Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Tuesday, April 22, 08:41:10pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Symbolilc Pitfall? Author: Damoclese [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 03/28/02 12:02pm In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Thank you." on 03/28/02 10:12am This post does read much more nicely than the previous one which didn't make much sense. I must confess up front that my experience with modal logic is limited, but it isn't so dissimilar from propositional calculus of which I know a little of. Having said that, I'm only going to address the part of Wade's argument that has to do with the symbolic logic. > ~[]~G This states that G is not impossible, or <>G > This line looks to me to state that God not existing is not possible, or perhaps God's nonexistance isn't necessarily true. That's a pretty big premise especially the first interpretation. The first interpretation would be blatantly wrong, because it is possible that God doesn't exist (but since we are in conditional land I can let that slide). I realize the conditional I chopped off labors from the preconception that if God does exist, he exists necessarily, but then, if I were so inclined I could formulate the negative of that; if God doesn't exist, he doesn't exist necessarily and we could run it through the same rules and come out with the same conclusion, only on the negative side. > >These are the premises. The conclusion follows as >demonstrated: > > > []G ∨ ~ []G Law of Excluded Middle > ~[]G ⊃ []~[]G Becker’s postulate applied to >~[]G > []G ∨ []~[]G 3,4 substitution > []~[]G ⊃ []~G 1, modal modus tollens > []G ∨ []~G 5,6 substitution All of this looks good to this point. We have God is either possible or necessary (existing) or God possibly doesn't exist. ( by the way your horseshoe and Vee and triangular dots all appear as squares to me, so I'm sort of at a disadvantage.) >——————————— >∴ []G 7,2 disjunctive syllogism This is where it all falls apart in my opinion. Above it reads either God exists or doesn't, but you implicitly assume perhaps from your conditional that the case cannot possibly be that God doesn't exist with the application of your disjunctive syllogism. The thing is is that your first premise is a conditional of the if then form. It isn't a definitive this is the way it is sort of form. If God doesn't exist, we might be able to accomplish a similar line of reasoning with the same rather melodramatic conclusion. An argument that rests on a conditional is only true if it's conditional is true, and that's the very thing being debated. > >And there you have it. Why does God exist? Because >he necessarily exists. That really isn't what it says. It says if God exists, then he exists necessarily. That's what it says, it all rests on your first conditional premise, which is what is being questioned in the first place. It would be like me doing something like this in an argument: If I am right you are wrong. You are wrong. Therefore I am right. This is much different from this: Either I am right, or you are wrong. You are wrong. Therefore I am right. The difference is that the first argument is conditional. I may not be right and that other person could still be wrong. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Not yet. Wade A. Tisthammer 04/ 1/02 12:50pm How do you solve a problem like the God-a? -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:02pm Elucidation. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 1:11pm There is no "why," there is only Zeul -- Ben, 04/15/02 5:13pm Huh? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:22am I'll tell you why you're wrong, why you're really really wrong -- Ben, 04/16/02 2:38pm Lol. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:50pm Why don't we all just bow out? (except for Wade) -- Ben, 04/20/02 4:34pm On bowing out. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:19pm Still a potential pitfall looms -- Damoclese, 04/ 1/02 10:45pm How so? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 2:15pm Like This -- Damoclese, 04/15/02 3:58pm Huh -- David, 04/16/02 2:12am A response. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:47am Christian God is greatest possible? -- David, 04/16/02 1:20pm Perhaps, but that would require an additional case. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 2:37pm Hm? -- David, 04/16/02 9:50pm Definitions. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:24pm Relevence? -- David, 04/18/02 9:17pm To me you are correct Dave. -- Don, 06/ 7/02 7:31pm Yes. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/21/02 3:52pm response -- drago, 06/ 3/02 1:48pm Not like that. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:39am Muddling a simple point -- Damoclese, 04/16/02 3:47pm Attempting to get a strait answer. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:14pm Trying to keep my patience -- Damoclese, 04/18/02 7:06pm I'll try to keep mine as well. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/24/02 11:59am Cutting to the chase -- Damoclese, 04/24/02 2:22pm What's the chase? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/26/02 11:05am Foxes -- Damoclese, 04/26/02 12:19pm Logical flaw perhaps -- David, 04/15/02 3:00am Continued -- David, 04/15/02 3:18am Please clarify. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 11:03am Hehe -- David, 04/16/02 1:16pm Tee hee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:06pm *giggle* -- David, 04/18/02 12:57pm Ha ha. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:29pm Hohoho -- David, 04/18/02 9:29pm toung twister -- Emma, 12/22/02 7:04pm Perhaps not. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:50am