Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?

[Categories+Sheaves]

There are no sides. *facepalm* Where did I say there are sides? Furthermore, you don't have to dislike logic to find Clive tiresome and as biased as a soccer mom.

FYI, this is not logic. This is not logic at all. It is shit covered with a thin veneer of what might look like logic if you did not know better.

Well... stuff like this

---

The deduction using the above principle is well known. Below is one way to spell it out.
Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.
Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.
Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').
Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.
The deduction now proceeds as follows:
1. ◊ N.
2. So: ◊□ N. (by definition of 'N')
3. So: □◊□ N. (by the necessity of possibility)
4. So: ~◊~◊~◊~ N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
5. So: ~◊□◊~ N. (by substituting '□' for the middle '~◊~')
6. So: ~◊◊~ N. (because □A implies A)
7. So: ~◊~ N. (because ◊◊A implies ◊A)
8. So: □ N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')

◊◊A implies ◊A:
1. ◊◊A.
2. So: ◊□◊A. (by the necessity of possibility)
3. So: ◊~◊~◊A. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
4. So: ◊~◊~◊~~A. (because A implies ~~A)
5. So: ◊~◊□~A. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')
6. So: ~◊□~A. (because ◊~◊A implies ~◊A)
7. So: ~◊~◊~~A. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
8. So: ~◊~◊A. (because ~~A implies A)
9. So: □◊A. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')
10. So: ◊A. (because □P implies P)

◊~◊A implies ~◊A:
1. If ◊A, then □◊A. (by the necessity of possibility)
2. So: if ~□◊A, then ~◊A. (by modus tollens)
3. So: if ~~◊~◊A, then ~◊A. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
4. So: if ◊~◊A, then ~◊A. (because ~~P implies P)

---

sure looks like logic to me. If it's shit logic, then sound analysis (and maybe some circumspection, and maybe some evaluation of the assumptions) will reveal the errors in it. Are we going to dismiss the whole of it or pick through it to see what went wrong? I'm in the latter camp.
The people who wrote this survey did their homework, (enough to know when they haven't gotten you) and if you're judicious with your responses, no "proof" is obtained (see my first post here). It's not like you can't come ahead in this, it's just that doing so is a bit of a puzzle.

Also: Puzzles are fucking awesome.

What I do not enjoy is having assumptive conclusions drawn on my integrity and my honesty based on nothing more than my refusal to play silly presuppositional entrapment games.

Fair enough.