# Are Libertarian and logic incompatible? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 31, 2002, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746 "2002-07-31T19:39:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/21 "2002-08-01T21:45:50Z")
Fair enough. Still, it was stated in the thread that the God in question was not the Christian God. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/22 "2002-08-01T21:47:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **saying that God exists as Supreme (necessary) Being (existence) might imply the Christian God, but then again, it might not — it might imply just the universe as God.** But if that is all it implies, then all you’ve proven is that the universe exists. What kind of person needs proof that the universe exists? I’m not going to try to answer that one. I’m done with this thread and that other one. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2002, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/23 "2002-08-01T22:05:16Z")
Look, logic aside, the continued survival of teenage boys disproves the Juedo-Christian God. (Look up Onan.) Also, the problem of evil shows that while the universe may be God, It doesn’t care about anyone. Smile, Lib, you’ve just disproved every religion I’ve heard of. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2002, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/24 "2002-08-02T03:11:15Z")
[nitpick] Psst. Onan wasn’t a wanker. He took his late brother’s wife as his own, and wanted to have sex with her without impregnating her, so he pulled out at the last minute and spilled his seed in the dust. God got mad. [/nitpick] Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Big\_Kahuna\_Burger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Big\_Kahuna\_Burger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Big_Kahuna_Burger)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2002, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/25 "2002-08-02T03:42:47Z")
xenophon41: > [@](#): > > I disagree. > > I thought it was A = A . . . You just made my night. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2002, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/26 "2002-08-02T04:37:58Z")
From [this site](http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/socsci/philosophy/religion/descartes.htm) we get: > [@](#): > > **The Ontological Argument** : > • Everyone, even the atheist has a concept of God. > • This concept entails that God is a perfect (the Greatest Conceivable) Being. > • It is more perfect to exist than not to exist. > • _Q.E.D._: God Must Exist - it is a metaphysical neccessity. That is not quite the Cartesian proof I remember but cannot find at the moment, but that MIA Cartesian argument made a similar leap along the lines of: - God is by definition all-powerful - If an all powerful being _can_ exist, it _will_, by definition, exist Too much for me… ---
**Author:** ![Halo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Halo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Halo13)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2002, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/27 "2002-08-02T04:41:13Z")
Logic can be reguarded as a process, as in the algorithim for the coding of computer program. The process, to have an output must also have an input. In other words any logical arguement is based on something percieved as factual, an assumption or something thought to be true in a sense. So logic does not necessary prove anything, and can prove nothing if based on the false or an assumption. Right? ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2002, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/28 "2002-08-02T04:48:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Halo13 \* > \*\*Logic can be reguarded as a process, as in the algorithim for the coding of computer program. The process, to have an output must also have an input. In other words any logical arguement is based on something percieved as factual, an assumption or something thought to be true in a sense. So logic does not necessary prove anything, and can prove nothing if based on the false or an assumption. Right? \*\* Basically, yes, although I’m a little uncomfortable with the comparison of logic to an algorithm. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2002, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/29 "2002-08-02T04:49:33Z")
Yeah, if your premisses are incorrect in the first place, your conclusion, while entirely logically CONSISTENT, will not ‘prove’ any truths about the world. Thus, in the cite provided by Ringo that: ‘It is more perfect to exist than not to exist’, one could quite properly question the truth of that statement. Could throw the entire ontological argument’s validity into doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2002, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/30 "2002-08-02T21:05:52Z")
Set aside for the moment that the argument cited by Ringo (DesCartes’ argument) is but one of many ontological arguments. (Most modern modal tableaux are directly based on Anselm’s argument. His second one, to be exact.) So, you’d have to round all of them up and deal with them in order to through their validity into doubt. But like I said, forget that. How can nonexistence be as perfect or more perfect than existence when nonexistence implies that there is no perfection (or anything else)? You can’t even _have_ a concept like perfection when concepts don’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2002, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/31 "2002-08-02T21:11:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*How can nonexistence be as perfect or more perfect than existence when nonexistence implies that there is no perfection (or anything else)? You can’t even _have_ a concept like perfection when concepts don’t exist. \*\* Now hold on a second. I read the premise in the argument cited as “It is more perfect [for this object] to exist than to not exist”. That’s what I take objection to, not that existence is better than non-existence. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2002, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/32 "2002-08-03T13:01:23Z")
Ultra Okay, but that’s not what was quoted by, just a sec, Kambuckta. > [@](#): > > ‘It is more perfect to exist than not to exist’ It is clearly absurd to say otherwise (for the reasons I’ve cited.) But let me check the site for context. Hang on. Okay, it went on to say, > [@](#): > > Imagine two things, one which exists and one which does not - which is the greater of the two things? Well, that’s easy. Name any attribute that may be assigned to a nonexistent thing (note that nonexistence is a state, not an attribute). Is it red? Is it round? Is it plump and juicy when you cook it? No, it isn’t any of those things. And it isn’t great, either. Not to any degree whatsoever. It has zero attributes. Therefore, the thing that exists is greater. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2002, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/33 "2002-08-03T14:05:37Z")
Non sequitur. Why is something with no qualities _better_ than something with qualities? Still haven’t shown it, not by logic at any rate and certainly not with regards to deities. [sub]As for me, I think like Alice Walker that existence is better than nonexistence only because it is less boring and has fresh peaches in it.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2002, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/34 "2002-08-03T14:19:59Z")
Oh, a direct counterexample: is a murder that takes place better than nothing? ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2002, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/35 "2002-08-03T15:45:58Z")
How can you compare the greatness of something against an object that has no attributes? “object x is greater than object y” implies that you can assign a measure of greatness to object y, which you’re saying can’t be done. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2002, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/36 "2002-08-04T16:20:23Z")
Paging Saint Anselm … pick up the white courtesy phone for a message about your ontological proof, please … paging Saint Anselm … ---
**Author:** ![MercuryPenguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MercuryPenguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MercuryPenguin)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/37 "2002-08-05T04:21:00Z")
Also, nonexistence has a certain symmetry that just can’t be matched by existence. ---
**Author:** ![MercuryPenguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MercuryPenguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MercuryPenguin)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/38 "2002-08-05T07:58:11Z")
Proof (probably not?) that god = universe If god must be able to be the greatest in any attribute, he must be able to have the greatest mass. Assuming: 1. Mass cannot be negative 2. Mass cannot be infinite (infinity = bad) We split everything into two section: g - entity that is a candidate for being god (could be anything from the null set to a toaster to beyond) u - the rest of the universe g must have the greatest possible mass, so g \>= u. But wait! The god/universe system is an entity itself, so god must have more mass than itself and the universe combined (g \>= (g + u)). The only solutions for this equation are that u \<= 0 or g = infinity. u cannot be smaller than 0 (no negative masses), and if it is zero then we’ve simply stated that god is all the matter in the universe. g cannot be infinite (no infinite masses). Complaints: 1. god is immaterial (Then he wouldn’t be able to interact with the universe unless he manifested himself in a physical manner, but then the manifestation would come under this ‘proof’). 2. Why can’t mass be infinite? (Too icky) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/39 "2002-08-05T09:29:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Non sequitur. Why is something with no qualities better than something with qualities? It isn’t. Remarkably, what you’re calling a non sequitur is backwards from what I said. Something with no qualities cannot be even “good” (a quality), much less “better”. > [@](#): > > How can you compare the greatness of something against an object that has no attributes? “object x is greater than object y” implies that you can assign a measure of greatness to object y, which you’re saying can’t be done. You _can_ assign a measure of greatness to object “y” — the measure that I gave you in the post you responded to: zero. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746/40 "2002-08-05T14:22:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*You _can_ assign a measure of greatness to object “y” — the measure that I gave you in the post you responded to: zero. \*\* If an object has zero greatness, it has the attribute of having zero greatness. So nothingness can’t be assigned a measure of greatness if you want it to have no attributes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-libertarian-and-logic-incompatible/121746.md?page=3)