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.

[Jackalope]

I happen to like logic as well, except when it is used to engage in sophistry and equivocation.

[Shell B]

I like puzzles as well. The only thing I find puzzling about this is that even one person found this interesting. It almost robs the word of its meaning.

[Minimalist]

The only necessary being I know is me.

When I die, as far as I am concerned the rest of you die with me.

The rest of the shit in this thread is little more than mental masturbation ....which is all I expect of theists.

[Reforged]

This is backwards imo. If A necessarily exists then something necessarily exists (e.g. A, at the bare minimum). If something must exist it's not true that there is one thing that necessarily exists; maybe it's necessary that either A or B exists, (but not necessarily one or the other) in which case we still don't obtain a 'necessary being'.

Why *must* something exist? Who says it *must*? Is there any such logic that conclusively proves that the existence of something, anything, *must* occur?
I went through the survey and found it to be precarious at best. I wanted an argument from Clive to justify this stance.
Instead I get an argument from you that seems to actually be against the existence of a necessary being.
I'm not entirely sure what you're using it on me for, I never claimed any such thing.
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.
It would seem nothing is necessary in terms of existence, it matters very little whether we or anything else for that matter exists.

[LastPoet]

Is this what philosophy has become?

[Cyberman]

That's the ultimate philosophical question.

[Mystic]

To be honest, I don't agree with "possibly necessarily, implies necessarily" even though seemingly it has been proven by rules of logic. It's just too counter intuitive, and I'm a person whom relies on intuition.

[Cato]

A/The Necessary Being (NB) could answer these questions and arrive at the proof of a NB. This immediately results in an infinite causal chain which proves nothing.

[Jackalope]

To be honest, I don't agree with "possibly necessarily, implies necessarily" even though seemingly it has been proven by rules of logic. It's just too counter intuitive, and I'm a person whom relies on intuition.

No. The "proof" only demonstrates that given certain personal beliefs that belief in a necessary being is implied.

It does not prove that any such being can or does exist.