Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

[Redleg]

True, however my statement is probalby invalid because I expressed the sum of my logic through language and the perspective of the knower.

Now if only I could weave a construct whereby all knowers using said construct could only embrace the knowledge I set as true then I can remove the known and the knower and we can just praise my construct and the inevitable knowledge as superior.

You just made my head hurt.. Bad ShadeHonestus Bad :whip: :whip:

So I must praise your construct and knowledge as superior for now - at least until my head stops hurting.

[Redleg]

I will probably have to plagiarize you if you continue these pointless off-topic posts. This was once a thread about the impossibility of proving God's existence, now it is a thread about two ******** ********* (Redleg and ShadesHonestus) cheering on someone (Pindar) who tries to prove that God must exist because something that must exist must exist, and only God is something that must exist, therefore nothing else can be the something that must exist that must exist", while Papewaio, Sasaki Kojiro, Reenk Roink and myself keep trying to demonstrate the basics of logic.

Actually you are still misreading what Pinder has claimed. I find that rather amusing. He has presented a verbal proof that god existance has a valid proof in the scope of logic. That is not the same as arguing that God must exist.




As I said, it would be interesting to feed this so called proof into an automated reasoning system, or send it to someone who is logician by profession. Apparently a near-logician isn't trustworthy enough for a laywer's fantastic knowledge on the subject of logic. Would be interesting to have Bertrand Russel, Peano, George Boole and the others here witnessing this spectacle.

Well its your suggestion so by all means follow through. Once again I find your responses to get even more amusing considering your claims of superior knowledge concerning logic and logical arguements.

There is no truth claim being presented by Pinder in this thread so far.

[ShadeHonestus]

This was once a thread about the impossibility of proving God's existence, now it is a thread about two ******** ********* (Redleg and ShadesHonestus) cheering on someone (Pindar) who tries to prove that God must exist...


Oh nice, I'm a ******** *********. I missed the part of the debate where I took a personal disliking to you, well until now.

Congratulations to you too Redleg as it appears we are in "cahoots" with each other in some cheering section defined by pure logic and also by said logic you are a ******** ********* as well.

By the way, the whole statement and accusation is false as you've misspelled my name.

[Rodion Romanovich]

There is no truth claim being presented by Pinder in this thread so far.
That's a matter of definition. In boolean algebra and formal logic, every proposition has a truth value, and a proof is a proposition that the premises imply the conclusion. If the implication P => C evaluates to true in boolean algebra simplification, the proof is valid. I.e. a claim that a proof is valid is a claim that the proof can be simplified to true. A true proof and a valid proof are the same, but a true proof is not the same as a true conclusion. So by formal logic he has indeed made a truth claim - the claim that "something that must exist must exist" implies "God exists".

Furthermore, I'd also like to question whether he has made a truth claim about the conclusion or not. He has repeatedly claimed that a necessary being "can only be God, thus completing the proof". Since he claims to have no assumptions in his proof, P is replaced by the literal "true", which means, by modus ponens, that he has thereby automatically declared the conclusion to be true. So unless he has an assumption - but he claims he hasn't needed to make any assumption - he has also made a claim that the conclusion is true. Generally, if you make a valid logical argument that needs to assumption, you have automatically proven that the conclusion is true.

Again, it would be good for this thread if we could acquire a link to an automated reasoning system with a web interface, to have an independent unbiased judge for this debate, so that it focus is removed from the silly lawyer-style fallacy hiding and personal attacks.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

Once again, I am forced to ask for a return to the reasoned debate previously seen. Accusations are flying around rather than discussion.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Redleg]

Gentlemen,

Once again, I am forced to ask for a return to the reasoned debate previously seen. Accusations are flying around rather than discussion.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

I am willing once an individual acknowledges that logic has many forms, and that the primariy form for an internet discussion has to do with the verbal arguement form of logic.

[Sjakihata]

Yes, there are many forms of logic. That is why Legio keeps stressing that he is talking about formal logic.

[Redleg]

Yes, there are many forms of logic. That is why Legio keeps stressing that he is talking about formal logic.

Indeed, however he also ignores all other forms of logic in his arguement, which is his major error in this discussion.

[Sjakihata]

Indeed, however he also ignores all other forms of logic in his arguement, which is his major error in this discussion.


He doesn't ignore them. He is operating under the paradigm of formal logic, in that paradigm no other logic applies. Predicate logic is a more subtle form of logic, that has a closer connection to the spoken word and can express things formal can not. It is, however, also limited, given that you can end up with a truth table that will never end, so sometimes you cannot find a given truth value for a proposition or conclusion.

Basically, he is speaking German and you are speaking French. You cannot communicate, although some words have a close affinity.

[Redleg]

He doesn't ignore them. He is operating under the paradigm of formal logic, in that paradigm no other logic applies. Predicate logic is a more subtle form of logic, that has a closer connection to the spoken word and can express things formal can not. It is, however, also limited, given that you can end up with a truth table that will never end, so sometimes you cannot find a given truth value for a proposition or conclusion.

Basically, he is speaking German and you are speaking French. You cannot communicate, although some words have a close affinity.

Which makes his arguement against Pinder's postion even more unsound. If he is not willing to view the logic form that is being applied, then he should not be attacking that logic. He has committed a gross error in criticizing the form, when he refuses to acknowledge that form. In other words if he is speaking German and I am speaking French - he should acknowledge that we are not speaking the same language.

[Sjakihata]

Although I do not speak German fluently, I speak it well enough to be sure, that Pindars argument for God is written in German, although, possibly with some grammatical errors. I don't blame him though, German grammar can be frustrating (metaphorically and literally).

Anyway, I'm not taking sides here. I'm pointing out there is a miscommunication, on both sides.

[Redleg]

Anyway, I'm not taking sides here. I'm pointing out there is a miscommunication, on both sides.

Oh that I figured given the nature of your post. I was pointing out the same type of miscommunication issue - except that I took a side.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. ... The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.

God is nowhere to be found in reality. He neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. ... The role that remains for God to play is solely that of an idea.

RR, what's the difference between these two?

If you reject a single instance of infinity can you not reject god by the same logic?

[Reenk Roink]

RR, what's the difference between these two?

If you reject a single instance of infinity can you not reject god by the same logic?

"Legitimate basis for rational thought"...

You are fairly confident in the accuracy of science aren't you? Modern scientific theories hold that the universe had a beginning. Don't you agree like you agree with gravity?

[Soulforged]

[...]Pinder[...]Totally off-topic but... Can I ask you Red why you keep misspelling Pindar's name over and over again? I mean I know about your near legendary misspelling abilities but this seems pretty headstrong even for you...:laugh4:

EDIT: Now on topic, and looking in a different direction. What if God really existed? If "Leibniz-Pindar's" arguement was truth?

If this thread is about religion I think we've to focus on the main subject matter: belief. Why should we believe in God? Or even better, why should we praise him? Ask him for help, offer sacrifices, give thanks or atton before him, etc.

If my slaver was necessary would that make him any less of a slaver. Why should we have a Lord? Why not destroy the Lord?

[Redleg]

Totally off-topic but... Can I ask you Red why you keep misspelling Pindar's name over and over again? I mean I know about your near legendary misspelling abilities but this seems pretty headstrong even for you...:laugh4:

Hell I never noticed that I was misspelling his name. :laugh4:

[Pindar]

Although I do not speak German fluently, I speak it well enough to be sure, that Pindars argument for God is written in German, although, possibly with some grammatical errors. I don't blame him though, German grammar can be frustrating (metaphorically and literally).

What grammatical errors do you see in my German Mein Heir?

[Pindar]

Now on topic, and looking in a different direction. What if God really existed? If "Leibniz-Pindar's" arguement was truth?

Leibniz's proof is not the same as mine though they both are of a similar species.


If this thread is about religion I think we've to focus on the main subject matter: belief. Why should we believe in God? Or even better, why should we praise him? Ask him for help, offer sacrifices, give thanks or atton before him, etc.

The thread's original focus was on atheism and other secular fair. My participation was on the rational troubles of atheism. Later, the discussion shifted as a self-identifying atheist claimed all strong statements about god were illogical. This is what led to my simple proof which has attracted many a reply from the serious to the dilettante. As it stands, the proof has been recognized as valid by all save one who claimed it was a fallacy, then valid and back again. Religion has not been a focus or relevant to the discussion.

[Rodion Romanovich]

What grammatical errors do you see in my German Mein Heir?
Perhaps not a grammatical error, but at least a spelling error: it's Mein Herr

[Rodion Romanovich]

This is what led to my simple proof which has attracted many a reply from the serious to the dilettante. As it stands, the proof has been recognized as valid by all save one
I'd say that is quite rude towards the many participants in this thread, considering that both Papewaio, Sasaki Kojiro, myself, Sjakihata, and Claudius the God among others have expressed strong doubts towards your so called "proof", and shown that it doesn't live up to the standars of modern logic.

[Soulforged]

The thread's original focus was on atheism and other secular fair. My participation was on the rational troubles of atheism. Later, the discussion shifted as a self-identifying atheist claimed all strong statements about god were illogical. This is what led to my simple proof which has attracted many a reply from the serious to the dilettante. As it stands, the proof has been recognized as valid by all save one who claimed it was a fallacy, then valid and back again. Religion has not been a focus or relevant to the discussion.
Yes, many people have confused invalid with unproved all along this thread. Still my question/s is perfectly valid on this thread.

[Pindar]

I'd say that is quite rude towards the many participants in this thread, considering that both Papewaio, Sasaki Kojiro, myself, Sjakihata, and Claudius the God among others have expressed strong doubts towards your so called "proof", and shown that it doesn't live up to the standars of modern logic.


Having doubt about a thing or being curious about a thing or asking questions about a thing is not the same as charging invalidity. Over the long coarse of this thread I can't recall any still standing charges the proof is anything other than valid save for what I mentioned. I don't recall anywhere where Papewaio charged the proof is invalid. Sasaki has recognized the proof as valid. You claimed it was flawed, then valid, and now evidently invalid again: such speaks for itself. I don't recall Sjakihata claiming the proof was invalid, but to be sure I asked just a few posts above what possible "grammatical errors" there might be. Claudius the God, as I recall, has no standing charge the proof is invalid, nor do I think he ever claimed such.

The last clause of your post is curious. It seems confused. Logic in its manifold systems is not time laden. Each is useful in its own domain. Aristotle's syllogisms are of equal force now as 2300 years ago. What I put forward is a simple proof which is what I explained I would do. It is sufficient for its purpose.

I let your attempted rejoinder to my last post go unanswered along with a few following posts that referenced me, but given this penchant to throw around terms of etiquette like "insult" previously and "rude" above, I suppose a reply is warranted. It is no insult to use your own words in regards to your saying you wouldn't post again in the thread. Your bowing out was not forced, but something you choose alone. If one says a thing and doesn't follow through, it speaks to their character, not unlike when one quotes from uncited texts, or doesn't use quotation marks, thus making a thing appear their own: all poor form. Of course, the other issue with such a tact is texts being pirated may not engage the actual issue and thus the post can end up having a forced quality. These speak to presentation of a thing and the presenter.

As far as content of charges are concerned: claiming no sources were given when justifying my views is wrong. For historical proofs: such was given for St. Thomas, Aristotle, Plato and Leibniz, who were the fellows I reference when noting multiple proofs for God exist in the Western Tradition. That this was new information to you only serves to support my noting you do not know Western Intellectual History. This also undercuts claims no one has ever given proofs for God. Such were given, were considered valid by their source and have a fair degree of recognition amongst the studied even today. Moreover, Modern proofs for God are by no means rare: Gödel, Hartshorne and Plantinga would be three simple examples. As far as my argument goes, no referencing is necessary as the argument stands independent. These speak to accuracy.

Along a similar vein: the repeated use of First Mover, and identifying my proof as such, when it does not exist in the proof is sloppy. To claim I said the proof has no assumptions when I clearly stated point 1) is an assumption is sloppy. To claim the proof, which I have repeatedly stated is only an exercise in rational argument, entails a truth claim is sloppy. To make a late attempt to tie in the Ontological Argument (which also suggests aping others work as it is a famous position) is, what shall we say: if you know the source of this posture then you should also know the many rather standard counters: more sloppiness.

One of the reasons I had no interest in a repeat performance with yourself is in reading your posts it is clear you ape work you do not understand, much like listening to English Majors/Professors using Derrida or derridian vocabulary who lack the necessary philosophical background: it is all form over substance. Acting the pedagogue with someone as verbose as yourself becomes a very drawn out and tedious affair. To reiterate: to claim a proof is fallacy, fallacy fallacy, then admit it is valid, and then come back with the proof is fallacious yet again, is one too many changes to make and still have any credibility. You do not understand. Verbose posts and making use of others' work without citation or quotation marks does not change this unfortunate reality.

[Pindar]

Yes, many people have confused invalid with unproved all along this thread. Still my question/s is perfectly valid on this thread.

I think your questions are fine. I simply was pointing out the thread hasn't been concerned with religion.

[Rodion Romanovich]

it is all form over substance
Actually logic isn't concerned with substance, but with form. For example logic can investigate statements following a particular form, such as:

A and not A

and realize that this statement will always be false, since there's nothing that can be true at the same time that its opposite is true. It doesn't matter what substance is contained in A. No matter what claim A is, "A and not A" will always be false, just like "A or not A" will always be true, and so on.

Another form which logic demonstrates is a fallacy, is to conclude A => B, when A and B are completely unrelated statements and the truth values of A or B is unknown beforehand. A statement can't imply that a completely unrelated statement must be true - there must be some properties that ties them together. To prove the existence of God you must prove that his properties are possible, that a combination of them is possible, that there exists at least one being that has the combination of the properties, and that there is at most one being that has the combination of the properties. Until all those 4 points have been demonstrated, a proof of God is incomplete. Your only assumption, according to yourself, is that "there exist contingent beings", where contingent being refers to something that hasn't existed always but has been created at one point. There is no demonstration that any properties of God must exist, that the combination of the properties exists, or that there can be at most one being with those properties. The only property that you have at all attempted to demonstrate is existence. Then you state that from existence, all other properties of God must follow, but that is a statement of the form A => B, where A and B are completely unrelated. Perfection doesn't follow from existence, omniscience doesn't follow from existence etc.

[Pindar]

it is all form over substance


Actually logic isn't concerned with substance, but with form.

The pronoun in the semicolon clause quoted above doesn't refer to logic.



To prove the existence of God you must prove that his properties are possible, that a combination of them is possible, that there exists at least one being that has the combination of the properties, and that there is at most one being that has the combination of the properties. Until all those 4 points have been demonstrated, a proof of God is incomplete. Your only assumption, according to yourself, is that "there exist contingent beings", where contingent being refers to something that hasn't existed always but has been created at one point. There is no demonstration that any properties of God must exist, that the combination of the properties exists, or that there can be at most one being with those properties. The only property that you have at all attempted to demonstrate is existence. Then you state that from existence, all other properties of God must follow, but that is a statement of the form A => B, where A and B are completely unrelated. Perfection doesn't follow from existence, omniscience doesn't follow from existence etc.

The proof turns on the relation between contingent and necessary being. Admitting contingent beings exist impels the existence of a necessary being. The proof is a demonstration of this. Necessary being is an essential characteristic of god. As was explained previously, the proof is a sufficiency argument. This means the conclusion is exhaustive in that no other object can fill the requirements of the conclusion (necessary being) other than god. To assume an attending taxonomy is required is to fail to understand sufficiency arguments. For example, if one were giving a sufficiency proof for man and the argument turned on demonstrating the existence of a being with an aesthetic sense: the proof's conclusion would not then need to further demonstrate this same object sexually reproduced, has body hair, participated in sports, used currency, sometimes wore shoes, invented disco etc.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

For example, if one were giving a sufficiency proof for man and the argument turned on demonstrating the existence of a being with an aesthetic sense: the proof's conclusion would not then need to further demonstrate this same object sexually reproduced, has body hair, participated in sports, used currency, sometimes wore shoes, invented disco etc.

Aesthetic sense is not a sufficiency proof of man.

[Pindar]

Aesthetic sense is not a sufficiency proof of man.


You missed the point. However, if you wish to argue other animals have an aesthetic sense, do so.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You missed the point. However, if you wish to argue other animals have an aesthetic sense, do so.

https://img258.imageshack.us/img258/5511/paintingthumbmg2.jpg

I'm aware you were using it as an example. But I see the case as parallel. You say aesthetic sense -> man, when there are clearly other options. You also say that necessary being -> god, when there are clearly other options.

[Pindar]

I'm aware you were using it as an example. But I see the case as parallel.

Of course they're parallel. That is why I gave the example: to illustrate the point.

Note: aesthetic sense isn't reducible to claiming a thing made by some other is art. Such would be arbitrary: it wouldn't allow one to distinguish between art and an intentional bowel movement. Aesthetic sense is dependant on the intention of the subject.


You also say that necessary being -> god, when there are clearly other options.

There are no other options.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Of course they're parallel. That is why I gave the example: to illustrate the point.

Note: aesthetic sense isn't reducible to claiming a thing made by some other is art. Such would be arbitrary: it wouldn't allow one to distinguish between art and an intentional bowel movement. Aesthetic sense is dependant on the intention of the subject.

Eh, it's prettier than most contemporary art.




There are no other options.

Why are there no other options?

[Pindar]

Eh, it's prettier than most contemporary art.

Is it? Unfortunately, the prettiness factor isn't determinative.



Why are there no other options?

Because nothing else meets the criteria.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Because nothing else meets the criteria.

The criteria is "necessary being" right?

[Pindar]

The criteria is "necessary being" right?

Yes.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes.

Surely something that is the necessary being and nothing else would meet the criteria for necessary being?

[Pindar]

Surely something that is the necessary being and nothing else would meet the criteria for necessary being?

Obviously. Just as something that is a perfect being and nothing else would meet the criteria of a perfect being, yes: A equals A. Such an 'A' insofar as it connotes a positive maximal attribute, is God. This is definitional. That is what the word means under a rational rubric.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Pindar: actually necessary being according to your own definition is the same as "necessary" in modal logic. Such necessity is concerned with the truth values of statements, not with metaphysical existence. A necessary being is a statement that would be a contradiction towards the laws of logic if it were to be true. Plenty of statements fulfill the requirement for necessary being, among them the statement "A or not A". The statement "A or not A" isn't God, but is a necessary being.

[Pindar]

@Pindar: actually necessary being according to your own definition is the same as "necessary" in modal logic. Such necessity is concerned with the truth values of statements, not with metaphysical existence. A necessary being is a statement that would be a contradiction towards the laws of logic if it were to be true. Plenty of statements fulfill the requirement for necessary being, among them the statement "A or not A". The statement "A or not A" isn't God, but is a necessary being.

Alas, no. In necessary being: necessary is an adjective. It informs the noun, being. Being is concerned with existence i.e. ontology. This is metaphysics.

There is nothing contradictory about the notion necessary being.

A statement is not a necessary being.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Obviously. Just as something that is a perfect being and nothing else would meet the criteria of a perfect being, yes: A equals A. Such an 'A' insofar as it connotes a positive maximal attribute, is God. This is definitional. That is what the word means under a rational rubric.

Are you saying "necessary" is a positive maximal attribute?

[Pindar]

Are you saying "necessary" is a positive maximal attribute?

Not necessary as a simple adjective alone, but necessary being. Being (or existence) is taken as a positive (in that it is superior to its opposite which is nothingness). Moreover, the maximalization of being (necessary being) is superior to what is contingent.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not necessary as a simple adjective alone, but necessary being. Being (or existence) is taken as a positive (in that it is superior to its opposite which is nothingness). Moreover, the maximalization of being (necessary being) is superior to what is contingent.

Now wait a minute. Why is existence certain to be positive?

I don't see why you say necessary is a maximalization of being or superior to contingent either.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Alas, no. In necessary being: necessary is an adjective. It informs the noun, being. Being is concerned with existence i.e. ontology. This is metaphysics.

There is nothing contradictory about the notion necessary being.

A statement is not a necessary being.
Your necessary being is a notion of "something that must exist, otherwise there would be a contradiction towards the laws of logic". Correct me if that was an incorrect interpretation of your definition.

Now, the problem is that it's illegal to define words that have the property of existence along with other properties (see the logic handbook thread), and even worse to define words containing logical modalities in their definitions. By adding "necessary existence" into your definition, your very definition itself has already claimed that necessary beings must exist or there would be a contradiction towards logic - before even starting the argumentation! A logically necessary statement is something which can't be false, or it would be a contradiction towards the laws of logic. Before you have shown that the laws of logic make it necessary that something metaphysically exists, your definition is illegal. Imagine if it is the case that the laws of logic don't necessitate the metaphysical existence of something - then your very word definition is a contradiction. In fact, to be honest, there's nothing in the laws of logic that necessitate metaphysical existence of anything - more things are logically possible than are possible in reality - in reality only one option is the case, whereas logic in many cases state it is logically possible with multiple options. Logic isn't as restrictive as reality. All arguments trying to show that something metaphysically exists have relied on additional assumptions than the validity of logical laws alone. Assumptions such as "there exist metaphysically things that haven't been created". I'd say your chances of actually proving that something must metaphysically exist by the laws of logic themselves are zero, unless you choose an unusual definition of metaphysical existence. By the way - what is your definition of metaphysical existence in your argument?

As for your argument, your best option is to remove necessary existence from the definition of necessary being, leaving only the property "hasn't been created" in the definition, and then you can try to prove that something that hasn't been created must necessarily exist, given some more assumptions than that the laws of logic are correct. You did have an argument for that - an argument that was valid once you stated your assumptions more clearly, and rather that claiming to have proven God, claim to have proven what the argument actually proves, i.e. that: "there must exist something that wasn't created, assuming that ex nihilo creation is impossible and there exist things that haven't existed always." This of course wouldn't be a proof of God, since matter and energy has existed forever and can fulfill the role of "something that wasn't created", according to many. However, if you don't believe matter and energy have existed forever, it could be a strong argument for a God/Gods, however it doesn't say which God/what Gods.

Alternatively, you can define your being as something that "hasn't been created" and has all the other properties of God, and then try to prove that they logically exist. This fulfills points one to three in this quote:


To prove the existence of God you must prove that his properties are possible, that a combination of them is possible, that there exists at least one being that has the combination of the properties, and that there is at most one being that has the combination of the properties.

As usual you must also complete the proof by showing that there can exist at most one, fulfilling point four in the quote.

As a final word, because logic is less restrictive than reality regarding what is impossible and necessary, I'd say logic isn't a good method for trying to reason about existence of God. Both because logic repeatedly demonstrates that logic alone can't prove the existence of God without adding further assumptions, and because logic also theoretically has the property that it alone isn't as restrictive as reality, meaning that the lack of a proof of God by the laws of logic doesn't mean it isn't necessarily the case that the existence of God isn't necessary (to rewrite Kurt Gödel's famous incompleteness theorem somewhat).


For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true1 but not provable in the theory can be constructed. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Not necessary as a simple adjective alone, but necessary being. Being (or existence) is taken as a positive (in that it is superior to its opposite which is nothingness). Moreover, the maximalization of being (necessary being) is superior to what is contingent.
Now you're using the Anselm style of argument, which has been demonstrated useless, since it contains a subjective value, where it is undefined whose subjective value it is. Whose value is it that existence is superior to non-existence? Words such as "superior" leave something to be wished in terms of specification. Using the word "superior" requires us to specify in which sense we mean better, or in whose opinion we're talking about "superior". Before that has been done, it is unspecified what the statement is trying to say.

[Pindar]

Now wait a minute. Why is existence certain to be positive?

I don't see why you say necessary is a maximalization of being or superior to contingent either.

Traditionally existence is taken as a positive in that it is necessary precursor by and through which any possible valuation or attribution can occur: truth, beauty, morality etc.

Necessary being is superior in that it is not ontically dependant.

[Pindar]

Your necessary being is a notion of "something that must exist, otherwise there would be a contradiction towards the laws of logic". Correct me if that was an incorrect interpretation of your definition.

Who are you quoting? That is not a statement I've made.


Now, the problem is that it's illegal to define words that have the property of existence along with other properties (see the logic handbook thread), and even worse to define words containing logical modalities in their definitions. By adding "necessary existence" into your definition, your very definition itself has already claimed that necessary beings must exist or there would be a contradiction towards logic - before even starting the argumentation!

Illegal? Logic isn't about legality. Nothing in the above flurry responds to necessary being as a metaphysical notion or supports the idea the very concept is a breach of reason. Also note: defining a thing is not in and of itself to demonstrate existence or constitute a proof. Definitions simply provide coherence to a concept.


By the way - what is your definition of metaphysical existence in your argument?

'Metaphysical existence' doesn't appear in the proof, but metaphysics refers to ontology: what exists, being.


As for your argument, your best option is to remove necessary existence from the definition of necessary being, leaving only the property "hasn't been created" in the definition, and then you can try to prove that something that hasn't been created must necessarily exist, given some more assumptions than that the laws of logic are correct. You did have an argument for that - an argument that was valid once you stated your assumptions more clearly...

The base meaning of necessary being has always been the standard notion. There is nothing revolutionary or strained in it. The argument has never changed. It is and always has been valid. All that has changed was your varying and shifting degrees of understanding.


This of course wouldn't be a proof of God, since matter and energy has existed forever and can fulfill the role of "something that wasn't created", according to many. However, if you don't believe matter and energy have existed forever, it could be a strong argument for a God/Gods, however it doesn't say which God/what Gods.

Belief isn't relevant. Matter and energy are attributes of a thing, not a thing singular. This has been discussed.


As a final word, because logic is less restrictive than reality regarding what is impossible and necessary, I'd say logic isn't a good method for trying to reason about existence of God. Both because logic repeatedly demonstrates that logic alone can't prove the existence of God without adding further assumptions, and because logic also theoretically has the property that it alone isn't as restrictive as reality, meaning that the lack of a proof of God by the laws of logic doesn't mean it isn't necessarily the case that the existence of God isn't necessary (to rewrite Kurt Gödel's famous incompleteness theorem somewhat).

Do you recall the point of this tangent on god? The point was to show young master Sasaki that not all strong statements about god are illogical. The proof is a simple demonstration to that effect. Its only concern is and has been a rational demonstration.

Also note: logic has multiple proofs for god. This has been demonstrated. Gödel has his own as well. My guess is your unfamiliar with it.



Now you're using the Anselm style of argument, which has been demonstrated useless, since it contains a subjective value, where it is undefined whose subjective value it is. Whose value is it that existence is superior to non-existence? Words such as "superior" leave something to be wished in terms of specification. Using the word "superior" requires us to specify in which sense we mean better, or in whose opinion we're talking about "superior". Before that has been done, it is unspecified what the statement is trying to say.

The above demonstrates an ignorance of St. Anselm. The rest of the post has no value as my statement: "Being (or existence) is taken as a positive..." is obviously a judgment: note the verb usage.

As for superior in regard to necessary being: specification can be given as asked for. This is how discourse proceeds, to whit: necessary being is seen as superior in that it is not ontically dependant.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Traditionally existence is taken as a positive in that it is necessary precursor by and through which any possible valuation or attribution can occur: truth, beauty, morality etc.

...lies, ugliness, depravity etc.


Necessary being is superior in that it is not ontically dependant.

This is judgement as well. Has no place in a proof.

[Pindar]

...lies, ugliness, depravity etc.

Quite. Lies, ugliness, depravity all depend on an extant.

(why did you choose these references to liberals?)




This is judgement as well. Has no place in a proof.

? The second sentence is a fragment. I don't know what you are referring to.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Quite. Lies, ugliness, depravity all depend on an extant.

(why did you choose these references to liberals?)

So, existence can hardly be said to be positive when the possibility of negative exists.






? The second sentence is a fragment. I don't know what you are referring to.

The proof you originally gave shows necessary being. But you only get from necessary being to god by claiming that existence is positive etc. But that is not a proof.

[Pindar]

So, existence can hardly be said to be positive when the possibility of negative exists.

You are confused. The content of a judgment isn't the issue, rather the mere ability to make judgments, valuation, attributions etc. requires being. Even were one to charge 'life isn't worth living' that statement requires being in order to make the judgment. Thus, any knowledge claim has an ontic precursor. Do you see?



The proof you originally gave shows necessary being. But you only get from necessary being to god by claiming that existence is positive etc. But that is not a proof.

No, one gets to god by simply recognizing point one of the proof. Necessary being is a standard characteristic of god. It is definitional and turns on ontic criteria that entails necessary being: uncaused, self-sustaining etc.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, one gets to god by simply recognizing point one of the proof. Necessary being is a standard characteristic of god. It is definitional and turns on ontic criteria that entails necessary being: uncaused, self-sustaining etc.

This doesn't matter. You already said something that was a necessary being and nothing else would qualify as the necessary being from your proof.

[Pindar]

This doesn't matter. You already said something that was a necessary being and nothing else would qualify as the necessary being from your proof.

Actually, what I said was: "Obviously. Just as something that is a perfect being and nothing else would meet the criteria of a perfect being, yes: A equals A. Such an 'A' insofar as it connotes a positive maximal attribute, is God. This is definitional. That is what the word means under a rational rubric."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Right, but you can't prove that necessary being is a positive maximal attribute.

[Pindar]

Right, but you can't prove that necessary being is a positive maximal attribute.


Read this sentence again: Necessary being is superior in that it is not ontically dependant.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Read this sentence again: Necessary being is superior in that it is not ontically dependant.

Why do you say ontical dependance mean inferiority?

What is it about possessing one positive maximal attribute that would lead you to conclude a being possessed other positive maximal attributes?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Definitions simply provide coherence to a concept.

That is the idea of definitions when you make them correct. But if you define a concept where existence or another property which you're trying to prove is part of the very definition, you attempt to escape the burden of proof. I can prove the existence of Leprechauns in the same way: define Leprechauns as things that can't not exist and can do magic. It follows from the definition that Leprechauns can't not exist. As you can see, this type of definition causes a problem, since it allows people to prove the existence of everything they can imagine, even though not every imaginable thing exists in reality.



'Metaphysical existence' doesn't appear in the proof, but metaphysics refers to ontology: what exists, being.

What type of existence are you trying to prove then? There are many forms of existence:
- logical existence, which means that there is at least 1 and possibly many ways of specifying a particular predicate so it becomes a true proposition. If we pick our possible ways of specifying the predicate from a set containing things that don't metaphysically exist, then we can prove logical existence of things that don't exist metaphysically. For example:
P(x) = x can blow fire through it's nostrils
Take x from the set of all mythological creatures
It's not difficult to see that there exists an x such that P(x) is true, for example if we choose x to be a dragon
So if you prove logical existence you haven't proven metaphysical existence.
- metaphysical existence, which is the usual view of existence, i.e. that it is something that exists in reality. Some different proposals have been given for how to give a more specific definition of this, i.e. for example if something has a potential to interact with all other things that exist, then it exists too (which gives us a problem of finding a base case for specifying which such set of interacting beings we refer to as the set of existing beings).
- solopsism, which claims that nothing really exists outside our own imagination
etc.
Which type of existence you try to prove matters a lot both to the proof technique, and the validity, since there are things which logically exist that don't metaphysically exist.



Also note: logic has multiple proofs for god. This has been demonstrated. Gödel has his own as well. My guess is your unfamiliar with it.

I demonstrated Gödel's proof earlier in this discussion, so either your memory is very short, or you're trying to poison the well. As I mentioned before, Gödel didn't have his own proof, but simply tried to rewrite Leibniz' proof into formal logic, and he himself was very critical to the proof, since it contained several unfounded conclusion steps.



The above demonstrates an ignorance of St. Anselm. The rest of the post has no value as my statement: "Being (or existence) is taken as a positive..." is obviously a judgment: note the verb usage.

Huh? Didn't I just say that it IS a judgement, and therefore it's invalid. You can't build an argument on values, without specfying whose values it is, or specifying a way in which it can be objectively determined for every pair of items which will be superior to the other. Without that requirement, it is possible to prove the existence of everything imagineable, since we can arbitrarily choose what is better than something else: "if God is 1000 naked chicks with D cup who want to have sex with me, then that is superior than if that isn't the case. Since God was defined as the best thing that could possibly be imagined, then that means God must be 1000 naked chicks with D cup who want to have sex with me". Using this pattern we can use seemingly correct logical reasoning to prove everything we want (strict logical scrutiny of course shows that it doesn't follow the laws of logic). I hope you can understand and admit that a proof of the existence of God that uses methods that could be used to prove the existence of anything - even clearly non-existing things - isn't really a realiable proof that anyone should have any reason to take seriously.

[Pindar]

Why do you say ontical dependance mean inferiority?

To depend is to rely on, be subject to a thing. If this trait (dependence) is assigned a being who is by definition the ultimate expression of being and perfection it would be an absurdity.


What is it about possessing one positive maximal attribute that would lead you to conclude a being possessed other positive maximal attributes?

Other attributes aren't relevant to the proof. I choose a basic one, the type of being of a thing, in this case god's.

[Pindar]

That is the idea of definitions when you make them correct. But if you define a concept where existence or another property which you're trying to prove is part of the very definition, you attempt to escape the burden of proof.

The above is confused. The proof does not simply assert A therefore A. The existence of necessary being is not asserted in any premise.

Conceptually, there is no issue with defining necessary being. It is simply a notion where the attending adjective informs the noun.


What type of existence are you trying to prove then? There are many forms of existence...Which type of existence you try to prove matters a lot both to the proof technique, and the validity, since there are things which logically exist that don't metaphysically exist.

The proof concerns god. God is a metaphysical notion.



I demonstrated Gödel's proof earlier in this discussion, so either your memory is very short, or you're trying to poison the well.

Did you? Where did you demonstrate Gödel's proof for god?



As I mentioned before, Gödel didn't have his own proof, but simply tried to rewrite Leibniz' proof into formal logic, and he himself was very critical to the proof, since it contained several unfounded conclusion steps.

Gödel did have his own proof. He worked on it over a period of years going from the early Forties to the mid Fifties at lest. Do not confuse opting for a species of proof i.e. an ontological argument, with not being independent work.

Are you wanting to argue Gödel didn't believe his own proof or consider it valid? If that is not your intent then your comment is specious. If that was your intent: what do you base this idea on? According to the testimony of Oskar Morgenstern from a conversation with Gödel in 1970: "Gödel was satisfied with the proof, but he hesitated to publish it, for fear it would be thought "that he actually believes in God, whereas he is only engaged in a logical investigation (that is, in showing that such a proof with classical assumptions, correspondingly axiomatized, is possible).""


Huh? Didn't I just say that it IS a judgment, and therefore it's invalid. You can't build an argument on values ...

You are confused, again. This statement to Sasaki: "Being (or existence) is taken as a positive..." and the thinking behind it isn't an argument. It is an explanation of the standard notion of being within the Rational Tradition.