Ontic Pancomputational Theism

 ...a Scotist MOA...John konnor.... 1) either it is necessarily not the case that God exists or necessarily God exists 2) it is not necessarily not the case that God exists C) necessarily God exists Let: G!= God exists Proof: 1)□~G!∨□G!            P 2)~□~G!                   P 3)~~◇~~G!              2, ME 4)◇G!                         4, DN 5)~◇~~G!∨□G!       1, ME 6)~◇G!∨□G!             5, DN 7)◇G!⊃□G!                6, M. Impl. 8)□G!                          4,7 MMP

 ...MOA... John Konnor... 1) it is possibly necessarily the case that God exists 2) God exists necessarily Let: G!= God exists Proof: 1)◇□G!                     P 2)~□G!                    AIP 3)□~□G                  NI 4)~◇~~□G!            3, ME 5)~◇□G!                  4, DN 6)~◇□G!∧◇□G!      5,6 Conj.intro. 7)□G!                        2-6, DAIP

 ...argument for ontic pancomputational theism from mathematical platonism and emergent spacetime... 1) if quantum blackholes are possible then spacetime is fundamentally empirically indeterminate 2) quantum blackholes are possible 3) spacetime is ultimately empirically indeterminate( 1,2 MP) 4) if spacetime is ultimately empirically indeterminate then spacetime is fundamentally nonphysical 5) spacetime is fundamentally nonphysical(3,4 MP) 6) if spacetime is fundamentally nonphysical we should hold to strong ontological skepticism over the commitment to the classification of any physical phenomenon as a concrete experience 7) we should hold to strong ontological skepticism over the commitment to the classification of any physical phenomenon as a concrete experience(5,6 MP) 8) if we should hold to strong ontological skepticism over the commitment to the classification of any physical phenomenon as a concrete experience then we should admit the existence of semantically determinate m...

 ...Anselmian/ Cartesian ontological argument from perfection ...John Konnor... 1) exists a y for all x if y does not exist or x can doubt the existence of y then it is possible x exceeds y in ontological perfection C) God exists Let: DxE!y= x can doubt the existence of y E!x= x has existence Pxy= x exceeds y in ontological perfection g=i(y)~◇(∃x)Pxy Proof: 1)(∃y)(∀x)~E!y∨DxE!y⊃◇Pxy.                 P 2)(∃y)(∀x)~E!y∨DxE!y.                             AIP 3)~E!g∨DaE!g.                                          2, EI, UI 4)~E!g∨DaE!g⊃◇Pag.                             1,EI,UI 5)◇Pag.                              ...

 ...modal ontological argument...John Konnor... 1) if it is not necessarily the case God exists then it is necessarily not necessarily the case God exists 2) necessarily if God exists then it is necessarily the case God exists 3) it is possibly the case God exists C) God exists of necessity Let: G!= God exists □(p⊃q)⊃(◇p⊃◇q). Theorem of K. Proof: 1)~□G!⊃□~□G! 2)□(G!⊃□G!) 3)◇G! 4)~□~□G!⊃~~□G!                    (1, Contra.) 5)◇□G!⊃□G!                               (4, ME, DN) 6)□(G!⊃□G!)⊃(◇G!⊃◇□G!).     (2, Theorem) 7)◇G!⊃◇□G!                               (2,6 MP) 8)◇G⊃□G!                                   (5,7 HS) 9)□G!              ...

 

 ...Anselmian MOA...John Konnor... 1) it is necessarily possible God exists 2) necessarily( if God does not exist then necessarily God does not exist) C) necessarily God exists Let: G!= God exists □(p⊃q)⊃(◇p⊃◇q)  ( Theorem of K.) Proof: 1)□◇G! 2)□(~G!⊃□G!) 3)□(~G!⊃□G!)⊃(◇~G⊃◇□~G!)   ( Theorem of K.) 4)◇~G⊃◇□~G!                              (2,3 MP) 5)~◇□~G!⊃~◇~G                         (4, Contra.) 6) ~◇~◇~~G!⊃~◇~G                   (5 ME) 7)□◇G!⊃□G!                                    (6 ME, DN) 8)□G!                                                (1,7 MP)