From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 8:03 AM To: Alt.Atheism.Moderated Subject: Re: Science & atheism are cultures. "Paul Holbach" wrote: > > I disputed whether "for all x" implies > > "at least one", not whether "for some x" does. > > (Ex)[Fx or (-F)x] is true because it is implied by (Ax)[Fx or (-F)x]: It is? Says who? Did you not read Aaron's comment that you need a rule of universal instantiation. Most logic texts that I am aware of admit that such a rule requires the assumption that there is at least one thing, and so that a rule of universal instantiation is not valid in all circumstances. > In logic "some" means "at least one" and never "none"! Can't you read? I wrote (and you quoted): I disputed whether "for all x" implies "at least one", not whether "for some x" does. > If you deny that, you´re solipsistically playing a private > language-game without any relevance concerning social communication. You just quoted me NOT DENYING "that". If you blatantly refuse to read what I write, then I'm afraid you're the one who is "playing a game". > > "There is something" is not > > the same as "for all things". Your argument blatantly assumes its > > conclusion (as others have also pointed out here). > > (Ex)[Fx or (-F)x] can impossibly be true of any nonexistent. You've again skipped the part where Ax implies Ex, and instead blatantly assume it. > > > So it seems that logic can only deal with kinds of being but > > > not with absolute non-being. > > > Non sequitur. > > This "Non sequitur" is a non sequitur. As I did not assert an inference, it's a category error to claim that my observation is a "non sequitur". You asserted an inference ("So it seems that..."), and I merely observed that your conclusion does not follow from your argument. > If the multiverse cannot be illogical (true), then, if ontological > nonexistence logically impossibly exists (true), How do you define "ontological nonexistence", and what is the basis for this assertion that it is logically impossible? Do you even HAVE a rigorous definition of non-existence? How many times do I have to ask you for one? -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net