There is no further argument for me to make. I (and Voyaging, it seems) accept modal logic; you reject it. So it goes.

Jp2050 is incorrectly formulating the argument.

IF possibly p THEN necessarily p is INVALID
IF possibly p THEN necessarily possibly p is VALID

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 12 2012 08:28pm

treating infinity like other mathematical numbers will yield bizarre results like below which are logically sound - this does nothing to prove that infinity does not exist in reality



as for the question of actual infinities in reality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Singularity

How so? I thought we were on the same page when it comes to the modal ontological argument. I accept its validity even though I find it to be somewhat weak.



True. If I conveyed it otherwise, that was unintentional.

This post was edited by Jp2050 on Oct 12 2012 08:29pm

What exactly does necessarily possible mean?



If that's what modal logic says, then modal logic is retarded.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Oct 12 2012 08:37pm

For a headache and an answer, see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/

my response to this has to be "well duh?" from a probability standpoint

Thanks for not putting it in your own succinct wording.

this is as rude as providing a solution in arabic and telling him to learn arabic and figure it out

and if you can't translate it into terms that he can understand, i doubt you know arabic all that well

my only problems with anslem has been that i've considered existence to be an inferior quality

i also reject the claim that someone can actually "conceive" something than which nothing greater can exist

This post was edited by duffman316 on Oct 12 2012 08:50pm

Also, Voyaging, you never answered my question. We have to accept 1 without justification in order to move on to the next statements. If 1 is not a premise, then what is it?