Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?

[Categories+Sheaves]

"Supposedly"? Does it or not?

That's the conclusion of the argument, anyway. It's only proven if the argument is sound, right? And I'm pretty sure we're trying to argue that it's unsound.

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?

And I needn't always prove a graph is triangle-free before I prove it's bipartite. Likewise, if I can directly prove that a particular solution to a problem exists, I need not prove whether solutions exist in general beforehand. How many examples do I have to throw at you here?

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.

This is like saying you can't travel between San Diego and Sacramento without going through Los Angeles. Arriving at point C need not require a stop at point B.

[Whateverist]

This is like saying you can't travel between San Diego and Sacramento without going through Los Angeles. Arriving at point C need not require a stop at point B.

Or perhaps it is like saying you can't travel between the ground floor and the penthouse if your elevator doesn't go all the way to the top. (Beginning to wonder about you C&S.)

[Shell B]

Likewise, if I can directly prove that a particular solution to a problem exists, I need not prove whether solutions exist in general beforehand. How many examples do I have to throw at you here?

That is assuming that you can prove it, which is a poor example, given that nothing has been proven by this time suck of a thread. Furthermore, if there is no consensus as to whether solutions exist, you damn well do have to prove they do before you can posit that a specific solution exists. They didn't skip speed on their way to the speed of light.

[Categories+Sheaves]

That is assuming that you can prove it, which is a poor example, given that nothing has been proven by this time suck of a thread.

Which is why you might need to go after the argument itself rather than throwing some hands-off structural concerns at it; sometimes you have to get your hands dirty.

Furthermore, if there is no consensus as to whether solutions exist, you damn well do have to prove they do before you can posit that a specific solution exists. They didn't skip speed on their way to the speed of light.

Hence the phrase "if you can prove it directly". Direct 'proofs' should be given a direct refutation

[Reforged]

"Supposedly"? Does it or not?

That's the conclusion of the argument, anyway. It's only proven if the argument is sound, right? And I'm pretty sure we're trying to argue that it's unsound.

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?

And I needn't always prove a graph is triangle-free before I prove it's bipartite. Likewise, if I can directly prove that a particular solution to a problem exists, I need not prove whether solutions exist in general beforehand. How many examples do I have to throw at you here?

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.

This is like saying you can't travel between San Diego and Sacramento without going through Los Angeles. Arriving at point C need not require a stop at point B.

Is this like a game to see how many non-answers you can come up with? Because I think you might be winning.
You have empirical evidence when it comes to graphs, you can observe various kinds. There is no such evidence to prove anything that exists is necessary. If we are arguing purely from logic then I insist we do it properly.
Implying the existence of a necessary being implies existence itself is necessary. No logical attempt to justify this assumption has been made, this step has been skipped. If you skip fundamental steps required to back up your logic when logic is supposedly all your argument hinges upon then it falls apart.
Are you going to make the attempt or not?
If not, please stop wasting my time by defending something you don't even buy into and defending it with badly thought out comparisons at that.

[Categories+Sheaves]

If we are arguing purely from logic then I insist we do it properly.

Ditto. See below.

Implying the existence of a necessary being implies existence itself is necessary. No logical attempt to justify this assumption has been made, this step has been skipped.

Again, if we have a sound proof of A, and A implies B, we also have a sound proof of B. The soundness of a proof doesn't rest on how much time we spend discussing its implications. (See earlier point about having to get your hands dirty)

If not, please stop wasting my time by defending something you don't even buy into and defending it with badly thought out comparisons at that.

Not until you start making valid counterarguments

[Shell B]

If A implies B, it is not sound proof. The implication of something is not proof of something. Having a nice smelling sheet implies that I have nice smelling detergent, but I could have also been wearing perfume and lying in bed. Stop thinking about getting your hands dirty and start trying to think straight.

[Categories+Sheaves]

If A implies B, it is not sound proof. The implication of something is not proof of something. Having a nice smelling sheet implies that I have nice smelling detergent, but I could have also been wearing perfume and lying in bed.

Not in the sense I'm using the word 'implies'.

[LastPoet]

Its usually graphed as A --> B, as the formalization of consequence, if A happens, B will surely happen, yet B can happen without A.

Anyway, this thread is ndiverging from the OT. If there is something that theism should run from that is formal logic. They like to take advantage of the ambiguity informal logic gives room to.

[Shell B]

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.