RE: Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?
August 10, 2012 at 1:05 am
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2012 at 1:43 am by Categories+Sheaves.)
Neat linky, fun exercise. After ~3 run-throughs I managed to get a weaker result
Which I will consider a small victory for the anti-necessary being crowd.
Modal logic is tricky. Especially with necessary beings eating up all the 'possible' operators
necessarybeing.net Wrote:Congratulations! Your answers appear to have an interesting implication: they imply that you have a (prima facie) reason to think that there is (more likely than not) a Necessary Being.
Modal logic is tricky. Especially with necessary beings eating up all the 'possible' operators

(August 9, 2012 at 11:07 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: If you can't prove existence itself is necessary how can you hope to prove a being must necessarily exist?If he proves there is a necessary being, he has proven that something must necessarily exist. It's not like you have to prove A by itself before proving B just because A is a weaker statement than B.
Without the assumption existence is necessary you can't make the claim a being can necessarily exist.
(August 9, 2012 at 11:07 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: That'd be like me saying flight doesn't have to be necessary but someone necessarily needs to fly flies. Claiming the latter must assume the former.Which is why a proof of the latter also proves the former
