(August 12, 2012 at 3:19 pm)Categories+Sheaves Wrote:

Quote:If we are arguing purely from logic then I insist we do it properly.

Ditto. See below.

Quote:Implying the existence of a necessary being implies existence itself is necessary. No logical attempt to justify this assumption has been made, this step has been skipped.

Again, if we have a sound proof of A, and A implies B, we also have a sound proof of B. The soundness of a proof doesn't rest on how much time we spend discussing its implications. (See earlier point about having to get your hands dirty)

Quote:If not, please stop wasting my time by defending something you don't even buy into and defending it with badly thought out comparisons at that.

Not until you start making valid counterarguments

There is not sound proof of A due in part to the fact there is not sound proof of B.
Just so we're clear, A in this case is the existence of a necessary being and B is the necessity for existence.
Without B, A is meaningless... abit like every statement you've made in response.
Retort with something relevant that proves this wrong or don't retort at all.
You're beginning to bore me with your thinly veiled deflections.

(August 12, 2012 at 5:27 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: There is not sound proof of A due in part to the fact there is not sound proof of B.
Just so we're clear, A in this case is the existence of a necessary being and B is the necessity for existence.
Without B, A is meaningless... abit like every statement you've made in response.
Retort with something relevant that proves this wrong or don't retort at all.
You're beginning to bore me with your thinly veiled deflections.

But how do you know that "there is no sound proof of B"? Do you have a proof for that?

This seems like what happens when kooks doing pseudo-math see a proof that sqrt(2) is irrational--"That reasoning can't possibly be valid, even though it's right in front of me and follows directly from axioms of logic! And I know it can't be valid, because there can't be a proof that sqrt(2) is irrational!"

---

(August 12, 2012 at 5:10 pm)Shell B Wrote: Well, then, CS, you will have to show me where in any of this you found anything that implies anything, because I see no such thing.

Huh. Well, I already posted the results of one particular set of responses, which was a logical argument that from some subset of my responses, the existence of a necessary being must exist. C&S quoted it earlier. Do you want me to repost it? I'd be glad to.

---

(August 12, 2012 at 11:11 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 9, 2012 at 10:31 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Not that I am aware of. However, there are logical arguments which are not mathematical proofs.

I expect that you do not think that math proofs require empirical evidence. Neither do I.

Let's look at the non-mathematical type. Suppose you had an argument that included the proposition "no swans are non-white". To assess the truth value of any conclusion which depended on said proposition, you need to demonstrate the truth of said proposition.

How would you propose to do so without depending on empiricism?

Now do you see the folly in conflating the two?

Perhaps you missed this in your absence.

But none of that has to do with the logic.

1. All swans are black
2. X is a swan
3. Therefore, X is black

...is a perfectly valid argument. The logic doesn't change based on whether (1) and (2) are actually true in our universe. Logic doesn't care about that.

(August 12, 2012 at 9:05 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:

(August 12, 2012 at 5:27 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: There is not sound proof of A due in part to the fact there is not sound proof of B.
Just so we're clear, A in this case is the existence of a necessary being and B is the necessity for existence.
Without B, A is meaningless... abit like every statement you've made in response.
Retort with something relevant that proves this wrong or don't retort at all.
You're beginning to bore me with your thinly veiled deflections.

But how do you know that "there is no sound proof of B"? Do you have a proof for that?

Do I have proof of your lack of proof? Is that seriously what you're asking me? I just need to make absolutely sure that this is actually what you're asking me before I answer. I've tried pinching myself but I'm not waking up so I'm reasonably sure this isn't some kind of surreal dream where I'm the last human being not to be infected with mad cow disease.

Do you have an argument that proves the necessity for existence or not? If so; present it.

(August 12, 2012 at 9:05 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: But none of that has to do with the logic.

1. All swans are black
2. X is a swan
3. Therefore, X is black

...is a perfectly valid argument. The logic doesn't change based on whether (1) and (2) are actually true in our universe. Logic doesn't care about that.

The truth value (soundness) of the conclusion does - and if you're going to make statements such as this (emphasis mine):

(August 12, 2012 at 9:05 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Well, I already posted the results of one particular set of responses, which was a logical argument that from some subset of my responses, the existence of a necessary being must exist.

You fucking well better be able to demonstrate the truth of the propositions.

Otherwise, the truth value of the conclusion is necessarily indeterminate, and you've got nothing - other than of course that your beliefs should include belief in a necessary being to be consistent. Whoop de fucking do.

Incidentally, I'll note that your statement above reaches well beyond what the authors originally proposed to prove - and if that isn't deceptive, I don't know what is.

This survey starts with arguing for and against a concept that is far too indefinite for argument.

The whole survey is a complete fail. it is constructed to lead on to the conclusion that a deity IS the result of the answers given.

Sorry Clive didn't take you nonsense before and won't take it now....

Mind you Zen..you can't go past the Daghdha, Oengus-og, Mór-ríoghain, and Airmed and Etain are amongst My personal favourites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Celtic_deities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Morr%C3%ADgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aengus

My belief does imply a necessary being existing.

I must necessarily exist to believe in any of my beliefs.

Many thanks for the helpful feedback here on the necessary being survey. I've revised one of the "conclusion" pages so that it doesn't inadvertently sound "condescending". I value your comments.

(August 13, 2012 at 11:50 am)Josh Rasmussen Wrote: Many thanks for the helpful feedback here on the necessary being survey. I've revised one of the "conclusion" pages so that it doesn't inadvertently sound "condescending". I value your comments.

I don't have a comment about the survey per se, but am intrigued by the argument.

I don't have any problem with the structure of the basic argument, but I have a potential issue with the definition of NB. As Annik stated before, the given definition suggests that it could be anything (NB: Something that (i) can cause something, and that (ii) must, by nature, exist.

Given the definition, both my parents became NBs as soon as I came into existence. Once this is applied to all living things, currently alive or dead, the idea of being an NB becomes quite unremarkable. This same process can be considered for non-biological processes as well; consider the origins of our solar system.

Indeed. I have been wondering why it must be a necessary being rather than a necessary entity. The former to me implies that the speaker wants the reader to see the NB as something with intelligence/sentience, and the latter does not. Given the author's other work, I do not think this is an unreasonable implication.

While the argument may or may not be valid (I don't really care to delve into it that deeply), the language chosen reeks of sophistry.

Alas, as it appears that Mr. Rasmussen only was online here long enough to peck out his response, I do not expect to hear back from him.