Do you know everything about the universe?

[HeavyAaron]

I'm afraid that's overly broad. For example, it's not logically impossible for fell beasts to evolve and live on earth. But nevertheless, fell beasts do not live on earth.

It's a definition. How can it be too broad? Yes, fell beasts are possible objects under the definition. Not all possible objects are existant objects. But all existant objects are possible objects.

Just because a thing is not logically impossible doesn't mean it may possibly be real.

If this is supposed to be an apriori statement I'd disagree with you and ask for an example object. If this is saying something after observation, well, sure it's true that we may use observations to eliminate some possible objects as not existant. That's especially easy when you've included geographical location as part of their definition.

No it does not require knowing of all existant objects. You have only restated the unsupported assertion that the whole universe must be examined before you can conclude that anything either does or doesn't possibly exist. This is simply not so.

It's theoretically what I've proven. Hardly unsupported, I've provided a semi-formal proof. You need to show the proof is unsound, not merely declare it "unsupported."

First you have to know the qualities of the thing. If you don't, then nothing meaningful can be said about it at all.

I haven't posited a particular God definition. That's beyond the scope of my intention. I did speicify that the proof only works for definitions of God that are internally consistant. And that is a catagory of thing. One need not specify an object completely to be able to speak of its properties and the like. So long as all objects in the catagory possess a quality one can talk about that quality as pertaining to any of its members. In this case that quality would be "possible objects."

Once you know the defining qualities, you only have to know enough about the world to be able to say "It definitely is", "It definitely ain't", or "Can't tell".

That would be an exhaustive list.

Sorry, too broad a definition. God has defining qualities. You can't simply make claims regarding "an arbitrary possible object X", then tack on "let X be God". God is not just any arbitrary thing you care to imagine.

I didn't. Let variable=value is to give a SPECIFIC value to X. Given a specific definition of God, let X be the object furfilling that definition.

Aaron

 

[Piggy]

HeavyAaron, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your last post at all. I simply can't follow your logic or syntax.

 

[drkitten]

It's theoretically what I've proven. Hardly unsupported, I've provided a semi-formal proof. You need to show the proof is unsound, not merely declare it "unsupported."

Easily done. Here's your "proof" again.

Let us consider an arbitrary possible object X. Now we wish to show that no actual object X exists. Let us consider the set of all existant things S. (Yes, I know that that this set might be too large, and thus S itself is not a possible thing.) Let's consider it anyway. Now, to show that X does not exist is to show that X is not in the set S. The only means to do that is to examine all elements of the set S and find that they are not identical to X. It does not require omniscience, but it does require knowing of all existant objects.

The assertion that "the only means to do that is to examine all elements of the set S and find that htey are not identical to X" is demonstably untrue.

There are many other ways that we can demonstrate that X does not exist.

* For example, we can show that the existence of X is incompatible with another object whose existence we can demonstrate. For example, if I can demonstrate the existence of a king of England in 1500, that disproves the existence of an English republic at that time. The cobweb across the door proves that no one has walked through the door today.

* We can demonstrate that the existence of X is logically possible, but contingent on another object whose nonexistence can be demonstrated. For example, Mozart never had any children, therefore he never had any grandchildren. To win Randi's million, one would first need to pass the preliminary -- but no one has passed the preliminary.

* We can demonstrate that all objects outside of a given set S' cannot be X (without knowing them) and then enumerate the elements of S'. For example, I have no red-headed nieces -- and it doesn't matter whether or not there are Vulcans orbiting a distant star that I don't know about, since none of them are my nieces.

Oher methods will no doubt occur to you.

 

[HeavyAaron]

HeavyAaron, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your last post at all. I simply can't follow your logic or syntax.

Fair enough. Let me try being far more formal.

1) A possible object is an object which is not forbidden to exist by logical incoherency. (definition)

2) X is a possible object. (assertion)

3) X is not a set. (assertion)

4) An existant object is an object for which an instance exists. (definition)

5) S is the set of all existant objects other than sets (definition; restriction to prevent incoherient definition)

6) X exists if and only if S contains X. (by 3, 4, and 5)

7) X does not exist iff for all Y in S; X<>Y (by 6)

8) If X = God then God does not exist iff for all Y in S; X<>Y (by 7)

Is that more clear?

Aaron

 

[drkitten]

Fair enough. Let me try being far more formal.

1) A possible object is an object which is not forbidden to exist by logical incoherency. (definition)

2) X is a possible object. (assertion)

[snip]

8) If X = God then God does not exist iff for all Y in S; X<>Y (by 7)

Doesn't work. You've asserted without proof that God is a possible object, i.e. not forbidden to exist by logical incoherency.

Either God is itself an undefined term -- which negates the purpose of your proof -- or you need both to define it and to prove the consistency of God.

 

[Piggy]

Fair enough. Let me try being far more formal.

1) A possible object is an object which is not forbidden to exist by logical incoherency. (definition)

Well, you can stop right there because I don't accept that definition. As I've demonstrated before (see this post for a more detailed explanation) just because an entity is not forbidden by internal contradictions in its own definition does not mean it therefore must be possible that such a thing is real.

Maybe that's not actually what you're asserting, but strictly formal logic is not my language, so you're probably going to lose me if you formulate things that way w/ all the set symbols.

And drkitten just shot you down anyhow.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Doesn't work. You've asserted without proof that God is a possible object, i.e. not forbidden to exist by logical incoherency.

Yep. It's rather trival to prove the nonexistance of gods which are defined to be impossible objects.

Either God is itself an undefined term -- which negates the purpose of your proof -- or you need both to define it and to prove the consistency of God.

Ah, you've assume purposes beyond those I have. I have no particular definition of God in mind. I've stated before that my favorite definition comes from the ontological argument (God is the greatest possible being). But here any definition of God which is not a set and is not internally inconsistant will do. You might say that any such defined objects aren't gods, I suppose.

Aaron

 

[Piggy]

Doesn't work. You've asserted without proof that God is a possible object, i.e. not forbidden to exist by logical incoherency.

Either God is itself an undefined term -- which negates the purpose of your proof -- or you need both to define it and to prove the consistency of God.

Thanks, drkitten. That's what I was getting at when I said you can't just tack on "let X be God" at the end.

More generally, it makes no sense to ask whether anything is potentially real without a clear definition of that thing. Because "does it exist" isn't a question about the thing, but a question about the world.

So any sort of proof which declines to define the entity, necessarily fails because it is insufficient.

The proof also fails to establish that the entire universe must be searched, for reasons that drkitten explains above.

 

[Piggy]

Yep. It's rather trival to prove the nonexistance of gods which are defined to be impossible objects.

Right, but that hasn't happened here, so why bring it up?

Ah, you've assume purposes beyond those I have. I have no particular definition of God in mind.

Then you're in nonsenseland.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Well, you can stop right there because I don't accept that definition. As I've demonstrated before (see this post for a more detailed explanation) just because an entity is not forbidden by internal contradictions in its own definition does not mean it therefore must be possible that such a thing is real.

Maybe that's not actually what you're asserting, but strictly formal logic is not my language, so you're probably going to lose me if you formulate things that way w/ all the set symbols.

And drkitten just shot you down anyhow.

In what way do you deny the definition? It's A DEFINITION. I can define terms any way I like.

In that post you're trying to distinguish between something that "might be real" and something that "could possibly exist."

As far as I can tell your distinction is that "could possibly exist" means that the object is apriori possible and that an object that "might be real" is apostori possible. I'm talking about apriori possibilities in my definition. So I am defining a term which means the same as your "could possibly exist." Since you yourself have a term for that, how could you possibly object to me defining and using one? I'm not conflating the two. I'm using it exactly how I defined it.

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

Right, but that hasn't happened here, so why bring it up?

I'm not the one who brought it up.

Then you're in nonsenseland.

Bullcrud.

I can talk about objects of a class very easily.

I can talk about circles without telling you their radius. I need not precisely define something to talk about it. In fact my argument is STRONGER for not narrowing it down. It can be used for many things, not just "God." A more generic proof is superior to a specific one. It's more useful.

I could, for example, define God to be a cube composed entirely of bound carbon atoms measuring 10m per side at a temperature of 100K. That definition meets the criteria of being 1) not a set and 2) a possible object. Big deal. I'd rather the proof hold true for MANY object definitions.

Aaron

 

[Piggy]

In what way do you deny the definition? It's A DEFINITION. I can define terms any way I like.

If that's the case, then I can define God as Eric Clapton, at which point it's a simple job to prove that God exists.

You're talking nonsense.

 

[Piggy]

I could, for example, define God to be a cube composed entirely of bound carbon atoms measuring 10m per side at a temperature of 100K. That definition meets the criteria of being 1) not a set and 2) a possible object.

But it would not meet the criterion of actually being a valid definition of God.

You're talking nonsense.

 

[HeavyAaron]

The assertion that "the only means to do that is to examine all elements of the set S and find that htey are not identical to X" is demonstably untrue.

Yes, you're correct. That statement was too strong. I'll weaken it appropriately to:

"The only means to do that for a arbitrary object X is to examine all elements of the set S and find that they are not identical to X".

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

If that's the case, then I can define God as Eric Clapton, at which point it's a simple job to prove that God exists.

Yep.

You're talking nonsense.

Nope. That doesn't follow from the above.

Aaron

 

[Piggy]

Yes, you're correct. That statement was too strong. I'll weaken it appropriately to:

"The only means to do that for a arbitrary object X is to examine all elements of the set S and find that they are not identical to X".

This change does not resolve the problem.

You are still merely asserting that the only means is to examine everything in the universe. drkitten has already shown why that assertion is invalid.

And it also does not resolve the problem of your defining God as "any arbitrary object".

You're still talking nonsense.

 

[HeavyAaron]

But it would not meet the criterion of actually being a valid definition of God.

Oh, it would seem that it's YOU, not I who have a definition of God in mind. Whatever that definition is, I'm sure it's 1) not a set and 2) isn't internally inconsistant. Feel free to use whatever definition you like that meets those criteria. Far more powerful a proof that way. My whole point was that it works for a VERY broad set of definitions of God. That you can't see that that's a virtue instead of a vice isn't my problem.

You're talking nonsense.

Nope. You can keep asserting this over and over and over again and it doesn't change anything.

Aaron

 

[Piggy]

Yep.

Nope. That doesn't follow from the above.

If you think it's not nonsense to define God as Eric Clapton, then you're either trolling or incapable of logical, rational thought.

There is no point in having discussions with trolls or with people who are incapable of logical, rational thought.

 

[HeavyAaron]

This change does not resolve the problem.

Yes it does. I'm tired of you asserting things. Start backing up your assertions or I'll start throwing them in the bit bucket where they belong.

You are still merely asserting that the only means is to examine everything in the universe. drkitten has already shown why that assertion is invalid.

It's not an assertion. Good grief. And no he hasn't.

And it also does not resolve the problem of your defining God as "any arbitrary object".

I have not defined him in any such way. Please read what I type.

You're still talking nonsense.

And you still continue to assert things for no reason at all.

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

If you think it's not nonsense to define God as Eric Clapton, then you're either trolling or incapable of logical, rational thought.

You are free to define terms any way you see fit.

Incapable of logical thought? Trolling? You're the first person in my life to ever make such accusations. You, sir, are the one who has no knowledge of set theory, philosophy, or formal logic...

There is no point in having discussions with trolls or with people who are incapable of logical, rational thought.

You mean like with people who assert things out the air?

Aaron