Possibility != Existence

If all possible things exist then this implies that all possible things can not-exist as well. It’s possible for a thing to not exist, isn’t it?

If this is so then wouldn’t there be an infinite number of universes where God doesn’t exist? Maybe we live there?

The point of the proof, Ego_Mk2, is that God has.is necessary existence, which my definition means exists in all universes.

  1. The definition of The Pink Unicorn requires that if The Pink Unicorn exists, its existence is necessary.
  2. The Pink Unicorn is possible.
  3. The Pink Unicorn therefore exists in a possible world.
  4. Therefore, the Pink Unicorns exists in every world.
  5. Therefore, The Pink Unicorn exists in this world.

:rolleyes:

Somehow, this all seems pretty useless to me.

Oh, and could God destroy himself if he wanted to?

It’s possible for me to be a millionaire.
It’s possible for me to be a millionaire.
It’s possible for me to be a millionaire.
It’s possible for me to be a millionaire.

** It’s possible for me to be a millionaire.**

looks around

checks bank accounts online

Well, THAT didnt work…

Urban Ranger wrote:

Its nature was not changed by modalizing it. In fact, its nature was for the first time revealed when Hartshorne first modalized it with modern semantics. The argument, until then, had been all but retired.

It had appeared to most people that Anselm was arguing a fallacy when in fact he was not. As Suber says, “Together with the conclusion, it is almost as if Anselm had argued that possibility implies actuality, and actuality implies necessity. But while such an argument would be invalid, the argument above [the modal argument] is valid.”

A premise of “G -> G” is not the same propositional calculus as a definition of God as “G = G”. The former follows inductively from the latter. There is a big IF in the implication “G -> G” — IF God exists, then He exists necessarily. There is no a priori assumption in the proof that He exists. If there were, it would not be valid.

I think you might be confused. S logic is based on K, and Kripke did quite a bit of work on modal semantics. But modal logic has been around a long time in both intensional and extensional forms. Spinoza is noted for taking a pantheistic interpretation from the modal ontological argument. And Kierkegaard is noted for agreeing that modal status is always necessary (Becker’s Postulate) despite that he rejected the ontological argument per se.

DJ

What you have done is use IPU as a substitute term for God. There’s nothing wrong with that so long as, by IPU, you mean Supreme Being; i.e., you are using IPU and God as synonyms, sort of like Allah and God.

What if I make the supreme being a non-intelligent chance phenomemnon? What if I turn god/IPU into random quantum foam fluctuations?
Haven’t I just proved that in this world a non-intelligent process must have created everything?

:confused: The reason the argument is supposed to hold water is because it is not an unreasonable assumption that the most supreme being would have the most important or powerful or ubiquitous existence.

If you are willing to put it forward that random quantum fluctuations are absolutely necessary and can defend such a claim, be my guest. Don’t ask Lib to do it for you! :stuck_out_tongue:

Really, I could invent any creature I wanted to. I could make up an elephant with three heads that eats televisions, and if I give it the property of being necessary, then since it is possible it must exist.

Hogwash.

It isn’t a question of arbitrarily assigning it necessary existence, it is coming up with such a thing where its necessity is plausible. I must admit if anything would have necessary existence it would be a supreme being. I cannot say the same up pink unicorns.

What is going on in my brain anymore?!? I cannot say the same OF pink unicorns.

Depends on one’s definition of supreme. What if the existance of any “being” requires a non-inteligent quantum foam? Then, using this logic, the most supreme being could be us, and the quantum foam that created everything exists, since it is possible, and when it exists it makes itself neccesary.

In this case supreme “being” does not equal supreme “state”. It is actually a lesser component. I think the problem is in the 1st step. The assumptions about what are not unreasonable assumptions. Circular. Ironic. Useless. Par. Course.

Although it is entertaining, kind of like those trick treasure boxes in the “Warlords” game.

DaLovin’ Dj

Did I just prove that I’m god?

Just checking.

My point was this: if you assign necessary existence as a definition, then you aren’t making up a creature — you’re just making up a word. You’re saying that you are using the verbage “Invisiple Pink Unicorn” to mean “necessary existence”. You’re changing the definition of unicorn.

No, I’m saying that it is one of many traits that the quantum unicorn foam has by definition. It also likes pop tarts.

DaLovin’ Dj

DJ

I understand your frustration. I could dismiss quantum theory in much the same way, since I have very little understanding of its theories and history.

There are centuries of intellectual investment in these lines of logic by some of history’s greatest thinkers. It is the foundation for every philosophical discipline, including science and mathematics. Dismissing it as “useless” without even demonstrating the most elementary understanding of it is just, well, silly.

Why not at least visit the excellent pages from Stanford University and spend some time acquainting yourself with the principles, rather than simply shooting from the hip. That’s not very StraightDopish, and this isn’t MPSIMS.

I have a question, Lib. Well, several, actually. :slight_smile:

When you say:

What does it mean for G to exist? What sort of existence? I understand that stands for “necessary” and <> for “possible”. But what does G, with no prefix, mean?

Is G just a proposition? In that case, does “G -> G” mean “If G is true then G is true necessarily”? If that is the case, then where does existence come in? My point is this: my limited understanding of modal logic tells me that propositions have modal status; entities do not. Therefore, saying that something is necessary (or possible, or not possible) would be meaningless with respect to modal logic. One could make a claim about the modal status of a proposition dealing with an entity, but making a claim about the modal status of an entity would be nonsense.

Am I way off? Close? Am I understanding these basics correctly? I’m not sure I’m even phrasing my question correctly.

erislover: Perhaps I’m just confused about what you’ve said, but I’m left with the impression that you’re not understanding me. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

If I could substitute the new concept of “existence” for the old concept of “possible”, and not lose previous meanings or introduce new meanings, then the concepts are identical, and differ only in the word we use to refer to it.

Without making a distinction, we’ve accomplished nothing.

BlackKnight:

You’ve got it substantially right.

<>G = It is possible that God exists. (Also ~~G means the same.)

G = It is necessary that God exists.

G = God exists in actuality.

Here is an excellent explanation of both the argument and the symbologies.

But doesn’t this work only if you define God as that which is necessary to exist, and assume that “supreme” can take only the highest possible meaning? “Supreme” can mean “the highest that there is, but not necessarily the highest there can be”, right? God could be the current highest power in the universe(though any such claim at this point is supposition without direct evidence), but still not be the be all and end all.