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