(November 13, 2011 at 11:06 am)fr0d0 Wrote: @ toro : proposing nothing accomplishes just that. You need to include propositions capable of becoming viable, that God satisfies.
One isn't proposing 'nothing'. That would be the following:
1. (Premise)
One is proposing a truth: that a specific individual does not exist in a possible world. This is a perfectly valid proposition. Indeed, that is why the definition of 'necessarily existent' is so important, because one can propose non-existance.
The point made is that the ontological argument is circular, and therefore completely arbitrary for all propositions.
Furthermore, claiming that it is nonsensical to suppose any truth is invalid in any possible world means that every truth is valid in every world. Otherwise, we would be able to propose a possible world where the truth is invalid (which you claim is nonsensical). This actually then makes the term 'necessary' pointless as all truths are always true. It also allows us everything to always be true.
Ahem...
Quote:1. There is a possible world where an invisible dragon lives in Carl Sagan's garage. (Premise)
2. We cannot suppose there is any possible world in which such a dragon does not exist. (fr0d0's axiom)
3. Therefore, an invisible dragon lives in Carl Sagan's garage in all possible worlds. (from 1,2)
4. Therefore, an invisible dragon lives in Carl Sagan's garage. (from 3)
We even get contradictions...
Quote:1. There is a possible world where toro rules the world. (Premise)
2. We cannot suppose there is any possible world in which toro does not rule the world. (fr0d0's axiom)
3. Therefore, toro rules the world in all possible worlds. (from 1,2)
4. Therefore, toro rules the world. (from 3)
5. However, toro doesn't rule the world. (fact)
6. Yes he does, you can't assume that. That means nothing. (fr0d0's axiom)
7. But, he doesn't rule the world. (fact)
8. Nuh uh! (fr0d0's axiom)
...
and so on.
You see the fault in your claim I hope.
