Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
72 online now:
anglagard, jar, kjsimons, Michael MD, PaulK (5 members, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,321 Year: 5,967/14,102 Month: 115/438 Week: 47/112 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ontological arguments - where's the beef?
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 17 of 74 (632148)
09-06-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Modulous
09-05-2011 4:48 PM


Re: my short response:
I can provide proof that it is possible to draw a King of Hearts from a standard deck of cards. Can anyone provide similar proof that an MGB could exist?

Are you suggesting that anything that we can't provide proof for exists in the realm of not being possible until it has been done? That seems an odd position to take, but ok.

I guess I can think of a whole heck of a lot of things that you can't prove are possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 09-05-2011 4:48 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 09-06-2011 3:19 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 28 by Modulous, posted 09-06-2011 10:27 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 18 of 74 (632149)
09-06-2011 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Modulous
09-05-2011 4:48 PM


Re: my short response:
I should think then, by your terms, that things exist as either proven or not, and the whole use of the word "possible" is pointless. Its would become a meaningless idea. The word impossible could still be used, but there would be no need for the word possible at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 09-05-2011 4:48 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 09-06-2011 12:56 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 20 of 74 (632176)
09-06-2011 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
09-06-2011 3:19 AM


Re: my short response:
Stacking ten Mazda sedans on top of each other. Eating four bananas, three cherries and one small mango in exactly 4 minutes and 23 seconds. Singing three verses of Fiddler on the Roof while standing within four meters of the Grand Canyon....

Do you need me to go on?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 09-06-2011 3:19 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Larni, posted 09-06-2011 8:20 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 22 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 8:22 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 23 of 74 (632186)
09-06-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Larni
09-06-2011 8:20 AM


Re: my short response:
Hold on a second, not only are you confusing the argument by throwing in unnecessary qualifiers, but if you were more careful about the reading of Modulous statement that I was replying to, he mentioned specifically an ACTIVITY! The concept of "things" being impossible but "activities" being possible is YOUR dichotomy, not his, and I frankly don't know why you are attempting to make some distinction. If Mod wanted to say that there can be the possibility of something occurring without evidence, but there can't be the possibility of something existing without evidence, than this is an entirely different argument for him to make. But disregarding that, you are still all over the place with this reply.

There is no evidence (according to Mod's point) that one can or can not stack 10 Mazadas on top of each other. Therefore it can not be assumed to be possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Larni, posted 09-06-2011 8:20 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Larni, posted 09-06-2011 9:24 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Larni, posted 09-06-2011 9:27 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 24 of 74 (632187)
09-06-2011 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Panda
09-06-2011 8:22 AM


Re: my short response:
Oh Panda, I am so sorry for you that you are unable to see a philosophical point. there is little that can be done for you in that case I am afraid.

I will give Modulous credit for being smart enough able to see the mental conundrum of not being able to say anything is possible until it is proven to be so-in his reasoning.

Your reply has no meaning however.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 8:22 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 9:43 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 30 of 74 (632205)
09-06-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Modulous
09-06-2011 10:27 AM


Re: my short response:
No. I'm suggesting that if one asserts something is possible, one needs to support that it is in fact possible with evidence.

What evidence could one give of something being possible, without actually demonstrating something to be? If you have already shown something to "be" why would one need the redundant concept of "being possible" when the definition you are presenting for being possible is showing that it IS?

"Possible" becomes a moot point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Modulous, posted 09-06-2011 10:27 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 09-06-2011 11:09 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2011 11:20 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 09-06-2011 12:48 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 55 of 74 (632401)
09-07-2011 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Modulous
09-07-2011 11:27 AM


possible=shown?
By your terms, NOTHING is possible unless it is shown. How do you know it is possible for you to draw a King of Hearts until you do it? And for that matter you don't know if its possible for you to draw a King of Hearts from a deck of cards ever again. Maybe it is no longer possible. Maybe you can only draw a King of hearts 3 times and then after that it is impossible.

You are basing your definition of possible on having seen it or done it before. That means everything that you have not seen or done before is not possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 09-07-2011 11:27 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2011 9:22 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 09-07-2011 10:19 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2011 11:12 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021