I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't know what logic is. Logic derives from the empirical world. We wouldn't have logic if it weren't for our subjective codifications meshing with objective reality. As a good example of this, language derived from the sequential and coherent reasoning we had to use when we were making stone tools.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Oct 12 2012 10:52pm

Logic is MERELY a set of rules regarding truth value. The boolean interpretation of the truth value of propositions was the source of logic, not anything in the external world.

None of our fundamental logical axioms say anything about the empirical world. Nothing we have ever observed proves them right.

Empirical observations can be plugged into a logical statement, but merely as variables.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 12 2012 10:56pm

not sure how you're still missing it

this guy took a two in-definitive terms (excellent, greatness) and defined them in terms of a bunch of other in-definitive terms (omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good) and just because he threw a bounding term in front of it all (maximally) you think it's something definitive we're working with?

This post was edited by duffman316 on Oct 12 2012 10:56pm

I don't see how

If possibly P, then necessarily possibly P means something exists. It seems just to reaffirm that it is possible.


It seems to just be saying


It is possible for the maximally great being to exist

Therfore it is necessarily possible for it to exist.


It's still saying its possible for him to exist, but I don't see anywhere in there that makes it definitively exist.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 12 2012 10:58pm

do you recognize the absurdity of it all if i replaced "greatness" and "excellent" with "big" and "large" respectively and "omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good" with "huge"

Did you raise an issue with the argument somewhere in there?



What?



No. All you're doing is changing a bunch of arbitrary letters.

Changing how he defined "maximal greatness" however could disrupt the argument's logical validity.

The conclusion if you did what you said and you assumed "a being is big if it is huge in all possible worlds" then a huge being exists, yes.

Notice it's exactly the same thing?

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 12 2012 11:00pm

And what is truth without empirical facts?

Desks are brown. <-- We used logic in order to ascribe certain qualities to certain concepts we had that we had matched to the empirical world.

If x, then y <-- Using logic to show a relation between our concepts and their empirical consequences. Without the empirical concept of time, and cause and effect, we would not have this relation.

4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists. <- follows from 3

reworded: There is a possibility that it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists

5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. <- follows from 4



I don't see how the jump from its possible for it to exist makes it necessarily exist. All the axiom S5 says is that if its possible for it to exist, its necessarily possible for it to exist.

We seem to be missing the step where we establish that the world W actually exists that would be necessary for the maximally great being to exist in. You can't just say the maximally great being would exist in possible world W, so he exists, because it's also necessarily possible that world W doesn't even exist.



Oh, and I'm sorry I've been communicating poorly. I'm doing a lot right now and I'll try to do better from here forward.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 12 2012 11:06pm

That's what I've been saying this entire time, and Voyaging doesn't seem to get it.

What about: If I'm happy then I feel good.?



No because if it is possible for it to be necessary then in some possible world it exists and is necessary so therefore exists in all possible worlds. The actual existence of world W is not required.



You have?

You'd be wrong anyway, because it is valid.

The only possible rejection to the argument is the premise.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 12 2012 11:08pm