A Scotist MOA

 ...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

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Argument for OPT from Information

 ...argument for ontic pancomputational theism...John konnor... 1) the universe is composed of information ( it from bit) 2) if the universe is composed of information then a  prior omniscient mind instantiated the universe's ontological concreteness 3) a  prior omniscient mind instantiated the universe's ontological concreteness (1,2 MP) 4) if a  prior omniscient mind instantiated the universe's ontological concreteness then God exists 5) God exists (3,4 MP)
Read more

A Modal Ontological Argument

 ...modal ontological argument...John konnor... 1) it is not the case that it is either not possibly the case that it is not possible that God does not exist or that it is necessarily not the case God exists C) God exists Let: G!= God exists p⊃□◇p      ( axiom B) Proof: 1)~(~◇~◇~G!∨□~G!)                P. 2)~~◇~◇~G!∧~□~G!                (1 DeM.) 3)◇□G!∧◇G!                                (2 M.E.) 4)~G!⊃□◇~G!                              ( I.Ax.B) 5)~G!⊃~◇~◇~G!                         (4 M.E.) 6)◇~◇~G!⊃G!                              (5 Contr.) 7)◇□G!⊃G!             ...
Read more

A Modal Ontological Argument

 ...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!              ...
Read more