On the note of "God. Materialism. Idealism. And the NDNID!", it is added from the other blog, Whatiswritten777:
First of all, to speak of a hard statement like □(∃y)(Gy), necessary God, in logics, is a way off. Formerly, I think it's conceivable that even Kripke and many other Logicians of Modal Logics would bother to speak about, □Fx, necessary future events, holding off indirect truths by the combined laws of nature, such iff. no nuclear holocaust and iff. the Sun doesn't blow up soon. This has used to be the difficulty for asserting □(∃y)(Gy) with any force at all... But it has been shown now of course that Possible God is enough for the debate to elegantly vapourise! Cheers!
The next has first been written to Facebook some hours ago and to various YouTube videos under Richard Dawkins Net for seriousness some moments ago:
Just a pre-emptive strike today: let's say that the Atheists (or anyone else) has an objection to one of the 4-fold arguments by the 1st premise. We take fx. Nec. Ethics -> Poss. God. Now how can they object? First, I've chosen the far less pretentious modality of possible God. This may be the first nut for these Atheists. Then I make the logical implication as is normal for people who believe in God, namely that Ethics makes you able/accepted to be with God after death! Now, I think the Atheists _only_ attack lies in empirical findings and possibly description... Pushing for more and more description. But what we do? Yes, "this is all I can say! Perhaps it will be the "ghost nature" of the Holy Ghost that takes us there!" There is not much more that we need to do. We cite God's given principles on Universe and all in it and if we comply with these set of rules, following the best of advise and our best thinking, we GET TO BE WITH GOD. This is simply how it is with us, the religious people! How do they do it now? There is nowhere for them to GO!!! They have lost! Not only that, but this argument comes in 3 more of these, even taking away their "famous" Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Repeating a writing from one of the former blogs: Addition to Kripkean Modality - The Future
ReplyDeleteVarious!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-05-15 00:12:12
The original writing is this:
One remark on the side. In order to use necessity of God, you'll have to write something like this:
◊[(∃x)(K) ⊃ (∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G)
That is, if God is affirmed, knowledge contains an existing God, then an existing God is necessarily an existing God.
The general is this:
The necessity of the future is determined by the possibility in the present and the affirmation in the future so that at the point of affirmation, a necessity is formed:
◊[(∃x)(P) ⊃ (∃x)(Q)] ⊃ □(∃x)(Q)
That is, if knowledge of something, P, gets affirmed and this knowledge contains an existing proposition Q, then an existing proposition Q is necessarily an existing proposition Q.
Thus this addition has come to life! Cheers!
Note: I'll get the more exact date of it later, but for now, I'll refer you to the RSSs.
Note2: I've added ◊, possibility, that has been formally missing, but either way has been an (necessary) implied part of the sentence. This has been added today, 15th May, 2011.
http://blog.t-lea.net/#post188
Well, the idea is the obvious, that [ □(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G), and again, that if God is affirmed, necessary knowledge contains a possible existing God, then a possible existing God becomes necessarily an existing God. But this is plain... The point is to make evident the transition from possibility to necessity, God in both of these instances by the above!
ReplyDeleteWell, well, I'll admit to a double-screw myself afterall. Because by this [(∃x)(K) ⊃ (∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G), it appears I've left out the "jewels" and perhaps, by contempt to some people, say no nationality and people of a certain kind, that the first screw lies in the un-convention of only naming the □ and the second is of course that I from my writings asserted the possible God only, ◊. So, I think the real reason is the contempt "of some people" and you can start with the Police authorities of Norway!!!
ReplyDeleteThen again, I've not received the slightest little objection from "these other protesters"!!! As I've now made this appear more conventional, even only a formal notice at that, this matter can now blow over!
ReplyDeleteI guess this boils down to dying in the belief in a possible God and then to find one has achieved a place in Heaven/with God! Nec. Knowledge -> Poss. God -> Nec. God (not entirely right, though)!
ReplyDelete([□(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(K)) ⊃ □(∃x)(G)
ReplyDelete...is a better expression of belief in God then knowledge of Heaven and then knowledge of God.
If the special route to possible God by reality of soul and this notion of deeper meaning and ontological truth of ethics hold, then why not necessary God, □(∃x)(G)?
ReplyDeleteI know it doesn't hold formally and I know it's fragile, but still this is a tempting thought, one that lies just a little off! Or what? Good?
Just posted to Facebook moments ago.
You should also add telepathy to the above... the soul and so and so...
ReplyDeleteBut we who about stuff too... "magic with people" and all the that other stuff of "vodoo-kind"... you get the gist... It's inevitable... "Hell is coming down on Earth to a cinema near you!" Cheers!
Moments ago to Facebook!
I've also found a possible reason, not that I want it repeated, by the fact that both of the two first notion, unnotated notions, /can/ go by ◊, possibility, but the first one /can/ flicker or be chosen to be either of the 2 notions of modality, ◊/□ and this may be seen as cool. That is 1st is ◊/□, second is ◊, and 3rd is notated by □. Thus: [(∃x)(K) ⊃ (∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G). Ending up with instead, LIKE IT?
ReplyDelete