atrahasis

Your question is made of straw.


Tell us why God is logically necessary.

Tell us which logic you are talking of, May be your own!!!! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

MrDarwin

Looking at this one a bit more closely:

This one is a red herring because it's quite the other way around. An omnipotent, omniscient creator precludes the possibility of free will because this creator would know every one of our thoughts and actions before we even existed, right down to the smallest, most spontaneous changing of one's mind. Anything that any of us will ever think or do was determined at the moment of creation--how could it be otherwise for an omniscient creator? For any of us to think or act any other way would require a conscious act on the part of this deity to make its creation unfold differently.

Cosym

---Tell us why God is logically necessary.
Tell us which logic you are talking of, May be your own!!!!---

Perhaps this:

1. g -&gt; N(g)
2. N(g) v ~N(g)
3. ~N(g) -&gt; N(~N(g))
4. N(g) v N(~N(g))
5. N(~N(g)) -&gt; N(~g)
6. N(g) v N(~g)
7. ~N(~g)
8. N(g)
9. N(g) -&gt; g
10. g

Or this, the refined form:

G = []G (god is defined as the greatest existence, which in modal logic means necessary existence)
&lt;&gt;G (it is possible that god exists: i.e. in at least one possible world)

1. G -&gt; []G (if god exists, then god necessarily exists, or "God must exist necessarily IF He even exists at all.")

2. (G -&gt; []G) -&gt; (&lt;&gt;G -&gt; G) (plugging G into the valid modal form of (p -&gt; []p) -&gt; (&lt;&gt;p -&gt; p) (i.e., that necessary existence of any p implies actual existence of p))

3.&lt;&gt;G -&gt; G (if it is possible that god exists, then god exists)- found by using inference 1 with inference 2 in a modus ponens

4. G (modus ponens, using the axiom and inference 3)

atrahasis

You commit a straw man fallacy: attacking the weakest points only. You can do better than that.

Unless you are WJ's brother or something. Why should you speak for him.

or may be you have nothing to do?
i will give you some: do this <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> the whole day and night. May be you get what this thread is about.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

Cosym

---You commit a straw man fallacy: attacking the weakest points only. You can do better than that.---

Hunh? Neither of those proofs are attacks or criticisms on anything: they are simply proofs of necessary existence, as was requested. To call them "straw man" is incoherent: do you even know what the "straw man fallacy" is?

They have been debated vigorously for over 40 years. Almost everyone thinks the proofs are logically valid, though plenty question their soundness (including myself).

---Unless you are WJ's brother or something. Why should so of speak for him.---

Whether someone is an atheist or a theist, there is no reason to tolerate nasty attacks or refuse to consider legitimate points. I am an atheist: but I do not reflexively support atheists or anyone else. I am in no one's "camp": I speak in the interests of discovering truth, not winning anything.

Adrian Selby

I concur with Kuglo's points relating to Andrew Theist, and for WJ, I would need a definition of God in order to know what it is about it that one can begin to ascribe logical necessity too, then I would have to wonder whether something being logically necessary makes it exist actually. After all, just saying a word, and saying that the word is a logically necessary being is absurd. Of course, there must be a referent for this word, and that's the part I don't get, the word is the name for something, and that something, well, I don't even know if there is a something, or a sensible anything to which the word could refer that would enable the logical proof to begin.

Mike

The whole natural/supernatural debate is irrelevant. When you go to the source of the Judeo-Christian belief in God you find that the testimony of the original witnesses calls upon natural or sensory evidence rather than supernatural. Adam claimed to walk with God. Moses spoke to him face to face. When Christ appeared in the middle of his disciples he told them to handle him and see. "A spirit (supernatural being) hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have" This episode reportedly took place after Christ's death. Since the testimony presented by the original believers did not call on supernatural evidence, but on scientific experience, logical debate is irrelevant. The only question is what has or has not been observed by yourself individually. The so called supernatural is only considered so because it has not been observed by the masses, but neither has a microscopic flagellum (which by the way is an irreducibly commplex micro-organism that cannot be explained by evolution and is necessary for our existence). If you want to have a personal experience with a flagellum, jump through the hoops and become a Ph.D in molecular biology. If you want to have a personal experience with God, emulate the original witnesses. You might pay for it by being crucified, or by being boiled in oil, or simply laughed to scorn like some of them were, but if you're not willing to pay the price, don't complain about not having the natural result.

An at-risk youth that I was counseling was claiming that the whole man on the moon thing was an elaborate hoax. I told him, when you have the education of a NASA scientist, then let me know if you still disbelieve that someone has been on the moon. The same holds true of anything of which one is skeptical. Until you've applied the formula yourself, your logic is nothing but the frantic efforts of a frenzied mind.

Cosym

---I would need a definition of God in order to know what it is about it that one can begin to ascribe logical necessity too---

Most commonly, that would be a supreme being: i.e. a being that is maximal in all possible characteristics. Earlier ontological proofs went wrong by treating existence as a characteristic: the modal arguement solves this defect by using the modal concept of existence in possible worlds. The most possible worlds that a being can inhabit is: all of them, i.e. necessary existence.

---then I would have to wonder whether something being logically necessary makes it exist actually.---

That is not what the proof argues though. The proof uses an IF: IF G exists, then it exists necessarily (since G is defined as the greatest possible existence/necessary existence)

Obviously, anyone can _claim_ that something exists necessarily. But that's inconsequential. What the proof does differently is use a definition of necessary existence that can be drawn straight out of the concept of a maximal being (which, whatever it is, is God)

The proof, of course, does not prove any particular sort of god, just the existence of a supreme being.

---After all, just saying a word, and saying that the word is a logically necessary being is absurd.----

Of course. That is why one needs a proof.

---Of course, there must be a referent for this word, and that's the part I don't get, the word is the name for something, and that something, well, I don't even know if there is a something, or a sensible anything to which the word could refer that would enable the logical proof to begin.---

All proofs of existence, even those based on material observation, require an initial operational definition. And the modal proof gives such a definition. THEN, and not before, it proceeds to logically deduce the existence of this being. Existence is what it attempts to prove: it is not what it assumes.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Cosym ]</p>

Mageth

Mike:

Many if not most non-believers on this board (including myself) have tried the "Jesus formula" in the past. Unfortunately, it appears to be a placebo.

Mike

Mageth,

I'm not familiar with the phrase "Jesus formula" what exactly is the formula?

Mike.