also "didn't count on" Dr. Who being a necessary being. Or a magical rabbit being a necessary being. Or a pair of rollerskates being a necessary being. Or Krauss's physical quantum singularity being a necessary being. And so on. This is a useless observation. Because you can't rebut any logical proof, by merely saying "maybe" someday we will find a refutation of it.

And yes, I DO prove the outcome happens without God! Show where God MUST be in any premise, for the conclusion to arise. Not could be. MUST be. Otherwise, you have no argument.
Me to Carrier: Doctor Who not being counted on would have been relevant in case your argument had been to prove non-necessity of Dr Who existing.

In order to prove it happens without God, it is you who have to show God is NOT there incognito in the starting point.

And THAT was the exact and only thing I pointed out in my article.
Carrier to me: No. I show that given the numbered premises, the conclusion follows. You have NOT shown that God is REQUIRED for that conclusion. Therefore I have proved that ON PRESENT KNOWLEDGE God is not required. You can speculate as to future knowledge; but speculations aren't facts, and can't trump logically demonstrated conclusions.
Me to Carrier: "I show that given the numbered premises, the conclusion follows."

I did not contest your conclusion.

Your conclusion is not atheistic.

THAT is what I showed.
Carrier to me: No. You didn't.

You said "maybe the conclusion is wrong." That's not a refutation. It's just an undemonstrated possibility. That refutes all knowledge, and therefore cannot be a valid principle of forming knowledge.
Me to Carrier: You're about as dense as a falt earther saying the claim Flood covered all earth proves Earth was flat - since water always gets to a flat level.

If water instead actually gets to a level which is a fraction of a globe surface with the radius 4000 miles or 6000 km and some more down, the claim he makes doesn't prove earth flat.

In other words, his conclusion is faultless, except he misunderstands one of the premisses. To be a perfect parallel to you, he would of course have to leave unstated that water always gets to a flat level and leave unstated that the conclusion he envisages involves earth being flat.

// You said "maybe the conclusion is wrong." That's not a refutation. //

I checked both my articles and I did not say that the conclusion, as in proposition 8, was wrong.

Learn to read, before you argue against sth you misread.
Carrier to me: Holy crap man. We can only disprove the flat earther's point because we can actually prove something. We don't just say "well, maybe there is some way unknown to us that water isn't always level in that sense." We actually KNOW the way, and can prove it. You are not doing that. You have NO PROOF that God is a necessary being or is at all needed to read my conclusion.

You are literally acting like someone who says "well, maybe we are deceived in this and water actually can't act any other way than the flat earther says, therefore we should believe the earth is flat."

In short: "Maybe" is simply NOT an argument. For anything.
Me to Carrier: No, I am not acting like that, you are acting like someone who cannot read - even your own article.

Your proposition 8 reads:

"Proposition 8: If every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing has an equal probability of occurring, then every logically possible number of universes that can appear has an equal probability of occurring."

Not one trace of showing that any universe or the nothing before the universes which is "nothing except what is logically necessary" actually is without the monotheistic God.
Carrier to me: Sigh. No, you are the one not listening. YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN that Prop 8 includes God. Therefore, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. Claiming "maybe it includes God, we don't know; therefore the conclusion is wrong" is IDENTICAL to claiming "maybe water actually can't act any other way than the flat earther says; therefore our conclusion the earth is round is wrong."
Me to Carrier: You were the one making a claim, you are the one who needs to show propositions 1 to 8 do NOT include God under the alias "what is logically necessary".

Also, you have forgotten that even your conclusion, proposition 8, is not atheistic.

// Claiming "maybe it includes God, we don't know; therefore the conclusion is wrong" //

Not what I claimed.

// is IDENTICAL //

I'll deal with identical to what I actually claimed.

// to claiming "maybe water actually can't act any other way than the flat earther says; therefore our conclusion the earth is round is wrong." //

That would be the case if I had reached the conclusion of earth being round only by dealing with water surface during the Flood. I obviously have other arguments for why the Earth is round.
Carrier to me: All you have ever said is that it is "possible" (that means, "maybe") God is a necessary being. But as you have never shown that to be true, the possibility is irrelevant. As irrelevant as the possibility the flat earther is right about water.

Bottom line: you can NEVER---not ever, ever, ever---refute ANY logical demonstration, by claiming "maybe" there is some as-yet unproven fact that contradicts it.
Me to Carrier: And you can never debunk anyone by not reading what he claims to have done.

I never claimed to have REFUTED you, I claimed your 8 propositions are ALL of them, including conclusion, fully compatible with Theism.
Carrier to me: Which is a vacuous statement.
Me to Carrier: If all observations result without a god, the mere possibility there could yet still be a god, is useless. Because we still have no evidence there is a god, but all the evidence we need that everything can be explained without a god.

you did not show ANY of them resulted without the monotheistic God.
Carrier to me: YES I DID.

The logical demonstration follows with LOGICAL NECESSITY from the premises, and NONE of the premises REQUIRE God to exist.

That's how logical demonstration works.

We don't need god. Period. Proved.

And you have no disproof.
Me to Carrier: None of the premisses shows God not to be involved in its terms.
Carrier to me: Yes, all of them lack any reference to God. You would have to prove one entails God. Otherwise, no God is required. Period.

You can't argue "maybe one entails God, but I have no knowledge it does because I have no proof it does, therefore I can assume one does." Invalid.

That's formally called a non seqitur.

Logic.

Learn it.

Live it.
Me to Carrier: "And you have no disproof."

What I have or not is not on the topic here. My topic right now is whether you can read your own argument and my comment on it or you persist in misreading both.

"Yes, all of them lack any reference to God."

On the contrary, each involves what could very clearly be a reference to God.

Hence, none of them shows and the conclusion, while correct (!) also doesn't show God's being absent from the result.

Before you can do logic, you need to do grammar.
Carrier to me: "could be" is just a synonym of "maybe." Maybe is not an argument. No argument can be refuted with a maybe. It's a non-argument. Hence requires no reply. That's the issue here.

Until you show God IS in the result, I HAVE shown God is absent in the result. Because NONE of the premises require a god in them to get the result. Proved. You cannot claim they "cannot" have done this, because they just did. And you cannot claim they can "only" have done this if God is in them, because you have ZERO EVIDENCE that's true. "Maybe he could be in there somewhere" is not evidence he is. It's therefore a non argument. You have proved nothing. I have proved what I proved. Same as all logical proofs of anything ever.
Me to Carrier: "Until you show God IS in the result, I HAVE shown God is absent in the result. Because NONE of the premises require a god in them to get the result."

Distinguo.

None of the premisses or results require the monotheistic God identified as such.

All of them may very well require Him as "what is logically necessary" or "what cannot not exist" - sth which you all along admitted was required.
Carrier to me: Which is not an argument against anything I demonstrated. Thus requires no response.
Me to Carrier
jeu 08:16: If you think your demonstration is all there is to it and has no context like your supposing it supports atheism ...
Carrier to me
jeu 15:23: That sentence is unintelligible.
Me to Carrier
jeu 16:58: If it is an independent sentence, rather than a clause completing yours.
Carrier to me
jeu 20:42: It's still unintelligible.
Me to Carrier
ven 11:48: I am sorry, but you seem to have reading disabilities, somewhat.

Never mind, people say the King of Sweden shares that condition ...

Now, for a more serious proposal.

Here are your 8 propositions as you stated them, as I copied them onto my blog post:

* Proposition 1: That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen. * Proposition 2: The most nothingly state of nothing that can ever obtain, is a state of affairs of zero size lacking all properties and contents, except that which is logically necessary. * Proposition 3: If there was ever Nothing, then nothing governs or dictates what will become of that Nothing, other than what is logically necessary. * Proposition 4: If nothing governs or dictates what will become of Nothing (other than what is logically necessary), then nothing (other than what is logically necessary) prevents anything from happening to that Nothing. * Proposition 5: Every separate thing that can logically possibly happen when there is Nothing (other than Nothing remaining nothing) entails the appearance of a universe. * Proposition 6: If there is Nothing, then there is nothing to limit the number of universes that can logically possibly appear. * Proposition 7: If nothing (except logical necessity) prevents anything from happening to Nothing, then every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing has an equal probability of occurring. * Proposition 8: If every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing has an equal probability of occurring, then every logically possible number of universes that can appear has an equal probability of occurring.

I maintain that they are ambiguous as to inclusion or exclusion of God from being identical to "logical necessity".

Would you mind restating them in such a way as to remove that ambiguity?

Bc, I would, after dealing with the 8 propositions as you stated them and giving one interpretation of them, also like to deal with them as you understand them yourself, specifically as to exclusion of God from identity with "logical necessity".

That would, contrary to previous exchanges involve an obligation on my part to defend that God is indeed not just logically necessary, but THE logical necessity.
Carrier to me
ven 18:57: You still don’t get it. All you are saying is “maybe.” That argues nothing. So far as we know, my conclusion follows. Saying “maybe there’s something we don’t know” does not change the conclusion. Because the conclusion is “so far as we know.” And that remains the case. Thus you have no argument other than ignorance.
Me to Carrier
10:18: No, the 8 propositions are NOT "as far as we know without God".

The point is, whether the necessary being is or is not God (but something else) is a disputed question.

And this question is on your part left unresolved at the start and therefore also at the end.

I was asking you, since you pretend this to be an argument for atheism, to restate the 8 propositions in such a way as to make it clear that in the hypothesis God is excluded.
Me to Carrier, again
16:03: Oh, btw, I am here repairing an omission in previous exchange:

somewhere else : A Fault in Carrier's Logic Perception
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-fault-in-carriers-logic-perception.html

Tuesday, 4 September 2018

With Richard Carrier

I

Me to Carrier

05/07/2016 13:13

If you do not want to give your home adress, fine, in your situation it is understandable.

I'd like to get an adress to which I could snail-mail a copy of my self printed booklet "Can We Reasonably Trust the Gospels - YES!"

It includes refutations to points you have made over internet, e g I think a video I saw with you.

So you should be notified.

If you do not want the booklet, fine, I can send you links instead.

I like your "equal non-exclusive rights" clause.

When I write own essays, (even when quoting and refuting someone), my own coonditions for anyone wanting to reuse material (including commercially) is non-exclusive general licence.

When I debate, and mirror debate on my blogs, I obviously presuppose my opponent shall have exactly the same right as I to mirror debate on his blog.

I don't do "public" as in oral debates, so any debate over internet between us would fall outside the scope of your other conditions.

Carrier (to me)

05/07/2016 14:58

Richard Carrier a accepté votre demande.

II

Me to Carrier

20/09/2016 12:06

Notification of refutation:

Fact Check Alert, Mr Carrier! Fact Check Alert!
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2016/09/fact-check-alert-mr-carrier-fact-check.html

III

Me to Carrier

jeu 15:36 *

Answering your curiosity from 15 hours ago:

Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God?
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2018/08/two-observations-carrier-what-if.html

Carrier to me

jeu 18:09

Is that just another ontological argument for an ultra complex disembodied super mind? Really? You didn’t read my article or any of its links on that, did you? You know those ontological arguments never work, right? They always commit the existential fallacy somewhere in their machinery. Everyone knows this.

Me to Carrier

ven 09:13

What is "ultra complex" about mind?

As for reading your article, I did not read all of it, but copied the 8 propositions.

You may be free to expose on what "'existential fallacy is".

As for "everyone knows this" - that is an appeal to snobbery, therefore in philosophy a fallacy.

Carrier to me

ven 17:52

No, "everyone knows this" is shown by every standard reference on the Ontological Argument: e.g. Stanford Encyclopedia: "Any reading of any ontological argument which has been produced so far which is sufficiently clearly stated to admit of evaluation yields a result which is invalid, or possesses a set of premises which it is clear in advance that no reasonable, reflective, well-informed, etc. non-theists will accept, or has a benign conclusion which has no religious significance, or else falls prey to more than one of the above failings."

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : Ontological Arguments
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

In fact I've filled out my response here:

Richard Carrier August 31, 2018, 12:01 pm
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14486#comment-26558

[I missed this latter point]

Me to Carrier

sam 17:44

OK, you do philosophical arguments by Stanford?

Btw, "ontological" - isn't that Pascal and Descartes?

Carrier to me

I don't know what either of those questions mean.

Me to Carrier

dim 19:20

Question a means, do you let Stanford dictionary decide philosophical questions for you? That would be a bit like a Protestant using Strong to determine battologein means "say with repetitions" in Matthew 6:7.

Question b means, isn't ontological rather the argument that the most perfect thing would lack the perfection of being and therefore not be the most perfect thing if there was no most perfec thing? As Pascal and Descartes put it.

Bc this is not what I argued.

Carrier to me

You asked how I know philosophers others agree the ontological argument is a failure. I quoted you a mainstream reference that established the fact because that’s what you asked for. I don’t have to rely on the source myself because I have already by myself checked and directly confirmed the fact that all onto args are fallacious. And if you would actually read the source i pointed you to it would answer your question b. Your question only exposes your ignorance in this matter. You clearly haven’t studied it.

Me to Carrier

lun 10:55

"You asked how I know philosophers others agree the ontological argument is a failure."

No, I asked how you could say such a thing as "everyone knows this".

"I quoted you a mainstream reference that established the fact because that’s what you asked for."

Not quite, no. I weigh my words on gold balances, feel free to do so too.

In fact, it seems you confirmed what I thought about question B.

You actually did reduce my argument to sth equivalent to: "God is a being which has every perfection. (This is true as a matter of definition.) Existence is a perfection. Hence God exists."

Now, the problem is, you did not read my actual argument, if you think the dismissal of ontological argument answers it.

I gave TWO observations, one for Pagans like you :

1) supposing nothing really had given rise to any number of universes - how can you exclude us living in a theistic or polytheistic one? One where the "big bang" moment was the emergence of a god from that nothing?
2) supposing "necessarily existing" involves God?

Now, I had not given any specific argument as to how I could argue that God = necessarily existing and necessarily existing = God. I had not specified an Anselmian argument as per your link as my reason for that.

In fact, I had as not giving any reason simply challenged you how you could exclude this from being true.

"The necessary existence necessarily exists. The necessary existence is God. Therefore God necessarily exists"

It is at least as plausible as

"The necessary existence necessarily exists. The necessary existence is spacetime and particles. Therefore spacetime and particles necessarily exist."

"Fin de la discussion"

jeu - lun = Thursday to Monday, 30.VIII - 3.IX.2018

IV

Update(s)

Me to Carrier

15:33 (4.IX.2018)

Notification:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Richard Carrier
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/09/with-richard-carrier.html

and

somewhere else : Various Responses to Carrier
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2018/09/various-responses-to-carrier.html

Carrier to me

Dude. Read the source I pointed you to. Not every ontological argument takes that form, nor comes from the people you name, and "everyone knows" is a fair description of what is reported in standard references in a field anyone who claims to know what they're talking about should be familiar with. And there is no such thing as "at least as plausible" being a logical demonstration that necessarily something is so. Hence you don't know how to logically demonstrate something. You can't even tell the difference between conditionals ("if we grant x, then y satisfies x") and direct statements of fact ("not possibly, but actually, x is a necessary being"), and don't even know that a possibility is not a probability, or how to get a probability out of a possibility. In short, you are wildly ignorant here, and you need to learn a lot of things before you can do anything useful in the domain of logic. Much less theology.

Me to Carrier

// "everyone knows" is a fair description of what is reported in standard references //

Unless the standard references are in fact biassed due to a bias in today's culture.

To me, St Thomas Aquinas is a standard reference.

// And there is no such thing as "at least as plausible" being a logical demonstration that necessarily something is so. //

1) X is necessarily existent;
2) A is at least as plausible as B as identification of X.

I did not pretend to logically demonstrate A is necessarily existent, that is beyond the scope of my post.

I challenged you with a "what if".

// Hence you don't know how to logically demonstrate something. //

Dixit strawmannus maximus ...

// You can't even tell the difference between conditionals ("if we grant x, then y satisfies x") and direct statements of fact ("not possibly, but actually, x is a necessary being"), //

I most certainly can, except you seem to have a momentary difficulty in reading ... it is momentary, right?

// don't even know that a possibility is not a probability, or how to get a probability out of a possibility. //

A zero probability is an impossibility.

A possibility therefore involves a non-zero probability.

I suppose you follow some system by-passing this somehow ...

// In short, you are wildly ignorant here //

I'm more or less as ignorant about your atheistic system as you are about Thomism ... perhaps rather less.

// and you need to learn a lot of things before you can do anything useful in the domain of logic. Much less theology. //

I've seen this attitude before. I don't like it.

But I do like the occasion of showing you deal with me with attitude rather than good logic.

Carrier to me

OMG. 😅 You really do suck at philosophy if you think standard references in philosophy are biased and prefer obsolete Medieval superstitious nutcases whose nearly every declaration has been proved false since. That tells us all we need to know about you.

Me to Carrier

OK, you just branded yourself as a Barbarian.

Carrier to me

And my point is, a "what if" does not challenge the argument of my article. Because my article is about probabilities and conditionals. That you don't know this, and still don't get it, testifies to how badly you suck at this.

Actually, you are closer to barbarians. You trust Medieval claptrap over the entirety of modern science and philosophy.

Which just confirms what I said: you don't know what you are talking about here. You are unfamiliar with the state of the field on all the questions you raise.

Me to Carrier

// And my point is, a "what if" does not challenge the argument of my article. //

Was I challenging your argument?

No, I was challenging what you thought it implied.

// Actually, you are closer to barbarians. //

Not by ignorance of civilisation, at least.

// You trust Medieval claptrap over the entirety of modern science and philosophy. //

Misusing "entirety" as much as previously you were misusing "everyone", thank you.

// You are unfamiliar with the state of the field on all the questions you raise. //

A "state of the field" brought about by people unfamiliar with the state of the field as per after St Thomas Aquinas, and a few more ... partly.

But I am waiting for a reasoned response, not for more semi-abuse. Perhaps I shouldn't hold my breath, though ...

In fact, after reading through Stanford article, which I did not do till now, it does not stamp either my article or Tertia Via as an ontological argument.

Carrier to me

That you don't know the difference between implied and demonstrated, and don't know how to actually correctly challenge a logical demonstration, is why you don't know what you are doing. Your challenge does not challenge the argument at all. And that you don't understand that, still now, just further demonstrates your incompetence.

And indeed that you didn't grasp the basic point that any argument claiming God is logically necessary IS an ontological argument, and that if you can't demonstrate it, it has no weight against a conditional starting with Nothing, is more and more proof of your incompetence.

Me to Carrier

"and don't know how to actually correctly challenge a logical demonstration,"

Apart from your abusive tone, one challenge on your article is the oblique one : showing your forgot an angle.

Which is what I did.

You have so far given no refutation of my points in the article, but a lot of abuse.

"the basic point that any argument claiming God is logically necessary IS an ontological argument,"

That is not what your own reference actually said.

You have just shown your incompetence in reading.

Or perhaps your competence in tactics : you prefer proving my incompetence over proving my argument wrong.

I think that classifies as an ad hominem.

Carrier to me

Dude, you have not challenged the truth of any premise (any numbered proposition) nor any step from one to the other. You have not therefore shown any flaw in my argument. Until you do, there is nothing in your article I ever need reply to. It's just embarrassing that you don't even understand this!

Me to Carrier

"Dude, you have not challenged the truth of any premise (any numbered proposition)"

I did not need to.

You forgot that each numbered proposition could have a Theistic interpretation, and I pointed that out.

Now YOU need to exclude this one.

"You have not therefore shown any flaw in my argument."

I don't think your argument is flawed. I think it is brilliant - it is just more Theistic than you thought (at least potentially at least until you have proven that "God is in fact the necessary existance" is a false proposition).

"Until you do, there is nothing in your article I ever need reply to."

Of course, you don't actually NEED to reply to the fact that your whole argument leaves a whole side open for Theism ... it is up to you.

Carrier to me

Um. Dude. That's not how logic works. 😅

The premises are either false or true. There is no "interpretation." That entails a fallacy, if you interpret them differently from one step to the next. So if you see an interpretation that makes a premise ambiguous, it identifies a fallacy in my argument. So tell me which numbered proposition is ambiguous enough to create a fallacy in my argument.

Me to Carrier

"That entails a fallacy, if you interpret them differently from one step to the next."

No, it is not a Quaternio Terminorum to CONSISTENTLY interpret the term "what is impossible not to exist" as God.

"So tell me which numbered proposition is ambiguous enough to create a fallacy in my argument."

Except as an argument for atheism, there is no fallacy in your argument.

As to it being an argument for atheism, each of them, starting with the first one.

You have consistently considered as self-evident that "necessary existance" or "that which would be logically contradictory not to exist" is not just verbally, but realiter, in the things considered, distinct from God.

Carrier to me

Which numbered proposition. Call it. Pick one. Which one "allows" theism through some reinterpretation without creating a fallacy? Identify by number the proposition, and explain how it is ambiguous as you claim. Or GTFO.

Me to Carrier

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8.

As you told me to pick one, 1.

"That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen." = "Nevertheless, the very notion that logically necessary things necessarily exist, necessarily entails logically impossible things never exist."

You forgot the possibility that, realiter, independently of your status in investigation, God could be a logically necessary thing.

In other words, you dismissed the possibility as "a version of the ontological argument" which Stanford doesn't.

Carrier to me

The possibility is irrelevant. If you can't demonstrate God IS a necessary being, the possibility has no effect on the argument. Because that's how logic works you dumbass. You can't refute all mathematics by claiming it's "possible" it's all contradictory. Even 1+1=2 "it's possible it's a contradiction, therefore we should conclude it's false" is simply NOT how logic works. For that or anything else. To refute a logical demonstration, you need to present A LOGICAL DEMONSTRATION. Until you do, we have a logical demonstration and you do not. That's how logic works.

Me to Carrier

"If you can't demonstrate God IS a necessary being, the possibility has no effect on the argument"

False.

I was NOT pretending to refuse any of your propositions. I was simply asking "what if God IS not a but THE necessary being" and concluding that given that all of your propositions are fully Orthodox.

Now it is up to you to show why this identification doesn't work.

If you challenge me to show the reverse, well, you were making a claim, so you have a "burden of proof" (on your rules). But also, St Thomas aquinas already did so. Third way in I, Q 2, A3 AND a lot of subsequent articles showing the five ways actually do point to a personal God.

As long as you have not "cleared this", the possibility has a huge effect on your argument.

"You can't refute all mathematics by claiming it's "possible" it's all contradictory."

I wasn't attempting to refute all mathematics, and I was not claiming it was possible mathematics were contradictory.

I was mentioning it is possible absence of God could be a contradiction - a possibility outlined as a necessity by others, in fact, not just a very wild what if.

So, your parallel is a non-parallel. You still merit the sobriquet Strawmannus Maximus.

"To refute a logical demonstration, you need to present A LOGICAL DEMONSTRATION."

Yes, but I was precisely not trying to refute the part which was a logical demonstration. I was just reminding of the thing you were NOT demonstrating, but taking for granted.

You have a logical demonstration, but you have so far not shown it is one of atheism.

Pages

Saturday, 8 September 2018

Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ...

Tuesday, 4 September 2018

With Richard Carrier