It's logically possible X is a necessary being. It's logically possible Y is a necessary being.

X can be a Wrathful/Punishing Creator that punishes all bad people. Y can be Forbearing/Merciful Creator that forbears all bad people. They would per "possibly necessarily" both have to exist if they were both rationally possible.

I think there is a problem with "possibly necessarily, implying necessarily".

(August 13, 2012 at 7:45 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It's logically possible X is a necessary being. It's logically possible Y is a necessary being.

X can be a Wrathful/Punishing Creator that punishes all bad people. Y can be Forbearing/Merciful Creator that forbears all bad people. They would per "possibly necessarily" both have to exist if they were both rationally possible.

I think there is a problem with "possibly necessarily, implying necessarily".

I don't think you grok what "necessary being" amounts to.

What you're saying is, "it's logically possible that in every possible world, X exists." A possible world is simply a coherent state of affairs--essentially, a collection of propositions which together do not entail contradiction.

If there's a possible world where "X must be true in every possible world" holds, then X must be true in every possible world.

And I don't follow your reasoning about X possibly being a necessary being. Do you think that anything is logically possible? How do you know that "X is a necessary being" is logically possible?

---

(August 13, 2012 at 5:24 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: 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.

Your argument seems like a non-starter. The term "necessary being" is defined; replace it everywhere with "shpadoinkle pancake" if you like, the logic remains the same. What you choose to call the thing is irrelevant.

---

(August 12, 2012 at 10:14 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(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.

No, I think it's more general than that. I think it has more to do with beliefs than with facts.

That is, if you believe p, and I can demonstrate that if p is true, q must also be true (and my proof is valid), then if you believe p, shouldn't you also believe q?

If you believe you're in France (but you're not, you're in New York), and I argue that if you're in France, you're in Europe, aren't you obligated to also believe that you're in Europe?

(August 13, 2012 at 9:01 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: If you believe you're in France (but you're not, you're in New York), and I argue that if you're in France, you're in Europe, aren't you obligated to also believe that you're in Europe?

Sure. That and four sixty-five will get you a venti latte at Starbucks.

---

(August 13, 2012 at 9:01 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Your argument seems like a non-starter. The term "necessary being" is defined; replace it everywhere with "shpadoinkle pancake" if you like, the logic remains the same. What you choose to call the thing is irrelevant.

So by that definition, "quantum fluctuation in a singularity" qualifies as a necessary being. That I can buy.

(August 13, 2012 at 9:19 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Sure. That and four sixty-five will get you a venti latte at Starbucks.

Hmm. Personally, I'd be interested to know what my beliefs, if true, entail. I'd feel intellectually lazy if I just assumed that my beliefs didn't entail something, and ignored proofs to the contrary.

For instance, if someone could prove that my beliefs regarding science and mathematics, if true, imply good reasons to think that Christianity is false, would you really let me get away with saying, "Yeah, well, that and four sixty-five will get you a venti latte at Starbucks"? Wouldn't that strike you as incredibly ignorant of me?

(August 13, 2012 at 9:01 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: So by that definition, "quantum fluctuation in a singularity" qualifies as a necessary being. That I can buy.

Does it meet the criteria? If so, then it's a "Necessary Being". That's how definitions work. Welcome to logic!

(August 13, 2012 at 9:01 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Do you think that anything is logically possible? How do you know that "X is a necessary being" is logically possible?

How would you know any Creator is logically possible if different versions of the Creator are not?

If X type of Creator or Y type of Creator aren't logically possible, or surely one of them is not...then what you makes you think any Creator is logically possible.

The logic we deduce that a Creator is possible logically, the same can be applied to x type of Creator, surely, or am I missing something?

It's like saying apples are possible, but only one type of apple is possible. Does that make sense? We know there is variety type of apples.

Likewise, there is various concepts of a Creator.

(August 14, 2012 at 12:17 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: How would you know any Creator is logically possible if different versions of the Creator are not?

If X type of Creator or Y type of Creator aren't logically possible, or surely one of them is not...then what you makes you think any Creator is logically possible.

You're the one who made the claim, not me.

Remember, the logic here is more about what your beliefs imply. It's not trying to argue that there are good reasons to think that a Necessary Being exists; rather, the argument is "X, Y, and Z if true imply or give good reasons to think that a Necessary Being exists."

That is, it's merely establishing that p -> q, not that there are good reasons to accept p.

Quote:The logic we deduce that a Creator is possible logically, the same can be applied to x type of Creator, surely, or am I missing something?

It's like saying apples are possible, but only one type of apple is possible. Does that make sense? We know there is variety type of apples.

Likewise, there is various concepts of a Creator.

I don't know if that analogy works. There are many kinds of squares (different colors, sizes, etc.), but none of them are circular. So you can't just arbitrarily say, "Oh, we know that things of type X are logically possible; therefore, we can conclude that things of type X and Y are logically possible."

(August 14, 2012 at 12:31 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: That is, it's merely establishing that p -> q, not that there are good reasons to accept p.

But personally I accept p and q, just not p -> q.

---

(August 14, 2012 at 12:31 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: I don't know if that analogy works. There are many kinds of squares (different colors, sizes, etc.), but none of them are circular. So you can't just arbitrarily say, "Oh, we know that things of type X are logically possible; therefore, we can conclude that things of type X and Y are logically possible."

Sure, but their is still many types. Blue Squares, Squares of different size, etc..

It needs to be shown only one necessary being is possible, or the argument seems to imply many necessary beings exist.

(August 14, 2012 at 12:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: But personally I accept p and q, just not p -> q.

Well, that's a matter of analyzing the logical arguments being made. Is there an error you're aware of?

(August 14, 2012 at 12:31 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Sure, but their is still many types. Blue Squares, Squares of different size, etc..

It needs to be shown only one necessary being is possible, or the argument seems to imply many necessary beings exist.

This seems a little muddled.

1) The argument doesn't have to show that a Necessary Being is possible. It only has to show that a subset of a respondent's indicated beliefs, if true, imply that a Necessary Being exists.

2) The argument doesn't say anything about the number of Necessary Beings that exist. If you are claiming that the argument implies that multiple Necessary Beings exist, please demonstrate it.

The bottom line is that the questions posed by your test do not imply anything. They are insufficient for sussing out enough of a person's belief system. The answers can't even begin to imply anything. That is the basis of the problem. Who cares about this other hoopla, when the very foundation of your argument is based on a really shitty quiz?

(August 14, 2012 at 12:57 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: 1) The argument doesn't have to show that a Necessary Being is possible. It only has to show that a subset of a respondent's indicated beliefs, if true, imply that a Necessary Being exists.

Sure, I get that, but what I'm saying, if for example the Christian God is logically possible, so then is another type of God...What makes the Christian God possible but not another type as far as logical possibility goes?

Quote:2) The argument doesn't say anything about the number of Necessary Beings that exist. If you are claiming that the argument implies that multiple Necessary Beings exist, please demonstrate it.

Well it doesn't imply a necessary being exists either if you don't take the premise a necessary being is possible. But given people's beliefs, then they should by this logic believe in multiple necessary beings.

If a Creator is logically possible, then different types of a Creator seem to be logically possible or at least seem that way. So if a person accepts a Christian God is possible as a necessary being, then he can accept the Hindu Brahman as a possible necessary being.

And due to this, it would mean all such Creators have to exist per this person's belief....