Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?

[CliveStaples]

There is not sound proof of A due in part to the fact there is not sound proof of B.
Just so we're clear, A in this case is the existence of a necessary being and B is the necessity for existence.
Without B, A is meaningless... abit like every statement you've made in response.
Retort with something relevant that proves this wrong or don't retort at all.
You're beginning to bore me with your thinly veiled deflections.

But how do you know that "there is no sound proof of B"? Do you have a proof for that?

This seems like what happens when kooks doing pseudo-math see a proof that sqrt(2) is irrational--"That reasoning can't possibly be valid, even though it's right in front of me and follows directly from axioms of logic! And I know it can't be valid, because there can't be a proof that sqrt(2) is irrational!"

---

Well, then, CS, you will have to show me where in any of this you found anything that implies anything, because I see no such thing.

Huh. Well, I already posted the results of one particular set of responses, which was a logical argument that from some subset of my responses, the existence of a necessary being must exist. C&S quoted it earlier. Do you want me to repost it? I'd be glad to.

---

Not that I am aware of. However, there are logical arguments which are not mathematical proofs.

I expect that you do not think that math proofs require empirical evidence. Neither do I.

Let's look at the non-mathematical type. Suppose you had an argument that included the proposition "no swans are non-white". To assess the truth value of any conclusion which depended on said proposition, you need to demonstrate the truth of said proposition.

How would you propose to do so without depending on empiricism?

Now do you see the folly in conflating the two?

Perhaps you missed this in your absence.

But none of that has to do with the logic.

1. All swans are black
2. X is a swan
3. Therefore, X is black

...is a perfectly valid argument. The logic doesn't change based on whether (1) and (2) are actually true in our universe. Logic doesn't care about that.