Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Should you think there's a necessary being?

philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 7:47:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Take this quiz and find out if your current beliefs entail that there is a necessary being or not.

http://www.necessarybeing.net...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 7:53:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes according to the test.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 7:59:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 7:53:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yes according to the test.

Interesting! None of your reports seem to imply that there is a Necessary Being (not considering your report on whether or not there is a Necessary Being).
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 8:05:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 7:59:38 PM, Chicken wrote:
At 12/27/2012 7:53:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yes according to the test.

Interesting! None of your reports seem to imply that there is a Necessary Being (not considering your report on whether or not there is a Necessary Being).

Oh, it's not my program. I think Josh Rasmussen came up with it (though I don't know who he is). I found a link to it on Alexander Pruss' blog: http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 8:05:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 8:05:21 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/27/2012 7:59:38 PM, Chicken wrote:
At 12/27/2012 7:53:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yes according to the test.

Interesting! None of your reports seem to imply that there is a Necessary Being (not considering your report on whether or not there is a Necessary Being).

Oh, it's not my program. I think Josh Rasmussen came up with it (though I don't know who he is). I found a link to it on Alexander Pruss' blog: http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com...

That was the copy and pasted answer I got lol...
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 8:06:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Btw you have an awesome blog!
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 8:06:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 8:05:21 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/27/2012 7:59:38 PM, Chicken wrote:
At 12/27/2012 7:53:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Yes according to the test.

Interesting! None of your reports seem to imply that there is a Necessary Being (not considering your report on whether or not there is a Necessary Being).

Oh, it's not my program. I think Josh Rasmussen came up with it (though I don't know who he is).

He's a philosopher. I'm friends with him on facebook. lol

I found a link to it on Alexander Pruss' blog: http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 8:09:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 8:06:19 PM, Chicken wrote:
Btw you have an awesome blog!

Thank you! :-)
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 8:18:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That was interesting...
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 8:29:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 7:47:31 PM, philochristos wrote:
Take this quiz and find out if your current beliefs entail that there is a necessary being or not.

http://www.necessarybeing.net...

Of course I already knew the answer. I just wanted to see what they said.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 8:34:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I already believed in a necessary being prior to taking this test but this is the proof that resulted from my answers.

I will first show that a Necessary Being is possible:
1. Define 'C' as an event in which all contingent things begin to exist.
2. It is possible that C occurs. (by your report)
3. Necessarily, if C occurs, then there is an event C* that is a change from there being no contingent thngs to there being some contingent things. (By definition of 'beginning' and definition of 'C')
4. Therefore, it is possible that C* occurs. (2, 3)
5. No possible event is impossible to cause. (by your report)
6. Therefore, it is possible that C* has a cause. (4, 5)
7. It is not possible for a contingent thing to exist prior to a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'prior to': otherwise a contingent thing would exist while there are no contingent things, which is contradictory [note])
8. Therefore, it is not possible for a contingent thing to cause a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'cause' & 7)
9. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by something that is not contingent. (by 6 & 8)
10. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by a Necessary Being. (by definition of 'Necessary Being')
11. Therefore, it is possible that there is a Necessary Being.
[note] To be clear, the 'all' in 'all contingent things' doesn't rigidly designate any particular contingent things: C* is an event in which there first begins to be some contingent things (where no contingent things previously existed).
I will now show that if a Necessary Being possibly exists, then one actually exists. To begin, recall (from your report) that if X and Y are each possible, then if X were actual, Y would still be possible (for any X and Y). In other words, a possible situation would be possible no matter what might happen to be actual. Therefore, whatever is possible is necessarily possible (by definition of 'necessarily such and such'). Call this principle 'the necessity of possibility' (which is also known as S5).

The deduction using the above principle is well known. Below is one way to spell it out.
Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.
Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.
Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').
Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.
The deduction now proceeds as follows:
1. ◊N.
2. So: ◊□N. (by definition of 'N')
3. Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that ◊~N.
4. Then: □◊~N. (by the necessity of possibility)
5. Then: ~◊~◊~N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
6. Then: ~◊~~□~~N. (by substituting '~□~' for the second '◊')
7. Then: ~◊□N. (because '~~X' is equivalent to 'X')
8. But (7) contradicts (2).
9. So: (3) is not true. (because (3) implies (7))
10. So: ~◊~N.
11. So: □N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')
12. So: N. (because □X implies X)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 8:37:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.
Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.
Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').
Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.
The deduction now proceeds as follows:
1. ◊N.
2. So: ◊□N. (by definition of 'N')
3. Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that ◊~N.
4. Then: □◊~N. (by the necessity of possibility)
5. Then: ~◊~◊~N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
6. Then: ~◊~~□~~N. (by substituting '~□~' for the second '◊')
7. Then: ~◊□N. (because '~~X' is equivalent to 'X')
8. But (7) contradicts (2).
9. So: (3) is not true. (because (3) implies (7))
10. So: ~◊~N.
11. So: □N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')
12. So: N. (because □X implies X)

You use incredibly poor abbreviations! ;)
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:06:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 8:37:07 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.
Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.
Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').
Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.
The deduction now proceeds as follows:
1. ◊N.
2. So: ◊□N. (by definition of 'N')
3. Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that ◊~N.
4. Then: □◊~N. (by the necessity of possibility)
5. Then: ~◊~◊~N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
6. Then: ~◊~~□~~N. (by substituting '~□~' for the second '◊')
7. Then: ~◊□N. (because '~~X' is equivalent to 'X')
8. But (7) contradicts (2).
9. So: (3) is not true. (because (3) implies (7))
10. So: ~◊~N.
11. So: □N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')
12. So: N. (because □X implies X)

You use incredibly poor abbreviations! ;)

I like to keep people on their toes. ;)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:15:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 8:34:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I already believed in a necessary being prior to taking this test but this is the proof that resulted from my answers.

I will first show that a Necessary Being is possible:
1. Define 'C' as an event in which all contingent things begin to exist.
2. It is possible that C occurs. (by your report)
3. Necessarily, if C occurs, then there is an event C* that is a change from there being no contingent thngs to there being some contingent things. (By definition of 'beginning' and definition of 'C')
4. Therefore, it is possible that C* occurs. (2, 3)
5. No possible event is impossible to cause. (by your report)
6. Therefore, it is possible that C* has a cause. (4, 5)
7. It is not possible for a contingent thing to exist prior to a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'prior to': otherwise a contingent thing would exist while there are no contingent things, which is contradictory [note])
8. Therefore, it is not possible for a contingent thing to cause a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'cause' & 7)
9. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by something that is not contingent. (by 6 & 8)
10. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by a Necessary Being. (by definition of 'Necessary Being')
11. Therefore, it is possible that there is a Necessary Being.
[note] To be clear, the 'all' in 'all contingent things' doesn't rigidly designate any particular contingent things: C* is an event in which there first begins to be some contingent things (where no contingent things previously existed).
I will now show that if a Necessary Being possibly exists, then one actually exists. To begin, recall (from your report) that if X and Y are each possible, then if X were actual, Y would still be possible (for any X and Y). In other words, a possible situation would be possible no matter what might happen to be actual. Therefore, whatever is possible is necessarily possible (by definition of 'necessarily such and such'). Call this principle 'the necessity of possibility' (which is also known as S5).

The deduction using the above principle is well known. Below is one way to spell it out.
Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.
Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.
Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').
Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.
The deduction now proceeds as follows:
1. ◊N.
2. So: ◊□N. (by definition of 'N')
3. Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that ◊~N.
4. Then: □◊~N. (by the necessity of possibility)
5. Then: ~◊~◊~N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
6. Then: ~◊~~□~~N. (by substituting '~□~' for the second '◊')
7. Then: ~◊□N. (because '~~X' is equivalent to 'X')
8. But (7) contradicts (2).
9. So: (3) is not true. (because (3) implies (7))
10. So: ~◊~N.
11. So: □N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')
12. So: N. (because □X implies X)

I enjoyed this.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:22:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Apparently I do, but I know little to nothing about this subject so all of my answers to the questions given are probably based on misunderstandings and unwarranted assumptions.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:27:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:15:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/27/2012 8:34:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I already believed in a necessary being prior to taking this test but this is the proof that resulted from my answers.

I will first show that a Necessary Being is possible:
1. Define 'C' as an event in which all contingent things begin to exist.
2. It is possible that C occurs. (by your report)
3. Necessarily, if C occurs, then there is an event C* that is a change from there being no contingent thngs to there being some contingent things. (By definition of 'beginning' and definition of 'C')
4. Therefore, it is possible that C* occurs. (2, 3)
5. No possible event is impossible to cause. (by your report)
6. Therefore, it is possible that C* has a cause. (4, 5)
7. It is not possible for a contingent thing to exist prior to a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'prior to': otherwise a contingent thing would exist while there are no contingent things, which is contradictory [note])
8. Therefore, it is not possible for a contingent thing to cause a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'cause' & 7)
9. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by something that is not contingent. (by 6 & 8)
10. Therefore, it is possible that C* is caused by a Necessary Being. (by definition of 'Necessary Being')
11. Therefore, it is possible that there is a Necessary Being.
[note] To be clear, the 'all' in 'all contingent things' doesn't rigidly designate any particular contingent things: C* is an event in which there first begins to be some contingent things (where no contingent things previously existed).
I will now show that if a Necessary Being possibly exists, then one actually exists. To begin, recall (from your report) that if X and Y are each possible, then if X were actual, Y would still be possible (for any X and Y). In other words, a possible situation would be possible no matter what might happen to be actual. Therefore, whatever is possible is necessarily possible (by definition of 'necessarily such and such'). Call this principle 'the necessity of possibility' (which is also known as S5).

The deduction using the above principle is well known. Below is one way to spell it out.
Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.
Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.
Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').
Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.
The deduction now proceeds as follows:
1. ◊N.
2. So: ◊□N. (by definition of 'N')
3. Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that ◊~N.
4. Then: □◊~N. (by the necessity of possibility)
5. Then: ~◊~◊~N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
6. Then: ~◊~~□~~N. (by substituting '~□~' for the second '◊')
7. Then: ~◊□N. (because '~~X' is equivalent to 'X')
8. But (7) contradicts (2).
9. So: (3) is not true. (because (3) implies (7))
10. So: ~◊~N.
11. So: □N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')
12. So: N. (because □X implies X)

I enjoyed this.

I've wanted to ask you this for a while- if you believe in God through faith and not evidence, what assurance do you have that Zeus and Hera don't really run everything? Or how do you know that the concept of God isn't just a psychosocial outgrowth that resulted in an idea of an ontologically basic mental entity (as supernatural ideas tends to be)?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:30:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:22:10 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Apparently I do, but I know little to nothing about this subject so all of my answers to the questions given are probably based on misunderstandings and unwarranted assumptions.

It's important to read the definitions of possible and necessary before you begin the questionnaire.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 8:02:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It basically boils down to this:

<>[]N -> []N

And I think it abuses the specific nature in which the qualifiers "possible" and "necessary" are used in the modal sense versus in the vernacular. Consider the following:

"The system B (for the logician Brouwer) is formed by adding axiom (B) to M.

(B) A->[]<>A

It is interesting to note that S5 can be formulated equivalently by adding (B) to S4. The axiom (B) raises an important point about the interpretation of modal formulas. (B) says that if A is the case, then A is necessarily possible. One might argue that (B) should always be adopted in any modal logic, for surely if A is the case, then it is necessary that A is possible. However, there is a problem with this claim that can be exposed by noting that <>[]A->A is provable from (B). So <>[]A->A should be acceptable if (B) is. However, <>[]A->A says that if A is possibly necessary, then A is the case, and this is far from obvious. Why does (B) seem obvious, while one of the things it entails seems not obvious at all? The answer is that there is a dangerous ambiguity in the English interpretation of A->[]<>A. We often use the expression "If A then necessarily B" to express that the conditional "if A then B" is necessary. This interpretation corresponds to [](A->B). On other occasions, we mean that if A, then B is necessary: A->[]B. In English, "necessarily" is an adverb, and since adverbs are usually placed near verbs, we have no natural way to indicate whether the modal operator applies to the whole conditional, or to its consequent. For these reasons, there is a tendency to confuse (B): A->[]<>A with [](A-><>A). But [](A-><>A) is not the same as (B), for [](A-><>A) is already a theorem of M, and (B) is not. One must take special care that our positive reaction to [](A-><>A) does not infect our evaluation of (B). One simple way to protect ourselves is to formulate B in an equivalent way using the axiom: <>[]A->A, where these ambiguities of scope do not arise."

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I think a similar thing is being used with <>[]N -> []N.

Consider the Possible Worlds Semantics. However, for a more "concrete" representation, we will call it the Possible Box Semantics.

In front of you is a series of boxes. And I tell you that if either there is an apple in all of the boxes or none of the boxes. This is a given the of the scenario.

I then ask you: "Is it possible for there to be an apple in all of the boxes?" Barring something that would preclude an apply from being in the boxes (i.e. they are too small, too light, etc.) You are likely to say yes. After all, this is what "possible" means.

Then, to your surprise, I tell you that you just agreed that there definitely is an apple in all of the boxes. I explain that, in the context here "possible" means that at least one box has an apple and, as stated, either they all have apples or none of them do, so if one box has an apple, they all due.

You'd rightfully balk at this because that isn't the sense you were using "possible."

That is what is going on here. In completing the test people are using "possible" in a meta sense, to talk about the possible worlds one level up from them, rather than using "possible" in its strict modal sense, making a statement about one of the worlds themselves.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 9:24:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Furthermore, the reasoning at the end of the attempts to use a contradiction in order to demonstrate that one specific premise is true. This is inappropriate. The only thing we can conclude from a contradiction is that one part is true, and the other is false, but not necessarily which.

However, the reasoning takes two premises (the first, then the hypothetical) then shows that they are contradictory, and defaults to the first premise as being true, and dismisses the hypothetical, without basis. All that can rightfully be concluded is that, between the first premise and the hypothetical premise, one is true and one is false.

If anyone is to show which premise is true and which is false, then effort needs to be put in defending one over the other.