List I’ll stand by my reading of 1.412 - that the categories emerge from Nothing. And I don’t equate Nothing with ‘god’ or ‘ens Necessarium. Even 6.490 says ‘a state of things in which the three universes were completely nil…the three universes must be absolutely necessary results of a state of utter nothingness’. As for ‘Ens Necessarium - I’d accept Peirce’s concept of Pure Mind - which I’d consider as the state of the emergence of the three Categories.
There is no point in quibbling about the meaning of the terms of ‘false vs ‘unsound’. As noted, an argument can be logically valid in form but its premises can be false - and the argument is therefore, in itself, false. The various arguments for the existence of God [cosmological, ontological, prime mover, perfection etc].. - rest on a belief in the veracity of the premises - I think your atheist example is an example of Denying the Antecedent. But - since both an acceptance of the reality of god and an atheist rejection of ‘god’ are beliefs and impossible to empirically prove either way - then, the objection is moot. No point in further discussion..One doesn’t discuss beliefs ; one merely ‘articulates' them. Edwina > On Aug 29, 2024, at 1:58 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 6:57 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
