(June 28, 2016 at 7:55 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 2:24 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: In Merriam Webster and a few other dictionaries, "being" and "exist" are somewhat circular (referencing each other), so I would say that according those definitions your reference to a non-existing being; is incoherent.

Equivocation fallacy again. You're equivocating "being" like existence and a being as in a living entity.

(The equivocation fallacy pisses off my O.C.D. so much I know when I see it).


As for the rest of what you said: Take it away Esq!

You don't see existence as a necessary quality for life?

(June 27, 2016 at 9:52 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 4:48 pm)SteveII Wrote: WLC was asked if the argument was fallacious. It is not (otherwise that would have been my response). You still have to deal with the fact that the argument does not argue the both that God exists and God does not exist with the same logic because P4' is not equivalent to P4 as it relates to modal logic and "necessary".

If a necessary being cannot possibly exist, then it doesn't actually exist. That's it.

No offence, but it seems you don't understand the original argument, the parody, or my reply to it. So rather than just make a statement that someone told you the argument proves and end with "that's it", phrase your responses in the form of a question and a discussion can be had.

Oh no my post wasn't worthless, Esq, your brilliant post didn't point out the particular error Roadrunner made that I tried to point out.

I'll try to make it clearer, I write badly:

@ Roadrunner:

Roadrunner Wrote:In Merriam Webster and a few other dictionaries, "being" "exist" are somewhat circular (referencing each other), so I would say that according those definitions your reference to a non-existing being; is incoherent.

My bolding and underlining. Bolded parts are referring to existence in general, underlined parts to a living being.

Roadrunner these two definitions of "being" are not the same:

Dictionary.com Wrote:existence.
"the railway brought many towns into being"

Dictionary.com Wrote:a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.
"alien beings"

So, these are the two definitions of "being" (existence and a living entity) you equivocated, try not to do it again as it is clearly a mistake. Being =/= a being.

@ Esq

I hope my contribution was not entirely without merit?

ETA: I say this because you're by far the superior debater of us two, and I feel like I have almost nothing left to contribute when you're involved in a debate sometimes... due to your awesomeness

(June 28, 2016 at 7:58 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You don't see existence as a necessary quality for life?

No, I just don't see them as one and the same thing. Nor do I see "life" and a "living being" as one and the same thing either.

(June 28, 2016 at 8:05 am)SteveII Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 9:52 pm)Irrational Wrote: If a necessary being cannot possibly exist, then it doesn't actually exist. That's it.

No offence, but it seems you don't understand the original argument, the parody, or my reply to it. So rather than just make a statement that someone told you the argument proves and end with "that's it", phrase your responses in the form of a question and a discussion can be had.

Sigh ... Then maybe you should've said that right near the start of the thread when you were actually agreeing with me about what the ontological argument is about. No offence, but it seems like you must have very selective memory. Do I or do I not understand the original argument?

Anyhow, I think I understand what the original argument is, and what the parody is. But I must admit I don't understand at all the point of your objection regarding premise 4. Both versions of the argument do not establish either the possibility or the impossibility of the maximally great being. This is what I mean when I say it goes both ways. Both are valid arguments, but both are empty as well. They don't bring any new information to the table.

Perhaps it depends on what definition of "possibly" one uses.

(June 28, 2016 at 9:04 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Perhaps it depends on what definition of "possibly" one uses.

Possibly, meaning probability greater than zero?

(June 28, 2016 at 9:15 am)Irrational Wrote:

(June 28, 2016 at 9:04 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Perhaps it depends on what definition of "possibly" one uses.

Possibly, meaning probability greater than zero?

That's certainly one. It's the standard very broad dictionary definition though Here's another more specific definition of one type of possibility

Wikipedia Wrote:A logically possible proposition is one which is consistent with the axioms of a given system of logic.

And there are different definitions of probability too. For instance, there is Bayesian probability and frequentist probability

(June 28, 2016 at 9:23 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(June 28, 2016 at 9:15 am)Irrational Wrote: Possibly, meaning probability greater than zero?

That's certainly one. It's the standard very broad dictionary definition though Here's another more specific definition of one type of possibility

Wikipedia Wrote:A logically possible proposition is one which is consistent with the axioms of a given system of logic.

And there are different definitions of probability too. For instance, there is Bayesian probability and frequentist probability

Yep, I had a good listen about that on YouTube once with a guy discussing probability types in the context of quantum mechanics.

And Bayes' theorem itself is something I studied a few years ago online when learning statistics and probability for fun.

Yup