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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faust|

Uh ok, then see the "if so" paragraph.

---

Examples of potential infinites.

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix,

This will sound harsh, but I see no value in a renewed discussion with yourself. Previously, I humored your claims/charges in this thread and suffered through a long and rather tedious series of posts that seemed to confuse verbosity with substance. The final result was the earlier claims were rescinded and the obvious was again recognized as obvious. Not long after this result, you stated in an exchange with Redleg you wouldn't post in this thread any longer. I think this was a prudent decision on your part. We both know you have never studied logic formally and are not familiar with the intellectual history of the Western Tradition. This means exchanges often are reduced to a remedial quality which is OK save for a certain penchant of personality that leads to mundane points being quite drawn out before they are recognized. Now, given you have taken to enter the fray again and sacrifice the credibility of your earlier commitment suggests an agenda. This, and the quality of the recent post indicate the beginning of a repeat of what was before: where it may be a long time before the obvious is recognized. A repeat performance isn't interesting.

So as not to leave you totally high and dry as it were, I'll give you just a couple points for you to mull over for your personal study:

One, your simplified version has no logical entailment. It is incoherent. Also note: my proof makes no reference to a First Mover. It is not a First Mover proof. This means your references either do not relate to my stuff, or you do not understand.

Two, your more complex version contains some good things and some not so good things. There are actually some parallels to a rather famous logical argument, but it is intermixed with some vacuous and unrelated points. To my mind, this indicates either you had an idea on a thing, but do not recognize it for what it is, or are aping someone else's work. Regardless, the presentation is not anywhere near as strong, or as cleanly presented, as it could be which is unfortunate.

Again sorry for the harshness, but repetition of form is not interesting and given the multiple posters I have to respond to, unnecessary.

Points on a line, Angles, backroom debates... infinites?

No physical infinities.

Also can there be a universe that is infinite in size that is not infinite in smallness?

double post

edit: forget it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faust|

I'm not attacking you or even really answering you directly, why don't you let my post stand without capping it off?

---

I am pointing out that you have given me examples of potential infinites. There is no "attack" (you are confusing it with the Mafia thread where things are different).

However, I am already aware of potential infinites and am asking for examples of actual infinites.

Try doing a search for "Hilbert's Hotel" and you will see what I mean...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Which is fine, until it starts applying itself to real world sets. Change the data in those sets and then they conclusions have to be re-examined.

All Animals Can Fly.
Pigs Are Animals.
Pigs therefore can fly.

In this universe that is untrue.

---

Logic doesn't turn on truth. It turns on validity. The above example is exhaustive. It has nothing to do with time, space, or any other factor. That this may not be amenable to science is not a factor. Under a deductive schema (where we go from big to little) any valid conclusion is 100% certain and unavoidable.This same degree of certainty cannot be held with inductive conclusions. Consider: (shifting from pigs to elephants for more flare)

Dumbo can fly
Dumbo is an elephant.
Therefore elephants can fly

Is the above compelling? Hopefully it is not (the above is an informal fallacy). What if we saw several Dumbos?

There are five Dumbos
These Dumbos are elephants
Therefore elephants can fly

One might be more confident about the conclusion the more flying Dumbos they met, but there is nothing in the schema itself that requires the conclusion. This is the point: comfortability is not the same as certainty/necessity. If the sky were littered with flying Dumbos (despite the damage such may do to one's car) the conclusion is not a guarantee.

Now, let me bring in the truth consideration for a moment. In the flying pig argument if the first two premises are true then the conclusion must also be true. There is no avoiding it given the deductive schema. In our flying Dumbo argument (an inductive argument) even if the two premises were true it doesn't require the conclusion be true. Induction always has an open space in the conclusions and thus truth remains always out of reach. This is what has befuddled science (which follows an inductive schema) and why fellows such a Popper then argued science was not about truth nor could it be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Whether the first premise is accepted or not, the argument is valid. This means the conclusion cannot not be. There is no uncertainty in the argument.

Quote:

---

Man is Mortal.
Socrates is a Man.
Therefore Socrates is Mortal.

Incorrect, you only have certainty if you know that every man is mortal.

---

---

No, no, no. in the above example the conclusion is valid. That means its conclusion 100% certain. Whether a particular premise is true or not is another issue. An argument with true premises is called sound. Soundness is a separate consideration. See my comments above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faust|

This is completely wrong though. Almost all of our science uses reductionism. Reductionism would say, for example, that the human is a collection of organs. Organs are a collection of tissue. Tissue is a collection of cells. Cells are a collection of molecules. I've skipped steps here, but you can see that a molecule is certainly as much of a thing itself as a human. Surely this is how we "typically" see things today. Matter and energy perhaps WERE seen as exclusively a property or characteristic of a thing before that philosophical notion gave way to another type of thought.

---

Hello,

My statement isn't completely wrong: matter/energy is typically seen as a characteristic. This has been the case from Aristotle forward. If we were to use Lockean language materiality would be a primary quality. This means it is a characteristic that is intrinsic to the object, but nonetheless a quality. Another example of a primary quality would be: mass, extension etc.

Now, science is reductionistic as you note, but our consideration here is not confined to science and hopefully more rigorous than simple science. Regardless the reduction: atom, quark etc. where one wants to posit a materiality, that materiality is but one quality of the thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

My point was that foo was incompatible...which is why god shouldn't be assumed.

---

The above doesn't follow. What you put forward was incoherent. This isn't the case with god.

Quote:

---

You haven't done more than asserted.

---

This is not correct my good man. I have nowhere simply asserted god exists.

Quote:

---

Are women objects?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

yes.

Quote:

---

:bounce:

---

---

---

I thought you would like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Logic doesn't turn on truth. It turns on validity. The above example is exhaustive. It has nothing to do with time, space, or any other factor. That this may not be amenable to science is not a factor. Under a deductive schema (where we go from big to little) any valid conclusion is 100% certain and unavoidable.This same degree of certainty cannot be held with inductive conclusions. Consider: (shifting from pigs to elephants for more flare)

Dumbo can fly
Dumbo is an elephant.
Therefore elephants can fly

---

Universe changes, Dumbo is now the only elephant. The conclusion is now true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

I am pointing out that you have given me examples of potential infinites. There is no "attack" (you are confusing it with the Mafia thread where things are different).

---

Hm, I don't appreciate your condescension. By saying "if so" I was trying to offer a more free-standing explanation, not a direct response to you. Maybe "attack" was the wrong word to use, but you dismissed my contribution as if I was addressing only you, which was very far from the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Now, science is reductionistic as you note, but our consideration here is not confined to science and hopefully more rigorous than simple science. Regardless the reduction: atom, quark etc. where one wants to posit a materiality, that materiality is but one quality of the thing.

---

Well then it's going to be difficult to argue if we have to abide by something other than science or logic.

I won't try that line in an argument with my wife...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Universe changes, Dumbo is now the only elephant. The conclusion is now true?

---

No. As long as the argument remains inductive, no truth claim can be certain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I won't try that line in an argument with my wife...

---

Gold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faust|

Well then it's going to be difficult to argue if we have to abide by something other than science or logic.

---

That would be a bugger! I've not said anything against reason. My point was the discussion is not strictly confined to science, but moves along larger rational lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I won't try that line in an argument with my wife...

---

I think this would be an example of a truism. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No. As long as the argument remains inductive, no truth claim can be certain.

---

IFF Dumbo is all the elephants is it still inductive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

IFF Dumbo is all the elephants is it still inductive?

---

Yes, as long as one is using a particular to make a generalization (from an inductive schema you could never really be sure Dumbo is all the elephants unless all of reality could be verified at once).

Pindar, this will sound harsh, but I see no value in a renewed discussion with yourself. Previously, I humored your claims/charges in this thread and suffered through a long and rather tedious series of posts that seemed to confuse verbosity with substance. The final result was the earlier claims were rescinded and the obvious was again recognized as obvious.

We both know you have never studied logic formally and are not familiar with the intellectual history of the Western Tradition. This means exchanges often are reduced to a remedial quality which is OK save for a certain penchant of personality that leads to mundane points being quite drawn out before they are recognized. Now, given you have taken to enter the fray again and sacrifice the credibility of your earlier commitment suggests an agenda. This, and the quality of the recent post indicate the beginning of a repeat of what was before: where it may be a long time before the obvious is recognized. A repeat performance isn't interesting.

So as not to leave you totally high and dry as it were, I'll give you just a couple points for you to mull over for your personal study:

One, your posts are incoherent, lack references to sources justifying your views, and directly contradict all sources I have provided against your points. Not only have you made claims going against the most basic definitions and rules of logic, but also made repeated claims that simple example textbook arguments are incorrect, or, when textbook examples of errors were presented, stated that they were correct arguments. The most funny thing is how you claim you have invented a proof of God, and think it would need no scrutiny at all, despite the fact that all previous attempts at proof of God have failed. You not only oppose all attempts at scrutinizing your argument with the laws of logic, but also try to hide behind redefining your words to hide subtle equivocations.

Your proof has no logical entailment. It is incoherent. Also note: your proof switches between making a reference to a First Mover, and between Anselm's (proven incorrect) Ontological argument.

Two, you mix up logical and metaphysical existence. Logical existence of x means "one or more x exists", this means that even if you had proven logical existence of a being with all properties of God, you would need to also prove that there is at most one, before you have proven the existence of God. Regardless, the presentation is not anywhere near as strong, or as cleanly presented, as it could be which is unfortunate.

Again sorry for the harshness, but your repeated insults and attempts to hide your argument in redefinitions of words and letting existence be part of your definitions, is not interesting, and given the multiple posters that have refuted your incoherent and invalid argumentation, the status of your argument should be quite clear.

Finally, your repeated statements "I thought you were going to stop posting in this thread" and trying to make me do so, are harsh insults. While perhaps allowed within the rules of the guild, they are harsh humiliations and that you have to resort to humiliation and personal attacks to hide your logical fallacies is quite telling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Universe changes, Dumbo is now the only elephant. The conclusion is now true?

---

If it is true that
- Dumbo is an elephant
- elephants can fly
- Dumbo is the only elephant in the universe
Then it is true that
- all elephants in the universe can fly

By Modus ponens, a conclusion is true if the argument leading to the conclusion is valid, and the assumptions made in the argument are true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

Modus ponens is used in all axiom systems, including physics, mathematics and many other fields. Basically the axioms are no better than assumptions, other than that we have by general consensus arrived at the conclusion that they are to be treated as truths (in religion, certain assumptions are given axiom status because they are mentioned in holy books, whereas in science, the justification for making something an axiom is if no statistical data known by those working with the subject contradict the axioms, and they also seem sound by some kind of gut feeling).

Modus ponens fails in a pure ontological philosophy where we try to make no assumptions at all, since without any assumptions made at all, we can't conclude anything to be true. In most cases therefore, people out of practical reasons choose some assumptions to be treated as truths, i.e. give them axiom status. This is done when logic is used - i.e. when we use logic we automatically assume that the rules of logic are true. Usually, the laws of logic alone can't prove anything of any value - for instance God's existence doesn't follow from the laws of logic alone. Most arguments therefore add even more axioms (i.e. decide to treat certain assumptions as absolute truths) or assumptions. To make it even more interesting, it has also been proven that no ontological system can justify its own existence. Because of this, all reasoning must rest of assumptions. The question of whether the assumptions are sound or not, becomes the key issue in argumentation, when most people (excluding Pindar) agree with and follow the laws of logic. The laws of logic are so exact, that machines can perform automated reasoning by applying the laws of logic - it would be interested to run Pindar's fallacious argument through an automated reasoning program, and see how it would reject it ~:), since he doesn't trust all the dozens of sources I have provided, and that he is repeatedly refusing modus ponens. Does anyone know if there is any online automated reasoning program available, so we can test Pindar's proof so he will realize he has lost and stops insulting all people in this thread who don't agree with his quite unorthodox views of logic?

Do you realize that in order to be a lawyer in the United States logic and philosphy happen to be part of the course of study? It seems in your response that you have failed to actually read what Pinder wrote. In fact some of your statements read exactly like Pinder's initial post.

Have you conducted the error of plagiarism? A more orginial rebuttal would have been interesting.

Lawyers read classical logic and are most concerned with natural language arguments. Natural language arguments are inexact, and belong to before the 18th century or possibly even further back in history. Verbal logic has been largely abandoned because of its inexactness, and the tendencies of making equivocation fallacies when using it. The modern formal logic as developed by among others Peano, Bertrand Russel, Kurt Gödel and George Boole has mostly replaced the natural language oriented logic used over two thousand years ago, because of its exactness, its ability to spot fallacies, and the fact that it is, unlike ad hoc natural language arguments, possible to construct automated reasoning computer programs from. I doubt a lawyer in the USA studies more logic than Computer Engineers, whose education consist to nearly 80% of logic - formal logic. It is also possible to pass through education consisting of a single small course on logic without very good grades or good knowledge on the subject, but more difficult to pass a complete master's degree and 5 years of studies without getting a grasp of what 80% about the education is about. What is most interesting is however the fact that Pindar openly refutes quotes coming right out of typical logic textbooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Lawyers read classical logic and are most concerned with verbal arguments. Verbal arguments are inexact, and belong to before the 18th century, possibly even further back in history. Verbal logic has been largely abandoned because of its inexactness, and the tendencies of making equivocation fallacies repeatedly. The modern formal logic as developed by among others Peano, Bertrand Russel, Kurt Gödel and George Boole has mostly replaced the natural language oriented logic used over two thousand years ago. I doubt a lawyer in the USA studies more logic than Computer Engineers, whose education consist to nearly 80% of logic - formal logic.

---

Yep you just disprove your own response to Pinder with this answer. I wonder if you realize the fallacy of your own arguement. In regrads to this statement taken from the previous post and your response here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Legio

We both know you have never studied logic formally and are not familiar with the intellectual history of the Western Tradition. This means exchanges often are reduced to a remedial quality which is OK save for a certain penchant of personality that leads to mundane points being quite drawn out before they are recognized. Now, given you have taken to enter the fray again and sacrifice the credibility of your earlier commitment suggests an agenda. This, and the quality of the recent post indicate the beginning of a repeat of what was before: where it may be a long time before the obvious is recognized. A repeat performance isn't interesting.

---

I have again been rather amused about the attacks on logic presented by both of you. It seems that you want to dismiss one form of logic because it does not suit your premise. Now Pinder could also be guilty of such a stance - but I find yours more amusing especially given your claim of superior knowledge on logicial arguements, in a discussion using verbal arguements concerning logic. It really is a rather hypocritical stance on your part, you yourself are using a verbal arguement in this discussion.

The proof is in the pudding and so far I'd have to say Pindar's is the one without cat hair in it.

I copied parts of his post, since I'm bad at thinking up personal attacks myself, and his personal attacks were apparently allowed since he still has his signature. It saves me boring work and lets me concentrate on the logical aspects of the situation, rather than a quite ridiculous exchange of humiliations. It would seem like lawyers read more about how to make personal attacks and fallacious arguments with well hidden fallacies, than they read about logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

The proof is in the pudding and so far I'd have to say Pindar's is the one without cat hair in it.

---

That's probably because Pinder is using skim milk. Cat's hate skim milk.:laugh4: :laugh4: That and cats don't like lawyers either. There too much alike. Sneaky little things that like to screw with your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

I copied parts of his post, since I'm bad at thinking up personal attacks myself, and his personal attacks were apparently allowed since he still has his signature. It saves me boring work and lets me concentrate on the logical aspects of the situation, rather than a quite ridiculous exchange of humiliations. It would seem like lawyers read more about how to make personal attacks and fallacious arguments with well hidden fallacies, than they read about logic.

---

So are you claiming that your plagiarism stems from boredom?

Your responses are getting even more amusing for me, I am rather enjoying my reading today.:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So are you claiming that your plagiarism stems from boredom?

Your responses are getting even more amusing for me, I am rather enjoying my reading today.:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

[...]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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

it is all form over substance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

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

---

---

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

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. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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

---

https://img258.imageshack.us/img258/...ngthumbmg2.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

There are no other options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

There are no other options.

---

Why are there no other options?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Eh, it's prettier than most contemporary art.

---

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

Quote:

---

Why are there no other options?

---

Because nothing else meets the criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Because nothing else meets the criteria.

---

The criteria is "necessary being" right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The criteria is "necessary being" right?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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:

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurt Gödel

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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).

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

...lies, ugliness, depravity etc.

---

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

(why did you choose these references to liberals?)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

? 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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."