Metaphysics Debate 3

Words suck. Or at least English words do. Anyhow, I'll go line by line. "Then it was irrelevant to put it in your argument, as we are not arguing cogito and it serves you nothing apparently." I was expecting a possible argument that cogito ergo sum is one thing we could know, but I guess I didn't get that. "(I) b does a (2) b is the only being who knows that (1) is true. Now, if 'x is omnipotent' entails (3) x can create any finite being y, provided (i) y has properties such that the statement that y has those properties neither is self-contradictory nor entails a contradiction and (ii) there is no being z such that the statement that z and y exist either is self-contradictory or entails a contradiction, then an omnipotent being can create b . . . But, if 'x is omniscient' entails (4) For any finite being B and for any act A, if B does A then x knows that B does A, Then an omniscient being cannot create b . . . Since an omnipotent being can create b and an omniscient being cannot create b then 'x is omnipotent and omniscient' entails (5) x can create b and x cannot create b. But, since (5)is self-contradictory it would appear to follow that a being who is both omnipotent and omniscient is logically impossible." This argument looks pretty sound on paper, but it has a fatal flaw. An omnipotent being can do anything, anything. What this evil deceiver would be capable of is incomprehensible to the human mind. It could contradict itself, that's part of being omnipotent. So x could create b either way, even though it seems horribly illogical. X can do anything, even create a contradiction. "1. Contradiction between premise and conclusion fallacy: How can a wise man know a fact if all facts, by your former premises, are being can change logic." Oh the pains of the English language. In my mind I know what I mean, but English cannot describe it. I'll try my best to get it on paper though. Change 5 to "A wise man would agree that he does not know anything." To explain further, he would not know anything, even that, but he would say that it logically follows, even though logic may or may not be real. Ugh, do you sort of see what I'm saying, I only included the wise man because I wanted to use a common saying. The intent is to say that you can't know anything, and it is wise to believe that is most likely the truth. Again it is weird, but I can't do anything about that. Change the English language and get back to me. "2. Illicit distribution of an end term: Where is a wise man in any of your premises? He is only in your (5) conclusion." Alright, I'll make it work, it'll be two syllogisms now: 1) 1.There is the possibility of an Evil Deceiver 2. If he exists he has the ability and will to change logic, and the empirical world. 3. We would not be aware of what is true, and what is one of his lies. 4. Therefore, as defined we would not know anything. 2) 1. A wise man is by definition unusually insightful. 2. It is insightful to agree with logic, especially syllogisms that prove odd things. 3. It is wise to agree that we do not know anything (If it is logically proven) 4. It has been logically proven that we cannot know anything. 5. A wise man would agree that he does not know anything. "3. The number of negative-quality premises must be equal to the number of negative-quality conclusions. So, no valid syllogism can have 2 negative premises. So, if if the conclusion is positive, the syllogism can not posses a negative premise." In the first syllogism there is one negative premise and one negative conclusion. In the second syllogism there are no negatives premises and no negative conclusions. It works now, yet it proves the same thing. "Your solipsist based argument can be countered by another solipsist based argument. And you contradicted yourself again. How come my being can't exist just because "you can't prove him" but yours can? We can't know that my being exists or not, so we can't know that he might be fixing everything or not: so then, by your logic, it is fallacious to argue that we shouldn't take him into consideration also. This twists things up a bit doesn't it. This is why we must use logic." The fact is we cannot know either way, so the very possibility of the Evil Deceiver opens the can of worms. The possibility of the good deity means it is not definite that the Evil Deceiver, but it does not mean it is definite that he does not exist. My argument stands. "Just because something is a figure of speech, doesn't mean it is true. You just committed the Fallacy of Popular Wisdom. And what fallacy am I committing by throwing away a contradiction? I'm sorry, but that is laughable, because I am not committing a single fallacy by throwing away a contradiction as false. It is well known, and a fact, in logic, that a contradiction is non-existent." The reason you are being fallacious is you are interpreting this based on how it is worded. The issue at hand is its meaning, which is fairly well known. I proved its meaning, you tried disproving its wording. Its meaning is not a contradiction, all the saying is saying is that we cannot know anything, I proved that. For example, if I said, "Hold your horses!" It would not be logical to say "I don't have any horses!" As it is pretty clear, unless you are not familiar with the English language, I would be meaning that you should wait. "And where, might I ask, is it proved logically? Can you prove it logically in a valid syllogism for me? You have stated that it has been "proved" but have given me no proof. Therefore, I'm sorry, but I can't just take your word (you haven't even supplied me with a credible ethos to do so.)" I just did, up above. Quod erat demonstrandum Your move.