(August 10, 2012 at 11:59 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: You cannot prove the latter without first proving the former.I can prove cauchy-schwarz for infinite series without having proven it for finite series beforehand. Sometimes I can prove M is a differentiable manifold without having first proven it's a topological manifold first. The path to a strong result need not plow through every weaker result first
The former acts as a building block for the next claim, the latter does not prove the former. We can prove the former through the latter in the case of flight.
The case of a necessary being depends purely on "logic", there is no empirical evidence for this case at present. Fine, if thats what we're going by then thats what we're going by.
You must logically prove existence is necessary before claiming a being can necessarily exist and I don't think you can. :-)
So I still think the whole 'A has to be proven separately' point is bunk. If this 'necessity of existence' thing does need to be proven in some way the proof fails to address, that failure has to materialize in an invalid assumption or logical step in the proof (else why are we worrying about it?) so you should have no trouble picking one out. Unless you mean something very sideways by 'the necessity of existence' (what do you mean, btw?) this type of gripe doesn't pan out
tl;dr: Do your logic homework!
