Introduction to possible modal logic

[SNP1]

OP, answer this question.  A simple yes or no. 

Do you actually believe that the existence of a supreme sky daddy is possible?

I think it is possible, but I think the chance of one actually existing is very low.

Modal logic is not logical! It's mental gymnastics trying to prove God exists, or that any other unknown can. 

Right, one of the accepted forms of logic isn't logical...

[GSOgymrat]

CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world
P1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
P2) Explanation q must be a necessary being
P3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)
P4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

If this can prove the existence of one god then I assume it can prove the existence of a variety gods, e.g. a god can exist that does interact with humanity, a god can exist that does not interact with humanity.

[Desdinova]

CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world
P1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
P2) Explanation q must be a necessary being
P3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)
P4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

Why does P2 have to be a "being"?  Why couldn't P2 be a set of necessary "factors"?

[SNP1]

If this can prove the existence of one god then I assume it can prove the existence of a variety gods, e.g. a god can exist that does interact with humanity, a god can exist that does not interact with humanity.

The argument only shows a minimalistic, deistic god.

Why does P2 have to be a "being"?  Why couldn't P2 be a set of necessary "factors"?

For one, Occam's Razor makes it more likely that it is singular.

P2 is either one necessary factor or one necessary being. I have never before been asked if it has to be a being... I don't think so now that you point that out (no one has pointed out the "being", they usually focus on the "necessary" part). It isn't an argument that I came up with, and would have to ask the person that came up with it to find out that.

[Desdinova]

With all due respect SNP1, I still think it's all BS.  Sorry, if my blatant honesty offends you.

[Solitary]

I think it is possible, but I think the chance of one actually existing is very low.

Right, one of the accepted forms of logic isn't logical...

That's what I said and still mean it! Accepted by whom?  Logic is define as sound reasoning, Modal logic is not sound reasoning period! Your response is playing on words as if they are absolutes, they are not, the problem in logic and philosophy.  Solitary

[SNP1]

Accepted by whom?

Forms of logic go through a process and will either be accepted or rejected by the philosophical community (philosophers). It is similar to how scientific facts get accepted by the scientific community.

[dtq123]

That's what I said and still mean it! Accepted by whom?  Logic is define as sound reasoning, Modal logic is not sound reasoning period! Your response is playing on words as if they are absolutes, they are not, the problem in logic and philosophy.  Solitary

Words have a implied absolute and meaning. Without it, meanings could and would constantly shift. So Necessary facts require good definitions.

If it's still bullshit to you then at least take this away with you; Definitions are important especially when dealing with God. God can change definition very quickly, and here's a list what of people have said God is:

God is:
=The biblical god
=Love
=Truth
=etc.

And things get really weird when is goes further than the above:
=Is god material?
=Is god Omnipotent? Omnipresent?
=Is he ALWAYS benevolent? Honest? Just?
=Is he human?
=etc.

When we pin down a specific definition of God, it is easier to prevent the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy from escaping our grasp and show the fallacy of the opposing side.


For instance, Friend X says God X is just. Friend X also believes the holy book is literal fact. Friend X claims his/her god is real.

If it is possible for God X to exist in any realm, Then there must not be any contradicting factors (or so called "Necessary Facts".

The holy books contain acts of God X committing Murder.

If the holy books contain acts of God X committing Murder, Then there are contradicting factors.

Therefore, It is impossible for god X to exist in any realm due to contradicting factors.

However, if Friend X says "God works in mysterious ways" after this argument, thou must slap thy neighbor

Seriously, It's logic wrapped in a load of algebra and tied with a long forum post. It works, but reading the whole thing is an achievement.
Edit: And the terms seem to make little sense with what they are referring to.

[PickelledEggs]

Here is some modal logic:


x: is boring
if you take M and multiply it by 2 and divide it by 199x you get Ness and Mr. Saturn

Now when Mr. Saturn takes a nap, 3 dogs will crap in the woods. When the smell goes away, that will reveal if the idea holds water. Just like Mr Saturn's bladder.

SNP. This "modal logic" you are trying to push on us is one of the most unnecessarily complicated attempt at trying to achieve logic I have ever seen. It's making more steps out of something that is extraordinarily more simple than you are trying to make it.

[PickelledEggs]

There are plenty of much more easy and simple ways to achieve the same exact result. If you want to complicate things for yourself though, go right ahead.

Also. I am in no way telling you to not try to explain it more, just putting my 2 cents in of why it shouldn't be this difficult to explain something as straightforward as logic usually is.
Just keep in mind, depending on how you go about it, your pushing of this "modal logic" on to us could possibly be considered proselytizing, which is against the rules.

[La Dolce Vita]

CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world
P1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
P2) Explanation q must be a necessary being
P3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)
P4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

This arguments is easy to destroy as it is dependent on simultaneously using two different definitions of "possible" to be convincing.

Def 1: The honest acknowledgement that everything that has not been disproved (regardless of how silly) could hypothetically "exist".

Def 2: That something is physically possible

The two definitions are in no way connected - and using them both as interchangeable means that the argument is invalid.

Sticking to a specific definition on the other hand either invalidates it (as well) or makes the argument currely irrelevant.

If we use the definition of something maybe being possible, this does in no way translate to actual existence - so the argument is invalid.

If we use the definition that something is physically possible, then we'd have to actually demonstrate that it is physically possible - empirically. Otherwise the argument has no demonstrative value. And to show that a necessary being is possible by this argument (which does not mean that a creator god is possible, but that a creator god has to exist for "all worlds") you'd have to empirically demonstrate that this being exists in our world and all others. This means that the argument can be summed up as "if there is a necessary being there's a necessary being". Which is quite laughable in terms of demonstrating such a being existing.

[Solitary]

Forms of logic go through a process and will either be accepted or rejected by the philosophical community (philosophers). It is similar to how scientific facts get accepted by the scientific community.

Not true! Science is based on facts and evidence, not opinions. Solitary

[Solitary]

Words have a implied absolute and meaning. Without it, meanings could and would constantly shift. So Necessary facts require good definitions.

If it's still bullshit to you then at least take this away with you; Definitions are important especially when dealing with God. God can change definition very quickly, and here's a list what of people have said God is:

God is:
=The biblical god
=Love
=Truth
=etc.

And things get really weird when is goes further than the above:
=Is god material?
=Is god Omnipotent? Omnipresent?
=Is he ALWAYS benevolent? Honest? Just?
=Is he human?
=etc.

When we pin down a specific definition of God, it is easier to prevent the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy from escaping our grasp and show the fallacy of the opposing side.


For instance, Friend X says God X is just. Friend X also believes the holy book is literal fact. Friend X claims his/her god is real.

If it is possible for God X to exist in any realm, Then there must not be any contradicting factors (or so called "Necessary Facts".

The holy books contain acts of God X committing Murder.

If the holy books contain acts of God X committing Murder, Then there are contradicting factors.

Therefore, It is impossible for god X to exist in any realm due to contradicting factors.

However, if Friend X says "God works in mysterious ways" after this argument, thou must slap thy neighbor

Seriously, It's logic wrapped in a load of algebra and tied with a long forum post. It works, but reading the whole thing is an achievement.
Edit: And the terms seem to make little sense with what they are referring to.

"Words have a implied absolute and meaning. " You do realize this is a contradiction in logic don't you?  vSolitary

[Solitary]

  Paraconsistent logic remains consistent even though, by definition it's inconsistent, Or putting it another way, paraconsistent logic is both consistent and inconsistent----which when you think about it, is a kind of the whole idea in a "NUT" shell. The kind of logic that nuts believe in, or irrational neurotics. It's like a lunatic that says, "war is peace," up is down, hot is cold, or God is love and hate. Give me a break, if you think like this you are a lunatic and everyone else that does!  :fU: Solitary

[Hydra009]

Words have a implied absolute and meaning. Without it, meanings could and would constantly shift.

Compare a dictionary from now versus a couple hundred years ago.  The meanings most definitely do shift.