Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?

[Whateverist]

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.

I must be in the prior camp. Formal logic is greatly over valued, especially in cosmological matters. The only truth logic will ever reveal is what else follows from a given set of premises assuming they are true. Logic can't help you with the original premises. Any effort to use logic in the service of determining the status of necessary beings is just silly.

[Anomalocaris]

what a fucktard you are.

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

Don't flatter yourself. This thread is about a fucktard, namely you, trying to stroke your meager mental member by attempting to bring about a situation where real people would seem to be impressed by the sophistry you've borrowed or stolen from shitwits who, individually or collectively, could not confuse the least of us.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

to find Clive tiresome and as biased as a soccer mom.

Not to mention as shrill.


A graphic example of the futility of trying to have a rational discussion with a presuppositional apologist.

I gave up when he ignorantly or dishonestly conflated mathematical proof with empirical proof.

I am also singularly unimpressed with his practice of slinging around modal logic (which he does not seem to have quiet grasped). A specialised field of study which is not broadly understood . In this context it's a form of obfuscation.

Here in Australia,we have a technical term, for such an approach; "baffling with bullshit "


My impression is of a first year undergraduate on an ego trip trying to show he knows a lot more than is actually the case. Or simply an adult whose expensive education didn't stick. Of course I may be wrong.


Yeah,I find him tedious too.

[Categories+Sheaves]

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?

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.

Our arguing for the same thing shouldn't preclude my being able to point out faults in your logic, amrite?

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.

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.
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?

[CliveStaples]

Supposedly, the survey's logic does. And that's what we're discussing, amirite?

So, so, so much this.

If there's an assumption being made somewhere, I'd really like to see someone show it. Not just say it--"Oh, these guys just presume that existing existence exists in the existent existence" or some bullshit--but to show precisely which claims/statements must make which assumptions.

If something like "Does it seem that a Necessary Being exists" is making an assumption about the existence of some Necessary Being, I'd really like to see how or why.

[Zen Badger]

It's True!!

I believed in a necessary being ALL ALONG!!!

I can no longer lie to myself.



Oh mighty Odin, you have won my undying love and obedience.

Please accept this unworthy soul into Valhalla.

[Whateverist]

If something like "Does it seem that a Necessary Being exists" is making an assumption about the existence of some Necessary Being, I'd really like to see how or why.

I find it quite impossible to say whether "Does it seem that a Necessary Being exists" is making an assumption without first learning what you mean by a "necessary being"? Are some of us optional? What is it that makes some beings necessary? I've heard the term before but could never make any sense of it. Perhaps it is like Plato's idea of ideal forms? Is your 'necessary being' like the template for all of us actual approximations? I dunno.

[Jackalope]

No, since logic is a subset of mathematics. Are there mathematical proofs that aren't logical arguments?

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.

[Reforged]

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?

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.

Our arguing for the same thing shouldn't preclude my being able to point out faults in your logic, amrite?

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.

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.
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?

"Supposedly"? Does it or not?

Are you actually saying existence wouldn't need to be necessary for the existence of a necessary being and that this doesn't need to be logically proven before we can even attempt to logically prove the existence of a necessary being?
Because that wouldn't be very clever.
As far as I can see the survey doesn't prove that and doesn't even make the attempt. It skips the step altogether making the argument fundamentally flawed.

[Whateverist]

Are you actually saying existence wouldn't need to be necessary for the existence of a necessary being and that this doesn't need to be logically proven before we can even attempt to logically prove the existence of a necessary being?
Because that wouldn't be very clever.
As far as I can see the survey doesn't prove that and doesn't even make the attempt. It skips the step altogether making the argument fundamentally flawed.

I agree with the Drake. ("Gotta love the Drake" .. anyone get the reference?)

I was unable to vote. Too perplexed by the idea of a 'necessary being' to have an opinion about what on the face of it is nonsense.