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.
Daniel wrote:
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. 
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.
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:
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
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.
Especially considering the people I know from Texas. . .
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”. *
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.
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.
Okay. Thanks for clarifying that, Iamthat!
Disagree. And notice that that is different from “It is possible that there are no 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.” **
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.
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.
And that is why you fail.
“Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.” — Robert F. Kennedy
“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
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.
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?
False: ~<>G
True: <>~G
but you’re wrong, since ~(<>G). After all, I just stated it earlier, so it MUST be true, right? 