jan doesnt mean great ape, it is specifically reserved for human beings. Because of that I probably should not have used it, however it is often used to mean personhood, and that was it's intention.
person believes sentence.... being in time.... oh right, you still have difficulties between definitions and premises... :/
You can define the pasta monster as existing in all time if you want, I can believe that is what the pasta monster is; aka something that exists in all time, without believing the pasta monster exists... since it is merely the definition.... :/
In modal logic, to say something possibly exists, is to say it definitely exists in some possible world. The ontological argument simply cannot fail to "prove" God possibly exists, that is its input premise.... :/
The sentences before the premises are the definitions, as I keep explaining to you.... :/
Yes it is a fair points, since it is how you would frame that if you understood the basic idea of modal logic .... :/
Sorry, it just does work by the standard set of rules of modal logic. Of course the definition doesn't prove anything, that why they are called definitions and not existence proofs. What seeks to prove existence is the actual argument that follows the definition.... :/
jan kipo, since you do not understand this argument, and I have explained to you numerous times the same things already... I feel we are at a deadend here. Thanks for the input, though.
I do have a simpler argument posted as well, but you cannot follow that either.... :/
Follower of the official dialect of toki pona as presented in the official book; Toki Pona, The Language of Good by Sonja Lang.