In article
Post by JWSPost by Kurt Nicklashttp://youtu.be/RQPRqHZRP68
Premise 1 is not accepted. You're DONE!
I don't see any point of arguing over this. If you believe,
believe. If you don't, don't. If you have a god shaped hole in
your life, search for ways to fill it. If you don't have a god
shaped hole, carry on without a god.
Premise 2 is a trick used to sneak a math definition into a fuzzy
english sentence: (exists e)(e in A) = A/={}, or a true
existential proves the set it describes is not empty. But english
is a lot fuzzier on whether existentials requires existence.
(Universal quantification yields true over an empty set.
Existential quantification yields false over an empty set.) The
statement is fuzzier on a whether premise is a hypothetical or an
axiom. Hypotheticals have little use outside of modus tollens.
Premise 3 is an invalid inference. A counterexample is the ball
exists in one roulette wheel slot; it cannot be in all slots. You
can't simply turn an existential into a universal.
Premise 4 and 5 are valid ways to remove and add a quantifier.
The problem is premise 1, 2, 3 are crap, and valid
transformations of crap are still crap.
The 'necessary' entities is also crap. I reject assumed
universals like numbers or 'laws of logic'. It was unassaible
truth that not even god can make the sum of a triangle anything
other than 180. Apparently god is incapable doing elliptic
geometry (>180) or hyperbolic (<180). I imagine a region in the
universe with numerous black holes in close proximity shredding
time and space into complete chaos. This where Azathoth sleeps.
Definitions in math are short hand for objects, if any, that
match the criteria. A definition cannot imply anything, including
existence, of the object. Existence and other properties must be
established independently. I can define a square circle, but I
still have to prove any object matches the definition.
'Maximally great being' is again fuzzy emglish rammed into math.
To define this I would need to define the orderring being used to
compare. An orderring is defined structure with max and min.
However max and min don't always exists nor necessarily unique: I
have to prove the order is a lattice for that.
There's a lot of machinery underlying even mundane statements of
math to avoid proving crap.
Prove 'imperfection' is a 'lesser making property'.
Defining a maximally great being is possible, but it still
necessary to prove an object fits the definition. Define a
unicorn as one horned equinine that must exist in all possible
worlds. So a unicorn is defined. Does any object match this
definition?
The argument is mathematically absurd. The question is easy: do
you believe or not? That's the beginning and end of the argument.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed