(August 10, 2012 at 5:22 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Why *must* something exist? Who says it *must*? Is there any such logic that conclusively proves that the existence of something, anything, *must* occur?Supposedly, the survey's logic does. And that's what we're discussing, amirite?
(August 10, 2012 at 5:22 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Instead I get an argument from you that seems to actually be against the existence of a necessary being.Our arguing for the same thing shouldn't preclude my being able to point out faults in your logic, amrite?
I'm not entirely sure what you're using it on me for, I never claimed any such thing.
(August 10, 2012 at 5:22 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: My point was that we would have to assume the existence of existence itself to be necessary to come to Clives conclusion which of course would be nigh impossible to prove with logic.As I've been saying, that need not be assumed (although it would be a result of said 'proof'). We have more than enough objections to raise against the assumptions these 'proofs' do use, so there's no need for us to invent shaky assumptions that they don't use.
It would seem nothing is necessary in terms of existence, it matters very little whether we or anything else for that matter exists.
If I were to argue, "The survey's proof P that Bob is at least ten feet tall can't be true, because that requires assuming that Bob is at least nine feet tall! And we know that's impossible to prove!" it would be clear that my argument won't be going very far, right?
