# Possibility != Existence **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2003, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538 "2003-02-03T17:32:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/381 "2003-02-10T22:02:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*There might (or might not) be a valid argument to support the hypothesis, but that one ain’t it. \*\* The you haven’t proven the hypothesis false. You’ve proven one argument for the hypothesis false. So my question again is have you declared any other hypotheses false by logic similar to that by which you have declared the hypothesis ‘it is possible for God to not exist’ false. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/382 "2003-02-10T22:20:48Z")
Daniel wrote: > [@](#): > > If I may say that God possibly exists, then I may say that God is contingent, right? They’re the same thing, right? No to the first. Yes to the second. Remember, like I said before, throughout the proof, G = G. Therefore, the statement \<\>G (Axiom 2 of the proof) means \<\>G because G is G. The fact that G = G is the same reason that the first Axiom is acceptable. The statement G -\> G is really saying G -\> G because G is G. If you look back, I think I’ve already explained most of this in quite some detail. I know it is daunting to look back, but there’s really no sense in my typing it all over again again. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/383 "2003-02-10T22:24:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > \*\*The you haven’t proven the hypothesis false. You’ve proven one argument for the hypothesis false. So my question again is have you declared any other hypotheses false by logic similar to that by which you have declared the hypothesis ‘it is possible for God to not exist’ false. \*\* Oh. You mean substantive denials of positive ontological propositions? Examples of those abound as well. The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. There is no good hearted person in Texas. There is no Christian who can think his way out of a paper bag. All of those hypotheses are a priori false. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/384 "2003-02-10T22:34:44Z")
Heh – though you’ve said it all before, I’m sure if you look back, you’ll find that I’ve disagreed with it all before as well. 🙂 When you say, “The fact that G = G is the same reason that the first Axiom is acceptable,” I don’t follow you. The first axiom is: > [@](#): > > If no positive descriptive term can be applied to God, then the concept of God is free from contradiction. It seems to me that the reason this is acceptable is because a contradiction takes the form, “A and ~A.” But if “A” is a descriptive term, then either “A” or “~A” must be a positive descriptive term. And if no positive descriptive term can be applied to God, then there can be no statement “A and ~A” as concerns God. G=G has nothing to do with that, as near as I can tell. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/385 "2003-02-10T22:53:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > Oh. You mean substantive denials of positive ontological propositions? Examples of those abound as well. The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. There is no good hearted person in Texas. There is no Christian who can think his way out of a paper bag. All of those hypotheses are a priori false. Eh? How is a statement like “There is no good hearted person in Texas” a priori false. It may be unlikely, and it requires only one example of a good hearted person in Texas to falsify, but I don’t see how it can be rejected out of hand. ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/386 "2003-02-10T23:04:27Z")
Especially considering the people I know from Texas. . . ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/387 "2003-02-10T23:08:50Z")
_clarification_…… \*\* Libertarian\*\* > [@](#): > > There must be some mistake. I would never say that presence = absence. I never said you did. **Von** said, _presence = absence_ you response was, \*Then that would be “presence A = absence Not A”. It would not be “presence = absence”. \* ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/388 "2003-02-10T23:09:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\*Eh? How is a statement like “There is no good hearted person in Texas” a priori false. It may be unlikely, and it requires only one example of a good hearted person in Texas to falsify, but I don’t see how it can be rejected out of hand. \*\* Thanks, Buck. I was sloppy with my syntax. I should have said, “It is not possible that there is a good hearted person in Texas.” And so on. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/389 "2003-02-10T23:10:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **You mean substantive denials of positive ontological propositions?** Er…let me put it another way. Would you agree or disagree with this statement: It is not possible that there are species of insects yet undiscovered. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/390 "2003-02-10T23:10:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Iamthat \* > \*\*_clarification_…… > > \*\* Libertarian\*\* > > I never said you did. > > **Von** said, _presence = absence_ > > you response was, \*Then that would be “presence A = absence Not A”. It would not be “presence = absence”. \* \*\* Okay. Thanks for clarifying that, Iamthat! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/391 "2003-02-10T23:12:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > \*\*Er…let me put it another way. Would you agree or disagree with this statement: > > It is not possible that there are species of insects yet undiscovered. \*\* Disagree. And notice that that is different from “It is possible that there are no species of insects yet undiscovered.” ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/392 "2003-02-11T04:15:36Z")
\*\*Disagree. And notice that that is different from “It is possible that there are no species of insects yet undiscovered.” \*\* I do notice. I meant it the way you said, but never mind that one. Agree or disagree with these statements: It is possible that there is a scientific explanation for the creation of the universe. It is possible that there is not a scientific explanation for the creation of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/393 "2003-02-11T13:43:07Z")
I agree with both a priori. I also agree with both of these statements a priori: It is possible that God exists. It is possible that God does not exist. I disagree with this statement a priori: It is not possible that God exists. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/394 "2003-02-11T13:53:34Z")
And that is why you fail. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/395 "2003-02-11T14:11:23Z")
“Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.” — Robert F. Kennedy ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/396 "2003-02-11T14:38:29Z")
“The deepest human defeat suffered by human beings is constituted by the difference between what one was capable of becoming and what one has in fact become.” – Ashley Montagu ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/397 "2003-02-11T14:41:20Z")
If you define G as perfect, then I define this statement as true: ~(\<\>G) Thus, if you also define G=G to be true, then by substitution, ~\<\>G. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/398 "2003-02-11T14:44:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **It is possible that God does not exist.** Now just to clarify, earlier (last page toward bottom) you said: “No, it is not possible that God does not exist.” Can we have a tie breaker? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/399 "2003-02-11T15:51:04Z")
False: ~\<\>G True: \<\>~G ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/400 "2003-02-11T16:23:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*False: ~\<\>G > > True: \<\>~G \*\* but you’re wrong, since ~(\<\>G). After all, I just stated it earlier, so it MUST be true, right? 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538.md?page=21)