From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 9:06 AM To: Alt.Atheism.Moderated Subject: Re: Science & atheism are cultures. > From: "Jesse Nowells" > >>> I ask yet again: under what definition of 'exist'? > > >> Something that is more than an idea. > > > Two ideas are more than an idea. > > So what. Any N times zero still equals zero. So if an idea has zero existence, then your definition is invalidated by the lexicographic fact that speakers of English do indeed speak of ideas as coming into being and "existing". What you're probably trying to do is define 'existent' as an "excluder" predicate that means not fictional, not illusory, not mind-dependent, etc. The problem with this approach is that it's incomplete: it doesn't say precisely what it means for something -- especially something like a universe -- to come into existence. Before a universe X comes into existence, it could be the case that none of the excluding properties (fictional, illusory, mind-dependent, etc.) actually applied to it. The only excluding property one could say must have applied is that of "not more than possible", but that simply begs the question of what is the difference for universes between existent and merely possible. > > ... there is no demonstrated difference between actuality and > > possibility for worlds. > > There is no demonstrated equivalence between actuality & possibility for > worlds other than the actual world. If you want to say otherwise, then > demonstrate *that*. Did you really think that my response to this point would be any different than the unrebutted response I gave -- in the posting you quote! -- the last time you made it? I wrote: > > By the principle of the Identity of Indiscernables, I indeed assert > > such an equivalence. If you know of a discernable difference > > between the two notions for worlds, state it and thereby prove me > > wrong. (Of course, if you could do so, you'd have done so by now.) Your only attempt at a rebuttal was to make a false charge about what my claim is, a charge that you failed to substantiate when I challenged it. If you have no argument against the above point, why not just admit it? -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net