"You can't prove a universal negative."

No. The subject in each sentence remains.

You won't make things any more clear, because I did that already with my meaning, which is not a fallacy! lol
Incidentally, you seem to have missed my last post--

"His formula works unless you substitute infinity for x and any number but 0 for f."

In my magnanimity, I hadn't wished to let that slip, having already denied you your proof of a universal negative.

If you need to, sure.

Precisely that.

Yeah. The only universal negative is 0. How does that make a sentence about 0 a universal negative? It doesn't. It makes it a sentence about 0, not 0.

Let your namesake possess you, out of logical necessity if nothing else!

Naturally a subject is not true or false, it is obvious that by 'true' I mean extant, but you've made a valiant attempt nonetheless to dismiss the truth that the subject of 0 exists, even if 0 itself does not.

Universal negative = 0

Here's an explanation: Nothing is universally negative.

 

No, it doesn't. In the sentence, "Unicorns don't exist," the subject is "unicorns," and unicorns don't exist. So, the sentence is true. But you say that no sentence can be true that has a non-exist object as its subject. Nevertheless, "Unicorns don't exist" is obviously true. So, what you're saying can't possibly be right.

Do I really have to spell it out any more clearly? I resent that you're trying to pass me off as being vague, or making it out like I don't know what I'm talking about. No offense, but the truth is, you're really not very good at making arguments, and I'm just as surprised as you because I didn't even know that was possible. I'm getting a little sick of your patronizing, smart-ass comments. Really, don't quit your dayjob to pursue a career in philosophy.

You're right that I didn't understand what you said, but that's just because your wrong. Anyway, let's grant that 0 is a universal negative. The sentence "0 = 0" is true, and 0 is the subject of that sentence. So, there is at least one true universal negative. Not to mention, "0 is not 1," "0 is not 2," "0 is not 3," etc.

I think that by "extant" you mean "existent." In the future, you should probably make a point of knowing what you're talking about. But anyway, I have no idea what you mean by the truth of 0 as an existent subject, but not the truth of 0 itself. You're not making any sense.

Anyway, here's the real point: I said, "Well, what would you like to call a sentence of the form, 'There is no x, such that such-and-such.'" And you said:

Okay. I will now prove a sentence of the form "There is no x, such that x has P and x lacks P."

Say that x exists.

Then, x has P

But x lacks P.

Therefore, there is no x such that x both has and lacks P.

 

Actually, I only said that a sentence with a non-existent subject can't be true.

Look: Common Sense: Logic shows that certain sentences are true or false or indeterminately true or false, and a sentence can still be true, even necessarily true, if its subject does not exist. Pick up any elementary logic textbook, and this is lesson number one.

Dejavu: A sentence can only be true in that it is a sentence if its subject does not exist.

I have already made clear that 0 is only a subject.

The truth is that my arguments make yours null. You are in error maintaining that a sentence with a non-existent subject can be true. Before you said my argument was a good one, when you believed you could dismiss it
I am more than willing to let go our patronizing superfluities for the bare bones of this argument. I'm not sure you are.

No, those subsequent sentences involve different subjects, namely 1, 2, 3 and that they are not 0. Even the first sentence, 0 = 0 is not a universal negative.

As though the difference between "Still existing" and "existing" makes a difference in this instance!

"The truth of 0 itself" is that it exists only as subject. lol It is amazing that you don't seem to grasp this.

At last! You appear to have given up pretending that in proving that sentence you are proving a universal negative

Unless x is infinity and P is any number but 0.

 

i'm not convinced there is any such thing as proving anything, only observing that some things happen more often then others and that some things happen more often when other things happen first.

this neither requires the existence or non-existence of anything, though inductively it implies the existence of at least one 'observer' and two or more occurances of 'things' to observe.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Yeah, and "Unicorns don't exist" is a true sentence with a non-existent subject.

Look, the fact is, this debate was over a long time ago, you just don't seem to know it yet. I'll give you a hint, it didn't go well for you. So, since I'm way passed satisfied that I beat you, and since I'm going to Montreal tomorrow, and since I've wasted enough of my time talking to you, I won't be responding to anything else you say - not only on this thread but probably never again. You can believe anything you want to, even in unicorns if you feel like it. Have a fantastic summer.

 

No. The subject of unicorns exists. Be as satisfied as you like that you beat me, and leave your mark on Montreal.

 

So sick of the 'unicorns' jibe.

Someone thought up unicorns.
Unicorns DO nothing. [but be unicorns]

'GOD" however. supposedly did something.
WHAT?

Made reality? HAHAHAHHHHAHAAAA.. If a god is, it's part of reality.
It cannot make reality because it had to be real 1st. and that means............
A 'god' can only be direction.
Ergo, reality has always existed.
It cannot have been created.
For reality to have been created requires a 'real' thing' to create it.
But there is no 'real thing' before reality.
Time thus does not factor.
Ergo, reality has always existed.

Occam

 

Reality may have existed forever but a consciousness that can define the term reality has not.

How can I prove this, I can't. How do I KNOW, because I can logically process the probability to be nearly absolute. Apparently the only people capable of actually processing logical probabilities are Atheists.

This thread is just as stupid as any other absurd Creationist mindfarts. The Universal Negative is just another loopy desperate creationist excuse to justify nonsense.

Let's please get to the bottom of what this 7 page abomination of logic is all about!

We have the closed minded, absurdly illogical religious with their ridiculous claims. We have the agnostic who keep an opened mind but refuse to actually process any logic which kind of defeats the whole purpose of having an opened mind to begin with. Now lastly we have the Atheist mind that actually processes information to come to a logical conclusion. Unfortunately it's a complete waste of energy shouting out the conclusion to the other two mindsets because well, the first one will completely refuse to hear it and the second can't distinguish a burp from a fart.

 

Didn't read through the whole thread, but I must say: Nothing IS something. There is also no way to prove or disprove the existence of a God. It's like the Null Hypothesis in statistics: "a null hypothesis is a hypothesis set up to be nullified or refuted in order to support an alternative hypothesis. When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise." -wikipedia Lets say the hypothesis is that there is a God, well your null hypothesis would be that there isn't a God, if you disprove the null hypothesis it still doesn't mean the hypothesis is correct. It supports the hypothesis, but does not prove it. It works both ways. Hopes this makes sense, cause I'm a little confused and I wrote it. lol

 

lol How?

 

You have nothing...well you still have something. By thinking of nothing you still think of something. It's ahrd to explain lol...let me think. The idea of nothing is an idea, therefore it is something. To truely have nothing you would have to not even have the idea of nothing because by thinking of nothing as nothing you are making it something (that something is nothing). lol

 

wtf? - I'm not even gonna bother reading 8 pages of this crap because it's really not that complicated. In the beginning, all there was was God. Algebra and logic came along a while later.

 

Well see, that's a very close-minded view. I mean I didn't read the whole thing either, but I at least read the first page to get a gist of what was going on. You state your belief as fact and it is impossible to prove (though it is also impossible to disprove). Very close-minded.

 

Hmm... Yeah, maybe that was a provocative statement. The truth of it, however, lies in what is meant by the term 'God'. I mean that God is simply 'that which exists'. So to say God exists is actually true by definition. In the beginning, that which was, did exist. I don't know if you'd argue that point, but it must have been at some point later, that man started to categorise things and develop the idea of things which did exist and things which didn't exist.

 

Wait...so I am God because I exist? I would argue with your definition of God. And I would counter-argue (bear with my thought process here if you will) that God is only something if people believe in that God. If there was no one to believe in a God then the God would simply not exist (though I don't nesicarily believe this, but its a thought). God is only as real as his/her/its followers make him/her/it. So if there was no one alive during the time when nothing (or very very little) existed (before the Big Bang if you believe in it) then there was no God.

 

Yes, exactly. You are God because you exist. They tried to tell us this in all the old books man, 'We are the children of God', ie. created by and of the essence of God. In the bible story, Jesus wasn't saying he was the only one. It's just that no one else could get their head around what he was saying and thought he was just being a big-head. In Genesis, Moses understood that all God was, was being. The Buddhists and all the others say the same thing and that you can assume your true god-nature through meditation and disolution of the egotistical sense of self.

If all the people suddenly dissappeared, the idea they had of what god was would dissappear, but what was left, which was actually god, would still be there

 

so you say

Interesting perspective.

 

BTW Budtoker, my first post this evening wasn't in direct response to yours, but to the initial post of the thread. I only just read your one about the idea of nothing, which is also an interesting idea. Hey, I'm just flinging some random ideas around for my own amusement. I don't think I'm God any more than the next man. Peace and all good things to you

 

Well your views are interesting and I'm glad to have heard your oppinion. Peace and good thing to you as well.

 

lol. I like it. The thing is though, there is no idea of nothing, an idea is always of something! We can't help but prove the law of self-evidence--that a thing is what it is, or isn't what it ain't as the case may be. Nothing is in fact nothing. Nothing doesn't exist!