P&N Religion Poll

[Cerpin Taxt]

It is in there.

No, it isn't.

 

[cybrsage]

No, it isn't.

Sure it is, you simply have to actually read it. It is on page 6.

Finally, we defined ‘God’ (‘​

​

g’) to be the conceivable thing such that
nothing greater is conceivable:​

g =df ıx!1

I will continue with their formulas:

The first two non-logical premises
needed are:​

Connectedness of Greater Than​

​

​

​

: #x#y(Gxy % Gyx % x=y)​

Premise 1 : !x(Cx & ¬!y(Gyx & Cy))

Lemma 2 asserts that if there is a conceivable thing such that nothing greater can be conceived, then there is a unique conceivable thing such that nothing greater can be conceived. The proof of Lemma 2 was provided in our paper.​

​

​

​

2 As we shall see below, Lemma 2 helps to justify the introduction of the description “that (conceivable thing) than which nothing greater is conceivable” (ıx!1) into the ontological argument. The final non-logical premise needed in Anselm’s argument is:​

Premise 2​

​

​

​

: ¬E!ıx!1 $ !y(Gyıx!1 & Cy)
Premise 2 asserts: if that than which nothing greater is conceivable fails to exist, something greater than it is conceivable.​

With these premises, theorems, and definitions we then formulated Anselm’s ontological argument as follows:
​

1.​

​

​

​

!x!1 Premise 1
2. !!x!1 from (1), by Lemma 2
3. !y(y=ıx!1) from (2), by Description Thm 1
4. Cıx!1 & ¬!y(Gyıx!1 & Cy) from(3),byDescriptionThm2
5. ¬E!ıx!1 Assumption, for Reductio​

6.​

​

​

​

!y(Gyıx!1 & Cy) from (5), by Premise 2
7. ¬!y(Gyıx!1 & Cy) from (4), by &E
8. E!ıx!1 from (5), (6), and (7), by Reductio​

9.​

​

​

​

E!g from (8), by the definition of g​

Note that, strictly speaking, we need not have used free logic to reconstruct the argument because we establish at line (3) that our description​

​

​

​

ıx!1 is well-defined. Its logic is therefore classical, and the ontological argument proceeds along classical lines.3​

Clearly then, the ontological argument directly rests on the logical
theorems Description Theorems 1 and 2 and on the non-logical premises
Premise 1, Lemma 2, and Premise 2. It indirectly rests on the Description
Axiom (which yields both Description Theorem 1 and Lemma 1, the latter
yielding Description Theorem 2), and on the connectedness of the​

​

​

​

greater​

than relation (which together with Premise 1, yields Lemma 2).

They were slightly surprised at the actual logic required:

When we input the above representations of the logical and non-logical​

premises to prover9, we thought it would proveGod’s existence from the

following non-logical premises: the definition of​

​

​

​

none greater, Premise 1,
Lemma 2, Premise 2, and the definition of God (with the connectedness
of greater than being used in a separate proof of Lemma 2). However,
we were surprised to find that prover9 did not require all of these nonlogical elements.
​

prover9​

​

​

​

easily discovers a proof of the claim that God exists from
the above representations. However, much to our surprise, the proof it
discovered used only a few of the premises we formulated above. prover9​

reports that it used only the following premises in the proof:​

all F (Relation1(F) -> ((exists x (Object(x) & Is_the(x,F))) ->
(all y (Object(y) -> (Is_the(y,F) -> Ex1(F,y)))))).​

all x all F (Is_the(x,F) -> (Relation1(F) & Object(x))).
all x (Object(x) -> (Ex1(none_greater,x) <->
(Ex1(conceivable,x) & -(exists y (Object(y) &
Ex2(greater_than,y,x) & Ex1(conceivable,y)))))).
all x (Object(x) -> ((Is_the(x,none_greater) & -Ex1(e,x)) ->
(exists y (Object(y) & Ex2(greater_than,y,x) &
Ex1(conceivable,y))))).
Is_the(g,none_greater).​

As you can see by inspection, the first of these is Description Theorem 2,
the second is the sorting principle on​

​

​

​

Is the, the third is the definition
of none greater, the fourth is Premise 2, and the last is the definition
of ‘g’. prover9 did not need to use Description Theorem 1, Premise 1,
or Lemma 2. Moreover, since it didn’t use Lemma 2, it didn’t require
the connectedness of greater than. Indeed, prover9 didn’t need the full
content of the premises that it did use in its proof; each of these premises gets turned into multiple clauses and only some of the resulting clauses are used in the proof.
​

​

Here is the final argument used by Prover9:

The resulting simplified ontological argument for the existence of God is:
1.​

​

​

​

¬E!&#305;x!1 Assumption, for Reductio​

2.​

​

​

​

!y(Gy&#305;x!1 & Cy) from (1), by Premise 2 and MP
3. Gh&#305;x!1 & Ch from (2), by !E, ‘h’ arbitrary
4. Gh&#305;x!1 from (3), by &E
5. !y(y=&#305;x!1) from (4), by Desc. Thm. 3
6. C&#305;x!1 & ¬!y(Gy&#305;x!1 & Cy) from(5),byDesc.Thm.2
7. ¬!y(Gy&#305;x!1 & Cy) from (6), by &E
8. E!&#305;x!1 from (1), (2), (7), by Reductio​

9. E!g from (8), by the definition of ‘g’

What does this mean, in more laymen's terms:

Thus, we have a valid argument for the existence of God that doesn’t
require that any conditions be placed on the​

​

​

​

greater than relation, and
doesn’t require that we assert Premise 1 or establish Lemma 2 in order
to justify the introduction of the definite description &#305;x!1. Instead, all
the reasoning about the description takes place inside a Reductio assumption, except at the very end, after it is established that the description is well-defined. The question of the soundness of the ontological argument now reduces to the question of the truth of Premise 2!​

Their final results:

In the case in which the description &#305;x!1 denotes and the object it denotes
exists, the antecedent of Premise 2 is false, making Premise 2 true. But
the defender of the ontological argument can take no comfort from such
an observation, since it defends Premise 2 by using the conclusion of the
ontological argument. That is, if she uses the existence of the conceivable
thing than which no greater thing is conceivable to prove Premise 2, she
is guilty of circular reasoning. She needs an independent argument to
support the premise. Thus, arguments (1) and (2) above show that the defender of the ontological argument needs independent support for two claims: that the definite description denotes and that Premise 2 is true.

​

This shows that it is not illogical to assert God exists. Independant support is needed, yes, but that does not make it illogical.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I read all of that. It doesn't answer my question. I'll repeat it:

Greatest what?

 

[cybrsage]

I read all of that. It doesn't answer my question. I'll repeat it:

Greatest what?

I will repost the answer again.

Finally, we defined ‘God’ (‘
g’) to be the conceivable thing such that
nothing greater is conceivable:​

g =df &#305;x!1

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I will repost the answer again.

Finally, we defined ‘God’ (‘
g’) to be the conceivable thing such that
nothing greater is conceivable:​

g =df &#305;x!1

My question remains unanswered.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This shows that it is not illogical to assert God exists. Independant support is needed, yes, but that does not make it illogical.

1.) Iff Mary is a woman, then Einstein was president of the United States
2.) Mary is a woman.
C.) Therefore, Einstein was President of the United States.

Is it logical or illogical to assert that Einstein was President of the United States?

 

[cybrsage]

My question remains unanswered.

It was answered, you simply do not understand the answer. It is quite clear, which makes it strange you do not understand it.

Which words do you not understand, I can post definitions to them. Maybe it is a string of words you do not understand, post the string and I will explain it to you.

 

[cybrsage]

1.) Iff Mary is a woman, then Einstein was president of the United States
2.) Mary is a woman.
C.) Therefore, Einstein was President of the United States.

Is it logical or illogical to assert that Einstein was President of the United States?

Premise one is false. Therefor your deduction, C, is illogical.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It was answered, you simply do not understand the answer. It is quite clear, which makes it strange you do not understand it.

Cerpin Taxt: Greatest what?
cybrsage: The greatest.
Cerpin Taxt: Greatest what?
cybrsage: I answered you.

Uh huh.

Which words do you not understand, I can post definitions to them. Maybe it is a string of words you do not understand, post the string and I will explain it to you.

I have no problem understanding your responses. The problem is that your responses are not answers.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Premise one is false.

Irrelevant. If you insist on being obtuse I can reformulate another syllogism.

1.) Iff squares have four corners, then invisible space aliens will destroy the planet tomorrow.
2.) Squares have four corners.
C.) Therefore, invisible space aliens will destroy the planet tomorrow.

Is is logical or illogical to assert that invisible space aliens will destroy the planet tomorrow?

Therefor your deduction, C, is illogical.

Which rule of logic does it violate?

 

[cybrsage]

Cerpin Taxt: Greatest what?
cybrsage: The greatest.
Cerpin Taxt: Greatest what?
cybrsage: I answered you.

Uh huh.


I have no problem understanding your responses. The problem is that your responses are not answers.

I now see why you fail to understand, you only read the first few words of a sentence and then stop. You have to finish reading the sentence to get the entire meaning.

I will repost, but this time you need to read more than just two or so words.

Finally, we defined &#8216;God&#8217; (&#8216;g&#8217 to be the conceivable thing such that nothing greater is conceivable:

If you need the number of words reduced to aid in your understand, I can do that without seriously changing the meaning.

God is the greatest conceivable being.

But we started with me saying that many, many posts ago, and you did not understand it then either, so I am not sure this (or anything) can help you understand.

There is a point where you have to simply say you cannot understand something for whatever reason and move on with your life with the knowledge that others do understand it. Sometimes that has to be good enough. I am sure you do this already for a great host of things (everyone does), simply add one more item to the list.

 

[cybrsage]

Irrelevant. If you insist on being obtuse I can reformulate another syllogism.

1.) Iff squares have four corners, then invisible space aliens will destroy the planet tomorrow.
2.) Squares have four corners.
C.) Therefore, invisible space aliens will destroy the planet tomorrow.

Is is logical or illogical to assert that invisible space aliens will destroy the planet tomorrow?


Which rule of logic does it violate?

Premise one is still false.

The rule where you say something which is false is true. Logic does not allow lying.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Premise one is still false.

You do not know that, but you are invited to take a stab at proving it.

The rule where you say something which is false is true. Logic does not allow lying.

Still as disingenuous as ever. Ok, fine, fuckstick, how about this?

1.) If P -> Q
2.) P
C.) Therefore Q

Is it logical or illogical to assert Q?

 

[cybrsage]

You do not know that, but you are invited to take a stab at proving it.

The onus on proving it true is on the person making the claim. You made the claim.

Still as disingenuous as ever. Ok, fine, wonderful person, how about this?

1.) If P -> Q
2.) P
C.) Therefore Q

Is it logical or illogical to assert Q?

It depends, is premise 1 true of false? Pretending it does not matter is silly.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

God is the greatest conceivable being.

1.) A being that has won the Tour de France is greater than a being that has not won the Tour de France.
2.) Lance Armstrong has won the Tour de France.
3.) God has not won the Tour de France.
4.) Lance Armstrong is greater than God
5.) God is not the greatest conceivable being.

QED

There is a point where you have to simply say you cannot understand something for whatever reason and move on with your life with the knowledge that others do understand it. Sometimes that has to be good enough. I am sure you do this already for a great host of things (everyone does), simply add one more item to the list.

The point, which you are either too inept or too obtuse to acknowledge, is that "greatness" is not an objective property, yet it is treated as one in the argument.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The onus on proving it true is on the person making the claim. You made the claim.

You claimed the premise was false. It is your onus to prove your claim. Premises are not claims. They are simply premises.

It depends, is premise 1 true of false? Pretending it does not matter is silly.

Do you know if the premises of the argument in the paper are true or false?

I'll repeat my earlier question which you ignored:

Which rule(s) of logic have been violated?

 

[cybrsage]

1.) A being that has won the Tour de France is greater than a being that has not won the Tour de France.
2.) Lance Armstrong has won the Tour de France.
3.) God has not won the Tour de France.
4.) Lance Armstrong is greater than God
5.) God is not the greatest conceivable being.

QED

Premise one is still not true. You are assuming greatness is defined as being able to ride a bike well in a race. This is a false assumption.

I also posit that you do not think Lance Armstrong is greater than you, though that is an unsupported assumption.

The point, which you are either too inept or too obtuse to acknowledge, is that "greatness" is not an objective property, yet it is treated as one in the argument.

Greater IS a good adjective. Greater in every conceivable way. Just because you do not like it does not remove the validity of it. You simply have to accept the truth as the truth and move on.

EDIT: There are ways to attack Premise 1, but you are not even in the ballpark of doing so. I will leave it to you to discover the way to do it...though I doubt you will be successful. You seem to lack even the rudimentary understanding of logic.

 

[cybrsage]

You claimed the premise was false. It is your onus to prove your claim. Premises are not claims. They are simply premises.

In your failed attempt at logic, you assumed your premise is true. Otherwise, you could not have reached conclusion C. Therefor, you must support your claim of it being true. It is not up to others to disprove your claims.

I'll repeat my earlier question which you ignored:

Which rule(s) of logic have been violated?

I did not ignore it, you simply did not like the answer. You violated the "do not lie" rule.

 

[Aikouka]

You must define the question prior to being able to answer the question, yes? I assume you said yes, since no is ludicrous.

Moving on, since the study was specific to the Abramamic gods, we would need to use the definition of said gods. It would be quite stupid to use an incorrect definition when discussion a specific type of god.

The first line is simply providing the subject which is being discussed. Without it, there can be no discussion.

Sage, I agree that you have to define something, but the problem is that they are using the definition as a truth instead of an assertion. That proof essentially just proves that the concept of what God could be is not invalid.

 

[Muse]

I've always had trouble as to what term to use to describe my religious belief, but I found this on Wikipedia and it's extremely close:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism

I do have a fondness for Buddhist teachings in regards to my personal conduct, but I've never considered it my faith.

Buddhism, at least Zen Buddhism is not a faith, as I understand it. When you say this about faith I think you are just saying that you would not identify yourself as an adherent. However, Zen Buddhism is simply a means to achieving wisdom and personal liberation, the goal being release from the bondage of illusory ideas and life styles (the quest being satori, enlightenment). Thus, there's no ideology associated with it whatsoever. There is nothing to worship. Here's an interesting quote from Albert Einstein concerning Buddhism:

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.

 

[(sic)Klown12]

Buddhism, at least Zen Buddhism is not a faith, as I understand it. When you say this about faith I think you are just saying that you would not identify yourself as an adherent. However, Zen Buddhism is simply a means to achieving wisdom and personal liberation, the goal being release from the bondage of illusory ideas and life styles (the quest being satori, enlightenment). Thus, there's no ideology associated with it whatsoever. There is nothing to worship. Here's an interesting quote from Albert Einstein concerning Buddhism:

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.

You're one of the very few people who I've come across that understands that distinction. Most people I talk to about this subject tend to equate Buddhism as a religion(akin to Christianity or other Abrahamic religions) and I've become weary of having to explain what you just wrote. I now use incorrect terms just to prevent myself from having longer than necessary conversations that often still fail to make the other person understand.

Kudos to taking the time to write it all out though.

 

[Paul98]

You claimed the premise was false. It is your onus to prove your claim. Premises are not claims. They are simply premises.


Do you know if the premises of the argument in the paper are true or false?

I'll repeat my earlier question which you ignored:

Which rule(s) of logic have been violated?

Don't even bother, no matter what you say he won't understand.

 

[cybrsage]

Sage, I agree that you have to define something, but the problem is that they are using the definition as a truth instead of an assertion. That proof essentially just proves that the concept of what God could be is not invalid.

You are correct. Basically, it only shows that the concept of an all powerful god (such as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) is not an illogical concept. It definately does not logically prove the existance of such a god.

I like to use it to show that it is not illogical, or even stupid, to believe in an all powerful god. The logic is VERY deep, but the synopsis is easy enough to understand. I give them kudos for being able to simplify such a deep subject.

 

[cybrsage]

Don't even bother, no matter what you say he won't understand.

Oh no, are you one of those "I claim something is true and if you disagree YOU have to prove me wrong...I am not required to support my claim" type of people, are you?

 

[Paul98]

Oh no, are you one of those "I claim something is true and if you disagree YOU have to prove me wrong...I am not required to support my claim" type of people, are you?

You have already shown over and over you don't understand even basic concepts that are obvious. No point to waist my time on someone who will never understand.

And now going on ignore list.