Categorical has added ingredients, the logic represented by the square of opposition. Take away ingredients and the square collapses to just contradictories.
This could be a lot longer and even more unclear, but I think if you look at the square and grok the collapse, you'll have got it. I'm betting on you! — tim wood
5. God exists (G) = All things identical to God are existent things = A
6. God doesn't exist (~G) = No things identical to God are existent things = B — TheMadFool
You're tangled in language. — tim wood
This assuming existence is a legitimate predicate — tim wood
It's where you place the negation. It makes a difference from
1. G = God exist.
2. ~G = God doesn't exist — Caldwell
Do you want to talk about the God of actual religions, or the God of philosophers?
If the former, then your analysis doesn't apply, because God is defined as the unique being, and as such, incomparable to any other being. God doesn't exist the way tables and chairs do, or as humans do, nor can he be known the way tables and chair can be known, or the way Tom and Jane can be known.
If the latter -- then ask yourself why bother. — baker
Not god, existence. — TheMadFool
When you're talking about the existence of God, what I said applies. — baker
1. G = God exist.
2. ~G = God doesn't exist.
/.../
5. G = All things identical to God are existent things. = A
6. ~G = No things identical to God are existent things. = B — TheMadFool
Your examples — baker
There seems to be a problem with existence as a predicate.
Sentential Logic
1. Apples exist = A
2. Apples don't exist = ~A
A is the contradictory of ~A
No issues.
Predicate Logic
where Px = x is an apple,
3. Apples exist = (Ex)(Px)
4. Apples don't exist = ~(Ex)(Px)
(Ex)(Px) is the contradictory of ~(Ex)(Px)
No problem here too.
Categorical Logic
5. Apples exist = All apples are existent things. = S
6. Apples don't exist = No apples are existent things. = T
The problem:
There's no conflict between the sentential logic and predicate logic translations: A, ~A and (Ex)(Px), ~(Ex)(Px) are contradictories.
However, in categorical logic, S and T aren't contradictories. They should be because they're translations of the same two contradictory statements [A and ~A or (Ex)(Px) and ~(Ex)(Px)]. Instead they're contraries.
What gives? — TheMadFool
It is interesting to see you putting the question of God's existence down to logical equations because recently I have been thinking it is a matter of semantics. My own recent thought has been that it comes down to how we name the underlying force behind existence, with some calling it 'God' and others preferring scientific frames of description. So, the underlying question may be how much the matter is about logic, language and causal explanations, and the complex mixture of these in our own descriptions and grasp for understanding and meaning. — Jack Cummins
Immanuel Kant's critique [of the ontological argument] was based on what he saw as the false premise that existence is a predicate, arguing that "existing" adds nothing (including perfection) to the essence of a being. — Wikipedia
TheMadFool change the negation of universal with an existential. Then try to see if a logical equivalence is equal to a logical translation. — Caldwell
I am not sure how useful St Anslem's arguments are for us because we live with such different perspectives of the world. I think that part of the problem which I see is that the idea of God is so complex because it can be seen from various angles ranging from the Christian and anthropomorphic pictures of a deity to much softer ones like the idea of the Tao. I am not saying that I don't think the question of God's existence, or lack of existence is important. However, it does depend on how we try to approach the idea of God, because the concept has so many varying connotations and associations. — Jack Cummins
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I have no idea what any of this means. — Tom Storm
I have never studied any type of logic — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.