people who believe in ghosts

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Greymot

I have no idea who Peano is or why he needed to redefine ‘successor’ to prove 1+1=2, i still don’t see how those two statements say the same.

possible - capable of being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.

necessary - Absolutely essential
so not necessary would be not absolutely essential

thats from dictionary.com and the definitions i use to parse the statements, so that can’t mean the same.

Peano’s axioms:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeanosAxioms.html

[Liberal]

Well, I’m seven people behind as I begin this reply, so I anticipate a barrage of “you ignored my point!” posts. What I’ll ignore is stuff that amounts to monkey-grunts and slinging of feces.
Shade:

You’re welcome. And I did already express it in logic terms. The modality is necessity.
Greymot:

Google “Peano axioms”
mkl12:

That would be ~N~g & ~N~~g. A tautology.
Dead Badger:

As you know, an appeal to authority is not bogus when the authority is indeed an expert in the field, and I’m sure you’ll grant me that Hartshorne, Kant, Goethe, and other such figures are experts. Besides, most of the feedback I’m getting here (with notable exceptions, including you) amounts to “o yeah, well u suXo0rs!” They are incredulous that these terms can mean what they mean in spite of the fact that they have meant this for centuries.

Regarding Kant specifically, he treated God both ways. The point of quoting him was not to support the proof — in fact, Kant believed the proof to be unsound (but valid). The point of quoting him was merely to show that necessary existence means supreme being. Notice what the quote was in response to. You can google “Suber Ontological Argument” to find yet another critic of the argument who accepts its validity. (Suber is the main critic these days.)

Finally, here is more explanation about Kant’s view. Note that the professor writes about SB = NE.

“Consequently, to be a necessary being and to be a supreme being are necessarily equivalent: anything of one sort must also be of the other.”

Whethere SB = NE and whether SB/NE exists are two different questions.

[Liberal]

+MDI:

Thank you!

Nightime:

Yes, I’m familiar with Kant’s objection that existence is not a predicate. I’m also familiar with his claim that his work was to be the be-all and end-all of philosophical discussion. But not everyone agrees with Kant on either of those premises.

From Stanford’s pages

A prime stumbling block to this conclusion is the objection raised by Hume, Kant, and many others that Socrates’ existence could be a real property only if it added something to him, which it clearly does not. The obvious assumption here is that, if his existence were a real property, it would have to be like his other real properties such as his wisdom; and since they do add something to him, his existence should either do the same or forfeit all claim to being a real property. Underlying this suggestion is the further assumption that the relation between Socrates and his existence must duplicate that between him and his wisdom not merely in some respects but in all respects.

Now, a condition of wisdom and existence being properties of Socrates is that they each be individuated by him. That is to say, just as the wisdom-of Socrates must differ at least numerically from the wisdom-of-Plato, so too must the existence-of-Socrates differ at least numerically from the existence-of-Plato. (Although bundle theorists of all persuasions would deny this inference, their denials can be discounted, since it can be argued that each version of the theory entails the self-defeating conclusion that in some cases even individuals could themselves be instantiated in other individuals.) It is one thing, however, to claim (correctly) that existence and wisdom have both to be individuated by Socrates, but quite another to say that both individuations must have the same ground. In the case of his wisdom and many other properties, he individuates them in being their recipient. Yet, although he clearly could not be the recipient of his existence, that need not preclude there being some other way in which he does individuate it. If there were, his existence would be no less entitled to be called a property than is his wisdom.

Is there such a way? It has been argued that there is, for Socrates would individuate his existence if he were not its recipient but its bound. (Cf. B.Miller, The Fullness of Being, chapter 4) The notion of a bound is more than a merely a spatial one, for there are also bounds of thought, bounds of desire, artistic bounds, and so on. Socrates would be the bound of his existence in respect of all human areas. In being bounded by him, his existence would be individuated and distinguished from Plato’s no less than, in being received by Socrates, his wisdom is individuated and distinguished from Plato’s. Moreover, since no bound can be real unless what it bounds is also real, the fact that Socrates is real would entail that what he bounds (his existence) must be real as well. The salient point, however, is that it makes no sense to speak of a thing that is bounded being added to by its bound. Thus, even though it makes no sense to say that Socrates’ existence adds anything to him, that would not detract from its being not only a property, but a real one to boot.

[Greymot]

I don’t see how reading up on Peano’s Axioms is going to show me how those two statements mean the same.
Just to recap, these are the statements -
“It is possible god doesn’t exist” is the same as saying “It is not necessary that god exists”.
Following this logic, I could say
“It is possible that Bob doesn’t sink the 9-ball” is the same as saying “It is not necessary that Bob sinks the 9-ball”
which is not very logical at all when talking about a game of 9-ball.

[Shade]

@Libertarian

Shade:

You’re welcome. And I did already express it in logic terms. The modality is necessity.

I’m sure I’m being obtuse again, but where did you define it in logic terms? Is that defined as in g=‘something’ or defined implicitely? Are you talking about ‘~N(~g)’ and ‘g–>N(g)’ again?

[Cheesesteak]

@Libertarian

What I’ll ignore is stuff that amounts to monkey-grunts and slinging of feces.

Shade:

Greymot:

mkl12:

Dead Badger:

Don’t see my name here… It’s interesting, I use your own statements to prove that you refuse to even consider the possibility that god doesn’t exist, and you accuse me of flinging feces.

When you stack the deck, you’ll always get the answer you want. This is what’s wrong with proving god’s existance, everyone who bothers with it desparately wants to prove it to be true. Enjoy the comfort you get from your proof, you’re the only one who believes it.

[Jenaroph]

This thread is a great gift.

[Liberal]

Greymot:

Following this logic, I could say
“It is possible that Bob doesn’t sink the 9-ball” is the same as saying “It is not necessary that Bob sinks the 9-ball”
which is not very logical at all when talking about a game of 9-ball.

If it is possible for Bob not to sink the 9-ball, then it is certainly not necessary that he sink it.
Shade:

I’m sure I’m being obtuse again, but where did you define it in logic terms?

Necessary existence. It is a modal necessity. Somewhere around here I have linked to a detailed discussion on modal semantics. Search on “semantics”.
Cheesesteak:

Don’t see my name here…

My apologies, please. I missed your post. They were coming at a rate of seven to one, and I overlooked yours. I’m sorry.

Ok, so we have my alternate premise resulting in a “valid” argument that god does not exist. However, you say the argument is unsound. Valid, but unsound arguments are that way because the premise is not true, if the premise were true, then the argument would be sound.

I take issue with you saying the premise “It is possible for god to not exist” is untrue. As you said, the revised premise becomes “It is not necessary for god to exist” in contrast to the original “It is not necessary for god to not exist”.

I do not see any reason to take one as a true premise, but not the other.

It just seems absurd, at least to me, to say that necessary existence might not be possible. If that is the case, then what IS possible?

[Liberal]

Enjoy the comfort you get from your proof, you’re the only one who believes it.

Well, no, that’s really not right. Hartshorne and Plantinga both believe it is sound, not just valid. Are there any more important 20th century philsophers than they?

[MaxTheVool]

@Libertarian

Surely, you understand that, by definition, science is not an appropriate tool for examining the supernatural.

Which is precisely why your logic-based argument for the existence of God is, imo, pointless.

But then, we’ve discussed this to death already.
(Note: a supernatural God, which might exist without ever having a measurable impact on the world, is different than, say, ESP. I firmly believe that if ESP exists, science, being the supreme tool of the human intellect and human achievement, can study it, measure it, reproduce it, etc. I find vanishingly unlikely and, quite frankly, downright silly, the idea that there is a human capability to do something meaningful and measurable (communicate information brain-to-brain) which is somehow beyond the possibility of scientific measure or study)

[Ludovic]

@Libertarian

Well, shit, man. If you’re going to plug up your ears and stick your head in the sand, it’s no wonder no one can prove anything to you.

[Shade]

@Libertarian

Shade:

Necessary existence. It is a modal necessity. Somewhere around here I have linked to a detailed discussion on modal semantics. Search on “semantics”.

I will look. But you said you had it defined in logic symbols in this thread, and if so it must take you 3 seconds to copy & paste it here, and stop my pestering you for it, so why don’t you just do that?

I expect I’ll get it wrong, but I’ll take a stab at it as g=“Ex:G(x)” where G(x) is a property such that G(x)–>G(x). Is that something like you meant?

If we agree on that, I think we can move on to arguing why this should be possible, which fortunately you’re already discussing with other people

[Liberal]

Max:

Which is precisely why your logic-based argument for the existence of God is, imo, pointless.

That makes no sense. Science is empirical, but logic is analytic. They are not co-dependent.

(Note: a supernatural God, which might exist without ever having a measurable impact on the world, is different than, say, ESP. I firmly believe that if ESP exists, science, being the supreme tool of the human intellect and human achievement, can study it, measure it, reproduce it, etc. I find vanishingly unlikely and, quite frankly, downright silly, the idea that there is a human capability to do something meaningful and measurable (communicate information brain-to-brain) which is somehow beyond the possibility of scientific measure or study)

Yeah. You’re a physicalist. Sentient has already dealt with that.

[Cheesesteak]

@Libertarian

My apologies, please. I missed your post. They were coming at a rate of seven to one, and I overlooked yours. I’m sorry.

Apology accepted. I was a bit shocked to be called a feces-flinger when I thought we were having a nice bit of give and take.

It just seems absurd, at least to me, to say that necessary existence might not be possible. If that is the case, then what IS possible?

Well, if you’re going to define god in such a way as to make his non-existance absurd, then you’re pretty much guaranteed to prove his existance. You hardly need a logical proof for that, and it doesn’t strike me as a particularly compelling argument for his existance. The only thing I would consider absurd to claim doesn’t exist is the universe itself.

I feel that the entire universe is possible without a supreme, ultimate, perfect being presiding over it all. I see the scientific explaination of things as very reasonable, I don’t feel a need to go further than that. I appreciate that there are things we do not know, and accept them as things humans will continue to explore.

[Liberal]

@Shade

I will look. But you said you had it defined in logic symbols in this thread, and if so it must take you 3 seconds to copy & paste it here, and stop my pestering you for it, so why don’t you just do that?

I expect I’ll get it wrong, but I’ll take a stab at it as g=“Ex:G(x)” where G(x) is a property such that G(x)–>G(x). Is that something like you meant?

If we agree on that, I think we can move on to arguing why this should be possible, which fortunately you’re already discussing with other people

I don’t recall saying that I had defined it in logic symbols. Usually, when I do that for whatever version of the proof, someone will scream that I’m trying to use the definition as an assertion. In any case, the definition you have provided looks reasonable to me, although a bit more precise might be AxEy:G(y=x), where A is “for every” and E is “there exists”.

[Shade]

@Libertarian

I don’t recall saying that I had defined it in logic symbols. Usually, when I do that for whatever version of the proof, someone will scream that I’m trying to use the definition as an assertion. In any case, the definition you have provided looks reasonable to me, although a bit more precise might be AxEy:G(y=x), where A is “for every” and E is “there exists”.

Fair enough, thanks. What is G in that statement? Is that supposed to be G of y=x - that doesn’t seem to make sense…? G is distinct from g…?

[Liberal]

Cheese:

Apology accepted. I was a bit shocked to be called a feces-flinger when I thought we were having a nice bit of give and take.

Thank you. I agree.

Well, if you’re going to define god in such a way as to make his non-existance absurd, then you’re pretty much guaranteed to prove his existance.

But that’s hardly my fault. Or a fault at all, for that matter. If you can suggest a more appropriate definition for God than Supreme Being, I am open to discussing it.

You hardly need a logical proof for that, and it doesn’t strike me as a particularly compelling argument for his existance.

I disagree. A proof is required because you can’t just define things into existence. Otherwise, I could prove that pigs fly by defining fly to mean “wallow in mud”. It is one thing to define God as existing necessarily; it is quite another to assert that there IS a being THAT exists necessarily. And that is an inference drawn not until nearly the end of the proof.

The argument is compelling because as with any valid proof, if you accept its premise, you are compelled to accept its conclusion.

The only thing I would consider absurd to claim doesn’t exist is the universe itself.

The existence of the universe is tautological. Your senses are themselves a part of the universe. Every statment, whether true or false, proves a tautology.

[Liberal]

@Shade

Fair enough, thanks. What is G in that statement? Is that supposed to be G of y=x - that doesn’t seem to make sense…? G is distinct from g…?

It’s basically a correspondence truth. It’s saying that for every x there exists a y such that y = x in actuality. That means that x must of necessity exist whenever y does. So, if g -> N(g), then g must be necessary in se. But you cannot infer that directly, since you have not yet established that a correspondence exists. That happens with the statement N(g), infered near the end as an independent term.

[Greymot]

@Libertarian

If it is possible for Bob not to sink the 9-ball, then it is certainly not necessary that he sink it.

If you play a game of 9-ball, it is a necessity to sink the 9-ball, otherwise, why bother playing ?
However, with extremely bad players, it is possible they could miss into eternity.

No matter how you say it, the possiblity of something has no bearing on whether or not it is necessary. To cross the border into the US, it is necessary that you present a passport, but it is possible that someone could cross the border and not present it.

I don’t know, maybe this logic stuff isn’t for me.

[lissener]

@Libertarian

. . . denying the possibility presumes the impossibility, while acceptance of the possibility forces the conclusion of actuality.

Oh. My. Gughnkkkk–

Libertarian, you have spouted some choice bullshit on this board before, but with this you’ve outdone yourself.

I don’t think I have ever seen a statement of such pure bullshit, anywhere, at any time, on any subject, in my, what? five years? in this forum.

I’m emailing the above quote to everyone I know, so we can choke with laughter that someone who’s demonstrably too stupid to breathe, lives nonetheless.