Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?

[Cyberman]

...what? Are you suggesting that if I can prove that X, Y, and Z entail that a necessary being exists, and you believe X, Y, and Z, that I've somehow done something dishonest ("heads I win, tails you lose")?

If I'm asked to declare upfront my beliefs on the existence or otherwise of X, Y and Z (à la page one of your survey) and you use your 'if' to define X, Y and Z into existence with the intention of railroading me into a logically contradictory position regarding X, Y and Z - then yes I am suggesting that.

And CD, you won't believe this but it was a toss-up between the pic I ending up using and the one you riposted with. True as I'm sat on this 'ere camel.

---

This "Necessary Being"... The definition could cover anything, even human. I can't even answer the first question because of this ambiguity. :/

Actually that's a very good point. As far as this survey is concerned, there has to be a Necessary Being... the person taking the survey.

[CliveStaples]

If I'm asked to declare upfront my beliefs on the existence or otherwise of X, Y and Z (à la page one of your survey) and you use your 'if' to define X, Y and Z into existence with the intention of railroading me into a logically contradictory position regarding X, Y and Z - then yes I am suggesting that.

First, how do you know that such an intention exists here? I thought the survey was interesting because I think it's cool to see when unexpected conclusions can be logically demonstrated.

Second, why do you care about the intention? If you believe X, Y, and Z, and someone with really bad intentions gives a valid argument that X, Y, and Z entail the existence of a necessary being, would you just reject their conclusion? Wouldn't you want to know the implications of your beliefs?

The only thing that could possibly 'railroad' you here is logic.

[Anomalocaris]

what a fucktard you are.

[Jackalope]

To the extent that it is a 'test', it doesn't have strong negative results. That is, if it finds that your responses are sufficient to prove that a necessary being exists, you have a strong result. If it doesn't find that your responses are sufficient to prove that a necessary being exists, then there isn't much of a result (since it might be that your responses are sufficient, but the test isn't sensitive enough to detect that, or that your responses aren't sufficient, or that your responses are sufficient to demonstrate that a necessary being doesn't exist).

One has to wonder why the survey's creator chose to not inform said respondees of the above.

It's not necessarily intentionally dishonest, but one can certainly understand why it might appear so. At a minimum, I believe that it was a sloppy oversight.

[CliveStaples]

Actually that's a very good point. As far as this survey is concerned, there has to be a Necessary Being... the person taking the survey.

Did you read the definition of the term "necessary being"? What makes you think that the person taking the survey has the following properties (which constitute the definition of Necessary Being):

(1) It is possible that it is a cause of something; (this one's pretty obvious)
(2) It is not possible (at any time) that it does not exist.

Is (2) true of the person taking the survey? How do you know that?

[CliveStaples]

what a fucktard you are.

Dude, this thread is about logic. Is logic fucktarded?

---

One has to wonder why the survey's creator chose to not inform said respondees of the above.

It's not necessarily intentionally dishonest, but one can certainly understand why it might appear so. At a minimum, I believe that it was a sloppy oversight.

Inform them about what? That the survey is a survey? That not everyone will have the result that their beliefs do entail the existence of a necessary being?

[Jackalope]

Inform them about what? That the survey is a survey? That not everyone will have the result that their beliefs do entail the existence of a necessary being?

No, that not everyone will be given a result at all.

Are you naturally this obtuse, or is it something you had to work at?

[CliveStaples]

No, that not everyone will be given a result at all.

Are you naturally this obtuse, or is it something you had to work at?

It's a survey. Its primary goal is to collect responses to the questions. If a certain set of responses are given, the respondent is given a 'result' (in this case, a logical proof).

Should surveys that give some respondents a particular result indicate to the test population at large that not everyone will get the same result?

[Cyberman]

The whole thing positively reeks to me of the slimy tactics employed by the even slimier Sye Ten Bruggencate, Eric Hovind and their cohorts; get your opponent to set out their positions regarding their beliefs and then use weasel questions in an attempt to trap them into a seemingly logically inconsistent corner. Victory is then declared. I enter into evidence People's Exhibit A, m'lud: https://atheistforums.org/thread-12138-p...#pid268652

As for wanting to know the implications of my beliefs, remember I am an atheist. As far as the question of gods etc - including Necessary Beings - is concerned, I have no beliefs. Thus I do not recognise the burden.

---

Actually that's a very good point. As far as this survey is concerned, there has to be a Necessary Being... the person taking the survey.

Did you read the definition of the term "necessary being"? What makes you think that the person taking the survey has the following properties (which constitute the definition of Necessary Being):

(1) It is possible that it is a cause of something; (this one's pretty obvious)
(2) It is not possible (at any time) that it does not exist.

Is (2) true of the person taking the survey? How do you know that?

Are you really so obtuse that you can't recognise satire when you see it, or is it all just an act for my benefit? Consider that the survey necessitates at least one person taking it. Thus by definition that person, as far as the survey is concerned (a phrase that obviously went clean over your head the first time round) is a Necessary Being.

[CliveStaples]

I can't believe that a post about sheer logic is this controversial. People refusing to take the survey because "it's a trap" (Oh no! Trapped by the logical implications of things you believe!).

It's just logic. It's nothing to be afraid of. If you don't get a cool result on the survey--a cool logic proof to analyze and think about--then that's kinda boring. But I thought it might be interesting to see if anyone took the test and got a result that they disagreed with, because then we could talk about logic. Wouldn't that be interesting?