Posted: May 18, 2012 6:46 am
Maybe this will help you:
What you seem to be arguing for the validity of is
If it's god, then it's a square circle
It's not a square circle
Therefore, it's not god
What I arguing against the validity of is:
If it's an existent X, then it is a non-existent X.
In classical logic the former argument is valid, as it assumes that there exists both gods and square circles. This Is the problem when using classical logic to talk about that which we are unsure of the existence of (or are sure of the non-existence of). You falsely believe that it A->B/-B/-A is the correct formulation. It's not.
The proper formulation is: if God exists then god is a square circle (E!(x))->(x=y). This entails E!(y).
Adding -E!(y) breaks the law of non-contradiction. It is an impossibility.
This is the last I will comment on the subject. If you still disagree we seem to be at an impasse. No hard feelings.
This is why you cannot talk about empty sets (non-existent "x's") using classical logic.
What you seem to be arguing for the validity of is
If it's god, then it's a square circle
It's not a square circle
Therefore, it's not god
What I arguing against the validity of is:
If it's an existent X, then it is a non-existent X.
In classical logic the former argument is valid, as it assumes that there exists both gods and square circles. This Is the problem when using classical logic to talk about that which we are unsure of the existence of (or are sure of the non-existence of). You falsely believe that it A->B/-B/-A is the correct formulation. It's not.
The proper formulation is: if God exists then god is a square circle (E!(x))->(x=y). This entails E!(y).
Adding -E!(y) breaks the law of non-contradiction. It is an impossibility.
This is the last I will comment on the subject. If you still disagree we seem to be at an impasse. No hard feelings.
This is why you cannot talk about empty sets (non-existent "x's") using classical logic.