To save some time? I could choose to answer these, after having googled them, but I am trying to respond to cafe society. How about you define what these “laws” are?
To save time, that is.
Well, let’s just start with that one. The Law of Excluded Middle states that, in 2-value systems like Kripke (propositional logic), either A is true or Not A is true, but both cannot be true. (A or Not A) is a tautology and is always true.
As for your being busy elsewhere, I would remind you that I supplied this at your request. If you are no longer interested, simply say so.
As an alternate time-saving measure, you could answer my question as regards your answer #6. My question is:
Huh?
In other word, how can something that exists in all possible worlds NOT exist in actuality?
Daniel
Here we go again. I’m sure many thank you for putting this into plain English.
Iffy. First , “being” assume physicality, I think, and we both agree that a God is not necessarily physical. What it means for a non-physical entity to exist in all possible worlds is also not clear - worlds seem to imply physical things. God is not of this world is something I have heard. Plus, the normal definition of God is different from this. A slime mold existent in all possible worlds is a god by your definition, a hairy thunderer who create one and who sees every sparrow fall is not.
- Okay. 3. No. If you define God as existent in every possible world, then why can’t we define a world without god? I see no reason not to be able to do that except for your definition of god, and assumption that god exists. Since the existence of god under your definition rules out the existence of a world that seems possible, then it is not possible that a god by this definition exists. This does not rule out the existence of a god’ in all but n possible worlds. But, given that, you would have to demonstrate that our world is not one without this god.
So it boils down to: prove that there is no possible world without a god without assuming that god, by definition, exists in all possible world, which is assuming your hypothesis.
Since we’ve finished off this step, we don’t have to worry about the others.
Oh, and for those coming in late, even if you give Lib his god, the definition does not provide any help in giving us the properties of this god, except for existence. He does a hyperspace jump to god is love, but I’ve never seen him show his work. He is scrupulously honest about admitting this, by the way, but since the term god is loaded with so much baggage, the casual reader might read things into this proof which he did not put there.
Yikes! Due to his spacing, I got his numbers mixed up. The LEM applies to 7, not 6. (But I was going to get to 6 next…) 
6.Nope, not really
was in responce to
- Yes, and no. Most conceptions of god would explain a creature that has created all matter. However, I see room for an infinite number of universes. I see it as possible that a “god” might have created some, but not all universe.
If you god created some, but not all realities, then in a reality which was not created, than such a god would not exist in said reality. Really though, it was an attempt to not get boxed in, by a defintion.
Aha! I was trying to figure out how the law of the excluded middle applied to #6: I could sorta see it if I squinted, but it didn’t seem like the biggest problem with that answer to me.
I suspect that Scott is using “possibly exists” to mean “possibly” in the sense that a flipped coin may possibly come up heads–i.e., he doesn’t know. However, that coin either will come up heads, or it won’t come up heads: there’s no two ways about it. Our lack of knowledge doesn’t change that.
Similarly, as I see it, either God exists or it doesn’t. My lack of knowledge about God doesn’t change that: you can’t destroy the moon with your eyelids.
Daniel
Lib’s proof says nothing about his god creating anything. His god is just existent in all possible worlds, by definition. Though you are assuming the standard definition of god in your response, the proof is more sophisticated than that, so your answer does not really address it.
You got to read what he wrote, not what you think he wrote. It takes time but its worth it.
My answer of infinute unverses where anything is possible was just an attempt to got out of a logic trap without first stating that A=B isn’t true if the facts stated are not true.
However, I need to ask for clearification. I have read it over, and all I found was a trap, what do you find to be “worth it” in his post. Will I get immediately showered with diamonds if I answer, or perhaps pearls? Is is it that I will get Jesus in my heart? Is that what you are saying? Because I think that having an object in my blood-pumper would be quite dangerous to my health. 
They didn’t thank me the other two times, but oh well…
Being implies nothing but ontological truth. There’s a whole 8-page thread that was an offshoot of a 6-page thread wherein discussions are ongoing about what is real and what is physical. I daresay that were the matter as settled as you imply, there would be less controversy. Finally, a slime mold existing in all possible worlds would indeed be ontologically perfect (always true), however, all that was asked for is proof of existence, which is an ontological question, is it not? Whatever other characteristics God might have, surely we can agree that ontological perfection is among them, no? Why should a proof of any specific thing address every possible thing? Do you demand that proof of a right triangle describe every aspect of the triangle? If the proof failed to show the triangle was red, do you protest? Of course not.
I’m not sure why you find that to be okay, but I’ll take what I can get.
You surely can; it would be simply a world without existence.
Definitions don’t make assumptions. They don’t have truth value. (Like people are trying to explain in the 1 + 1 = 2 thread.) In defining God that way, we are merely saying that WERE God to exist, THAT is what Its existence would be like.
I don’t know what “seems possible” means. Either it is possible or it isn’t. A possible world is any world with at least one true statement. A world meeting that criterion is possible.
But such a god would not be ontologically perfect. Such a proof could not even be drawn. What’s the point in bothering with it?
Well, no, given what you’ve given me, the actual world itself is not necessarily possible.
The hypothesis is that God exists in actuality, but it is not offered inferentially. That would be a mistake. And the definition, again, assumes nothing other than what God would be like were It to exist.
Finished? You might have shot at the can, but you hit the fence post. 
Um, actually, I have never connected this proof in any way to my beliefs about God’s nature as love. I’m afraid the hyperspace jump is yours, not mine. And it is baggage of its own, apparently offered for the purpose of rallying the troops and adding enough sheer weight and numbers to outshout and outpost me. I cannot imagine another purpose for turning away from me and talking about me to the crowd. Because of my great respect for you, I hope that there is some other purpose.
Personally, I find this proof and its kin to be fascinating logical baubles: they’re intricately constructed, great for thinking about, and with no relevance to the world we live in. (I disagree with step #1, and am highly suspicious of the whole concept of “possible worlds.”)
Nevertheless, if you’re interested in issues of theology–which you apparently are, given your posting here–it behooves you to consider this argument, I think, so that you can, once you understand it, form your own opinion of it. From your posts so far, I don’t believe you’ve really worked to understand it.
If you’d like, I’ll poke around and see if I can find some of the websites that discuss the proof’s shortcomings (in some folks’ opinions of course).
Daniel
Number 6 follows from the Modal Axiom: A -> A, or that which is necessarily true is actually true.
There are panentheists who find the proof to be sound, and consider God to be everywhere in the universe. Of course, that is a separate argument… No, the proof won’t convert you to Christianity. But then, that isn’t what you asked about. What you said, in effect, was that if you were presented with a valid argument that God exists, you would not squirm and fidget and discard it out of hand. Perhaps you had intended to say something else.
[QUOTE]
Actually I was attempting to make a comparison between the search for truth in the arenas of science and Spirit. I never thought Jesus and the Pope were actually scientists or that Seek and You shall find is a working scientific hypothesis
My point being that for us to gain knowledge, at some point there must exist belief without unfalseifiable evidence.
I think Seek and Ye shall find is replicable and predictive only in the indivual sense.
The terms of faith and the moment of belief is unique and varies for each individual. For now, it is beyond science.
The scientific process neither favors nor disfavors the hypothesis that God exists.
It does help weed out certain concepts of God such as “He wrote the Bible”
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Is there one too many negatives in there? I don’t understand the last three words.
In which case it’s not replicable in the scientific sense. Replicable means that other people may replicate your experiment.
This I agree with.
Daniel
That is indeed what I said. I read your proof, saw something wrong with it, construted my own answer, than I spent a whole 5 second looking it on google, where I found that in order for to reach the conclusion, and for it to be true I must first have first hand knowledge that god exists. Otherwise, I am just just saying that it is possible that one limited definition of god is possible. Not very satisfying proof of god, in my eyes.
Well, I’m not surprised. A man who is satisfied with 5 seconds of research would not find much to satisfy him in something that has been a main topic in philosophy for 50 years.
Yup.
Once again, you leave me with nothing to say except that I am relieved you’re not on my side.
Dangit, Scott! Here I was digging up links for you, too!
Daniel