RE: Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?
August 13, 2012 at 9:01 pm
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2012 at 9:07 pm by CliveStaples.)
(August 13, 2012 at 7:45 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It's logically possible X is a necessary being. It's logically possible Y is a necessary being.
X can be a Wrathful/Punishing Creator that punishes all bad people. Y can be Forbearing/Merciful Creator that forbears all bad people. They would per "possibly necessarily" both have to exist if they were both rationally possible.
I think there is a problem with "possibly necessarily, implying necessarily".
I don't think you grok what "necessary being" amounts to.
What you're saying is, "it's logically possible that in every possible world, X exists." A possible world is simply a coherent state of affairs--essentially, a collection of propositions which together do not entail contradiction.
If there's a possible world where "X must be true in every possible world" holds, then X must be true in every possible world.
And I don't follow your reasoning about X possibly being a necessary being. Do you think that anything is logically possible? How do you know that "X is a necessary being" is logically possible?
(August 13, 2012 at 5:24 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Indeed. I have been wondering why it must be a necessary being rather than a necessary entity. The former to me implies that the speaker wants the reader to see the NB as something with intelligence/sentience, and the latter does not. Given the author's other work, I do not think this is an unreasonable implication.
While the argument may or may not be valid (I don't really care to delve into it that deeply), the language chosen reeks of sophistry.
Alas, as it appears that Mr. Rasmussen only was online here long enough to peck out his response, I do not expect to hear back from him.
Your argument seems like a non-starter. The term "necessary being" is defined; replace it everywhere with "shpadoinkle pancake" if you like, the logic remains the same. What you choose to call the thing is irrelevant.
(August 12, 2012 at 10:14 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(August 12, 2012 at 9:05 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: 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.
The truth value (soundness) of the conclusion does - and if you're going to make statements such as this (emphasis mine):
(August 12, 2012 at 9:05 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: 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.
You fucking well better be able to demonstrate the truth of the propositions.
Otherwise, the truth value of the conclusion is necessarily indeterminate, and you've got nothing - other than of course that your beliefs should include belief in a necessary being to be consistent. Whoop de fucking do.
Incidentally, I'll note that your statement above reaches well beyond what the authors originally proposed to prove - and if that isn't deceptive, I don't know what is.
No, I think it's more general than that. I think it has more to do with beliefs than with facts.
That is, if you believe p, and I can demonstrate that if p is true, q must also be true (and my proof is valid), then if you believe p, shouldn't you also believe q?
If you believe you're in France (but you're not, you're in New York), and I argue that if you're in France, you're in Europe, aren't you obligated to also believe that you're in Europe?
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
