Prof Bulani wrote: ↑
January 14th, 2020, 3:08 pm
If one of the premises for God's existence is that reality is such that the properties that God possesses do occur (in reality), then let's stick to that. The attributes ascribed to God can possibly occur in existing beings in reality. My assertion isn't that it is irrational for such attributes to occur only once. My argument is that it is irrational to argue that it isn't possible for these attributes to occur more than once. It may very well be that, under these circumstances, God exists. However, the assertion that such attributes can only occur once and never again in reality contradicts the argument that such attributes are in the category of things that exist as a whole, and moves to a single special case.
You've got me pulling my hair out. You're simply restating things you've already said before, and your argument that P above is P. Your argument for P can't be that P.
The claims that are made by God believers about God are actually logically incoherent to the claimants themselves. The logical coherence of a statement isn't a matter of subjectivity. That's not how logic works.
I'm not a realist on logic, so yeah, on my view that's how it works. At any rate, there are two senses of "incoherent" we can be talking about. One sense, which is what you might be thinking of, is that something results in a logical contradiction. In that case you need to show that it actually results in a contradiction, and then you have to hope that your opponent isn't endorsing some species of paraconsistent logic.
The other sense is the notion that something can't be made heads or tails of--it amounts to semantic gobbledygook, it's literally inconceivable, etc. That sense is obviously subjective, even if one is a realist on logic.
Again, I disagree. A person who believes a logically inconsistent claim does not believe that their claim is coherent.
They're either not going to agree that it's logically inconsistent or they'll say that logical inconsistency isn't a problem, perhaps because they're endorsing some species of paraconsistent logic.
When I speak of proving that God exists, I'm speaking in logical terms.
Which I address in what you're quoting: "logical proofs hinge on the particular species and system of logic being used--they're only relevant to something we construct, insofar as we construct it . . it has a degree of arbitrariness to it"
I trust that you're not arguing that logic is arbitrary (even though you seemed to imply earlier that logic is subjective, which it is not).
It's not arbitrary in the sense of being completely random, but yes, it's subjective. It's how an individual happens to reason about implicational relations.