Now, you’re talking! That’s the right tact to take. There are two (or three, depending on the version) axioms (or premises) for the argument that are assumed true. One is G -> G, and the other is <>G.
What you’re doing is denying use of the axiom that God’s existence is possible. Although that’s not the one that most materialists discard, at least you’re not swiping at the definition.
That means that you find the argument valid but unsound, just like nearly every materialist philosopher. An argument is valid if all its inferences follow logically from one another (and these do). It is sound if all its premises are true (and you believe they aren’t).
Of course, anyone could also say that Peano’s Induction Axiom is not true. In which case, the famous proof by Whitehead and Russel in Principia Mathematica, that 1+1=2, is valid but unsound. In fact, any of the five axioms may be denied. And since Peano left the term “sucessor” undefined, that term may be discarded if you wish.
Absolutely… but that is not what is being done. Possible existence is not the same as actual existence. Actual existence is the “new” way of saying “the same old” exists.
Hey, Lib, this isn’t IMHO. Declaring that a question (what’s your definition of supreme being?) has no merit does not make it so. This is GD and such behaivior isn’t very Straight Dopish, although it is quite Libertarian-ish.
Me thinks he dost protest too much. That which makes him wrong is for amateurs and not worthy of consideration. Right. Got it. The definition is not accepted as a given. Your failure to address this issue, and instead belittle those who would pose the question, destroys your case. As a matter of fact the definition you are using is quite cloudy. Regarding “Supreme Being”: does an unintelligent process count as a “being” per your definition? Oh yeah, I’m stupid for even asking. It doesn’t matter, even though it changes the whole meaning of the proof.
Smoke and mirrors. Lib states that his use of the word “God” does not contain the implication of awareness:
So to call it “God” and refer to it as a “being”, especially in the context of his Christianity, and then declare (when called on it) that he has not implied that such entity is sentient and exists, is trickery at its worst. Logical proof of god my ass. Semantic games providing no real world evidence of anything. Fun, thought provoking, but as far as telling us anything about creation or reality, let’s just say:
Here is a better description of current inflationary theory.
If the proof just posits that anything necessary must exist, without making any declarations about the “awareness” of such necessity, then to call it “God” is disingenuous at best given the historical connotations associated to that word.
Armchair simpleton, signing off for the evening, confident that no human yet has successfully proven (or disproven the) existence of any “god” in the classic sense of the word.
For the record, I am not and never have claimed to be a “professional philosopher”. I have taught classes to computer programmers in first-order logic, but I am not a professional teacher. In fact, I’ve said many times that I never went beyond one semester of college. I’ve just read quite a lot on the topic. I’m glad I saw your post because I had not seen the post you quoted from.
Iamthat wrote:
Okay, here it is again, this time with commentary:
G -> G
IF God does exist, then His existence is necessary (because of the definition of God).
2. ~[]~G
It is not necessary that God does not exist. This is exactly the same as saying <>G, or it is possible that God exists. <> and ~~ mean the same thing. Note that this is the first mention of possibility. Hang in there, and you’ll see how it gets to necessity (at number 9).
~G -> ~G
IF it is not necessary that God exists, then that will be true in every possible world. This is Becker’s Postulate applied to ~G, and basically says that modal status (except for actuality) is always necessary. It is used to develop such statements as p -> p, or if p is necessary, then necessary p is true in all possible worlds.
G -> G
IF God exists necessarily, then He exists in actuality. This is an application of what is usually called the Modal Axiom, or the 5 Axiom. It is the axiom that helps form System 5 Logic from Kripke Logic.
G v ~G
Either God exists necessarily, or else He doesn’t. This is called an Excluded Middle. It’s a principle that basically states that a logical proposition is either true or false, but not both nor neither.
G v ~G
Either God exists necessarily, or else it is true in every possible world that He does not. This number 6 takes the ~G that we had in number 5 and substitutes the ~G we had in number 3. We can do this substitution because number 3 showed that G (found in number 5) implies ~G (found here in number 6).
~G -> ~G
IF it is true in every possible world that God does not exist necessarily, then it is necessary that God does not exist. This is called a modal modus tollens applied to number 1. The modal modus tollens basically states that if p implies q is true, then q being necessarily false implies that p is necessarily false.
G v ~G
Either it is necessary that God exists, or else it is necessary that He does not. Look at number 6 and number 7. This number 8 is substituting ~G for ~G since it was shown that ~G implies G.
Okay, now comes what you asked about. Here’s how it got from possibility (in number 2) to necessity (in number 9):
9. []G
It is necessary that God exists. Why? This is called a disjunctive syllogism. If p or q, then if p is false, q is true, and if q is false, then p is true. Look at number 8. ~G cannot be true because of number 2. They directly contradict each other. Since either G or ~G must be true, according to number 8, it has to be G.
G
God exists in actuality. Why? Look at number 9. Now, look at number 4. This is called a modus ponens. A modus ponens states that if p implies q, and p is true, then q is true. G implies G, and G is true according to number 9.
So, I hope that answers your question about how it got from possibility to necessity.
Yet, the definition is not even worthy of discussion? Bizarre reasoning you’ve got there. The word obtuse comes to mind.
Then perhaps you should not be so quick to point out which arguments are without merit. Your surety comes off as entirely self-serving. You are quick to throw the rules of debate at folks, but not so quick to follow when it serves your purpose to ignore and insult instead . . .
It does indeed. I have never said “the definition is not even worthy of discussion”.
Well, likewise, I’m sure. I only have so much time. I’m going to answer inquiries like those from Sentient and Iamthat because they don’t treat me like a throw rug the way you do. And I have always cited authorities from Plato to Kant to Kierkegaard to Spinoza to Hartshorne to Suber to Tisthammer to support what I’m saying. Just because you haven’t bothered to read any of it, don’t get snitty.
Well, you’ve implied as much with statements like these:
You get treated like a rug cause you treat people like a rug. These statements level accusations of bias against anyone who questions the definition used. This seems particularly unfair, given that the WHOLE ARGUMENT HINGES ON THE DEFINITION OF “GOD”.
So, snide insults aside, if you define “God” as “Supreme Being” and yet do not include in your definition of “Supreme Being” sentience, then it begs the question why use the word "God’, which has typically been used to denote a sentient creator of all things?
Dammit, Lib, do you want me to get banned for spamming?
Either put up evidence that it is possible for a conscious entity that exists out of time that loves everyone that created everything et al exists, or shut up about the entire argument.
BTW, once you do that, you also get to prove that the Christian God that you worship is the same god whose existence you have proven. And if even if you can prove that a generic God indistinguishable from Q the quantom froth 0-sum reaction may exist, I double dog dare you to prove that the petty SOB of a deity from the Old Testament has necessary existence.
Of couse, you could throw out the Bible as a valid source of knowledge about the nature of God, and just go with what has been verified about Him experimentally.
That must be why Sentient said near the top of this page, “Of course, Lib, my admiration for your eloquence is without limit, and your expertise, patience and kindness as a mentor is peerless.”
As a matter of fact, you entered the board way back when with guns-a-blazin’, aimed mostly at Christians. How can anyone justify belief in God? was one of your early Great Debates threads. You yourself even admitted in this post
Somehow, you felt that did not apply in your very first every post to me. Your opening salvo was:
Word game garbage? Useless? I’d say that’s treating me like a throw rug. And then things between you and me went downhill from there.
Don’t pretend that you don’t come into this with a chip on your shoulder and a careless disregard for other people’s beliefs. I always assume that someone is sincere until he gives me cause to believe otherwise. You did that early on, and I doubt you will change. Of course, sometimes miracles happen.
Hello everyone … Im very very very interested in all of this and am trying to soak all of this in … see now… im a junior in high school and have only taken college prep level courses because our honors courses are college prep courses with more homework …and since I run track and work and lets boyscouts… and yea lots of stuff I just didnt feel that it was appropriate to take the honors courses… Now… what am I trying to get at… I was wondering if any body can lead me to some good books websites and other threads or furums … in which I can learn more and understand more about this… also what sciences and mathmatics should I study up on in order to comprhend the universe in general?.. I know things about special relitivity and antimatter blah blah… so any way … if you can understand my babble… please respond!
What kind of information are you looking for, gouldisruling?
Are you specifically interested in physics? Quantum physics? Philosophy? What especially interests you?
Well in particular… A little physics because ive done lots of research on that… Maybe philosiphies and more of quantum physics which i didnt research much. and any other odd articles that may help me along my way!
