With Richard Carrier

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

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.