Journal Entry #606
November 1st, 2011
I am sure there are intelligent people out there in this big world but to be honest they are difficult to find so when I do run into one I like to acknowledge and value what they have to offer. When I find myself intellectually stimulated by someones thoughts and the discussion they offer I value it. I find it exciting and challenging myself.
I offer you this challenge put forth by Steve Hoyt I consider him one of the keenest minds I have encountered having brought my discussion level to what I consider a new level. He is a humble man probably not realizing what a great mind he has to offer this world so I offer it on his behalf.
I’m a bit tired of seeing people NOT AT ALL clued in to what axioms are and that they don’t realize when they make arguments in the following form, it’s called “modal logic”. I’m also stupefied by those who continually use this centuries-old methodology to “prove” god exists, whether arguing a teleology, ontology, moral, reason, whatever.
so in honor of these folks, and to respect other folks’ claims that you can’t prove a negative, I submit this for one of two ends: either rethink what modal logic “proves” or accept that I’ve just proven god doesn’t exist. Thank you very much!
1. a being is NECESSARY if and only if it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for that being to NOT exist.
2. if it is logically possible for a being NOT to exist, this being can NOT possibly be a NECESSARY being.
3. from 1 and 2, if it is logically possible for a being NOT to exist, this being can NOT be a NECESSARY being.
4. from 3, it is possible for a being to be NECESSARY if and only if that being is NECESSARY (defined by 1).
In laymen’s vernacular, god is only a necessary being if god exists and is necessary. Hence, all possible, logical modes of using causation as a means to prove god’s existence hinge themselves, circularly, upon proving god’s existence. Further, a non-necessary god is not a god. The end! =)
For those unfamiliar with some of the terminology;
Modal logic is a type of formal logic that extends the standards of formal logic to include the elements of modality (for example, the alethic odals possibility and necessity). Modals qualify the
truth of a judgment. For example, if it is true that “John is happy,” e might qualify this statement by saying that “John is usually appy”, in which case the term “usually” would be a modality. raditionally, there are three “modes” or “moods” or modalities” represented in modal logic, namely, possibility, probability, nd necessity.
In traditional logic, an axiom
or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but
considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of
analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be
true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point
for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
I look forward to any response and I will pass them Directly on to Steven..I don’t know if he will answer them or not but I will pas them on anyways.
Seek the truth always
Gary David Currie
Further explanations as an add on;
Steven Hoyt …since these are axioms, you may well use “peter
pan” instead of god. as it is, If a person (specifically) substituted himself as
the “being” in question.
to help with your understanding, I used modal logic to
do two things. 1) demonstrate what modal logic is, and 2) turn the cosmological
argument back in on itself using the very tool that makes it plausible; which
entails us ignoring the real world. How’d I do that? I forced us to look at the
real world using modal logic.
And since you don’t get that (I imagine)…a
“being” must be known in order to be able to assess whether or not it
IS necessary. What is logically possible or impossible, or even
probable…these things don’t reflect what actually IS. They indicate,
well…whether or not something is possible, impossible, or even probable.
I formed a circular redundancy between axiom 1 and 4. 4
demonstrates the real world. REAL proof is then in demonstrating factually that
something exists that cannot not exist. for that, my friend, you need an
eternal, uncaused “corpse” as it were.
for the cosmological argument to work, you can only
demonstrate that god must logically be eternal and uncaused by definition. This
is what that argument establishes; a logically necessary property for god. What
it does NOT do is establish that this logical necessity exists, nor that some
alternative cause for our existence is not the actual case. The other oversight
is that it must show the universe “begins” ex nihilio. “nothing”
is unknowable to exist. no personal experience nor scientific proposition
confirms the existence of a state of “nothing”. it’s an epic fail
Ultimately, here’s the rub: god doesn’t exist like we
do. it is axiomatic that “like” produces “like”. If god
doesn’t exist “like” we do, he did not produce us, AND exists in some
literally meaningless way to us. You are left with a concept of god only,
filled with bias and assumption. One of the pinnacles of which, cosmological or
ontological etc, is built on modal logic operations that demand what they never
Gary, you may be
interested…in my last post, I gave a long explanation. In my OP, I claimed I
proved god doesn’t necessarily exist. The fact that people can’t read the
writing on the wall speaks to the fact that either i conclude prematurely…or,
they lack the capacity to fully reason and conclude. In an effort to damningly
point out the obvious, I give axioms 5 through 8:
5. from 3, if a being does not exist fundamentally in the same fashion
as other beings, it is logically impossible to demonstrate that being exists.
6. from 5, it is logically possible that this being exists and
logically possible that this being does not exist.
7. from 2 and 6, this being is not a NECESSARY being.
8. from 7, god is said to be a NECESSARY being, therefore, god does