List:
The principle of charity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)
is that we do not treat any author's writings as self-contradictory unless
it is utterly unavoidable to do so. As I observe at the end of section 4 in
"A Neglected Additament," it is evident from CP 6.490 and other
contemporaneous manuscripts that Peirce did not *change *his basic
cosmology between 1887-8 and 1908; he simply *clarified *that God as *Ens
necessarium*, "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience," is
indispensable to it.
Again, there is nothing *fallacious *about any of the simple arguments that
I have posted in this thread--they are all deductively *valid*--but I agree
that, as always, their *soundness *depends on the *truth *of their
premisses. For example, the first premiss below ("If horses exist, then
unicorns exist") is false, so the subsequent conclusion ("unicorns exist")
is also false, even though the argument is deductively valid.
As I said before, the *persuasiveness *of ontological arguments depends
entirely on the *plausibility *of their metaphysical premisses. I do not
know what is meant below by "the merger of 'possible' and 'necessary,'" but
in modal logic, they are always *interdefined--*"possibly" is logically
equivalent to "not necessarily not," and "necessarily" is logically
equivalent to "not possibly not." With that in mind, an atheist could offer
the following unambiguous ontological argument for the *non-reality* of God.
P3d. If God is possibly real, then God is not possibly not real.
P4. God is possibly not real.
C3. Therefore, God is not possibly real.
P3d is logically equivalent to P3, P3a, P3b, and P3c, all of which are
entailed by the conception of God as *Ens necessarium*. Hence, as I said in
the first post of this thread, the bottom line is whether one finds it *more
*plausible that God is possibly real (P2), from which it follows that God's
reality is necessary (C2); or that God is possibly not real (P4), from
which it follows that God's reality is impossible (C3).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 6:57 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
wrote:
> JAS, List
>
> But - Peirce, in 1.412, does indeed very specifically outline how the
> three categories ‘come into being’ from Nothing. So, contrary to your
> interpretation, I think it’s quite proper to ‘ascribe this belief’ to him.
>
> As for your arguments about ponens and tollens [both are modus] - if your
> premises are false due to circularity or ambiguity or.., then the logical
> validity is totally irrelevant.
>
> You can hardly want to ‘prove’ an assertion by its logical format alone;
> your premises must have value of truth. Otherwise, I could ‘prove’ anything
> - such as the existence of unicorns and ..
>
> If horses exist, then unicorns exist.
> Horses exist
> Therefore, unicorns exist.
>
> Finally - The ambiguity comes from the merger of ‘possible’ and
> ’necessary’…which makes the ‘god' argument false.
>
> Edwina
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
