God proof models (1 Viewer)

[magnifier661]

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node46.html

You can make variants of this argument that apply it to anything you like. Books, coffee tables, bottles of fine wine, sex godpersons of whatever gender you prefer. No matter what X you can imagine, you can at least claim to imagine the greatest possible X (I spend a fair bit of time contemplating the greatest possible sex goddess, for example). In all cases, greatness in real existence of a sex goddess is clearly superior to greatness in imagination. Furthermore, greatness in real existence of a sex goddess who has made herself my humble slave is better still!

So where is she? Why isn't a bottle of the finest wine at my elbow, why aren't my feet propped up on the most perfect coffee table? Ontology clearly demands that all conceivable superlatives be real just as I imagined them but on steroids, right?

A big pile of cow-flop, that's what this is. Actually, the biggest conceivable pile of cow-flop! Now that's ontology!

Still, because of the focus in both of these counterexamples is on the argument instead of the premises and structure, the argument (in any given real philosophical forum) invariably ends in a draw. The kind of ``draw'' that exists only in bad western movies and in children's back yards, that is. A crackle of caps simulating gunfire, and then the eternal: ``I shot you first.'' ``Did not.'' ``Did too.'' ``Did not.'' with neither side ever conceding defeat and with both sides utterly irrational as they both embrace a prior, unstated and utterly indefensible premise the question itself can be meaningfully addressed with logic either way.

What he just explained is the human perception of reality. In fact, the vampire could be Satan in the biblical sense. Or God could be something entirely different than the biblical view.

What you and even this presenter failed to prove is "the modal is false". This is a modal to give a logical argument on the possibility of God. Using other axioms aren't proving that possibility is not a reality. You are just infinitely creating more possibilities.

 

[magnifier661]

What if there exists no object with that property. There doesn't.

debunked.

Trivially.

That would force you to provide the burden of proof it is not a reality. Because if you could prove he doesn't exist, then of course you can debunk the modal.

 

[Denny Crane]

That would force you to provide the burden of proof it is not a reality. Because if you could prove he doesn't exist, then of course you can debunk the modal.

Actually, the burden of proof is that the axioms are self evident. They're not.

You proved that yourself. "And let's flip this and say "well if negatives exists" then negatives exist everywhere, which proves God doesn't exist."

 

[magnifier661]

smashed on the ground. stomped on. nothing left but fools who confuse its meaning.

Barfo, jlpk and pretty much everyone else in this forum know that "you claiming you win" is hardly fact.

 

[magnifier661]

Actually, the burden of proof is that the axioms are self evident. They're not.

You proved that yourself. "And let's flip this and say "well if negatives exists" then negatives exist everywhere, which proves God doesn't exist."

Wrong, because the modal is applying the parameters of the biblical God; which has been described as positive.

 

[Further]

That is a subjective argument. And with that subjective ness, you would need to prove that the axiom 3 does not exist. Also, the proof needs to establish that the described God is not positive.

Bullshit. Without proof, the assumption can't be one of existence or positiveness. The subjectivity comes from Göbel and your end, making personal assumptions. There is no subjectivity in adhering only what is known for a theorems inputs.

 

[magnifier661]

And the axiom being "self evident" is again trying to use the human perspective of their definition. Saying something is "self evident" is hardly a good argument. Until you can bring in a substantial argument that makes God possibility entirely absolute, there is nothing self evident about it

 

[magnifier661]

Bullshit. Without proof, the assumption can't be one of existence or positiveness. The subjectivity comes from Göbel and your end, making personal assumptions. There is no subjectivity in adhering only what is known for a theorems inputs.

Wrong again Denny, as I've explained countless times, using singularity as an axiom. Your argument will only debunk singularity. Are you prepared to play that game?

 

[Further]

Wrong again Denny, as I've explained countless times, using singularity as an axiom. Your argument will only debunk singularity. Are you prepared to play that game?

I am not denny? I demand an apology!

 

[magnifier661]

I am not denny? I demand an apology!

Hahahahaha! I am soooo sorry. I didn't mean to offend you

 

[Denny Crane]

Barfo, jlpk and pretty much everyone else in this forum know that "you claiming you win" is hardly fact.

Yet they all think your argument here is full of shit. Go figure.

 

[magnifier661]

What if there exists no object with that property. There doesn't.

debunked.

Trivially.

I do admire how you post the same thing over and over again to bury your ass whooping. I've already answered this without you giving a proper response to refute my argument

 

[magnifier661]

Yet they all think your argument here is full of shit. Go figure.

I'm hurt... You can't use a proper argument so you decide to say "well I think so and because of that, it's golden!"

You should really read some of your comments!

 

[Denny Crane]

And the axiom being "self evident" is again trying to use the human perspective of their definition. Saying something is "self evident" is hardly a good argument. Until you can bring in a substantial argument that makes God possibility entirely absolute, there is nothing self evident about it

An axiom has to be so obvious that everyone agrees with it. Something like "if you add a positive number to a positive number, the result is a bigger positive number."

Godel's axioms are wishful thinking, and hardly so obvious nobody would deny them.

Further is right that the first three are utter bullshit.

Let's try a different approach:

Mags, tell us all whether the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[magnifier661]

An axiom has to be so obvious that everyone agrees with it. Something like "if you add a positive number to a positive number, the result is a bigger positive number."

Godel's axioms are wishful thinking, and hardly so obvious nobody would deny them.

Further is right that the first three are utter bullshit.

Let's try a different approach:

Mags, tell us all whether the earth is 6000 years old.

You are trying to smoke screen the argument. Just as you tried saying this isn't math either. Whatever the case, you seem a bit confused and a little rattled.

And I believe the earth is over 4 billion years old. Why you ask?

 

[Denny Crane]

You are trying to smoke screen the argument. Just as you tried saying this isn't math either. Whatever the case, you seem a bit confused and a little rattled.

And I believe the earth is over 4 billion years old. Why you ask?

Is the earth 6000 years old or not?

No smokescreen needed. Your failure to grasp logic lost your argument for you dozens of posts ago.

Answer the question.

 

[Denny Crane]

I just want the world to see how you reject the axiom at the heart of the argument the earth is 6000 years old. That axiom: the bible is the literal word of God.

 

[magnifier661]

Is the earth 6000 years old or not?

No smokescreen needed. Your failure to grasp logic lost your argument for you dozens of posts ago.

Answer the question.

You got a reading comprehension problem? I did answer the question. 4 million greater than 6,000 no?

 

[magnifier661]

I just want the world to see how you reject the axiom at the heart of the argument the earth is 6000 years old. That axiom: the bible is the literal word of God.

And how does that have anything to do with the description of God in this axiom? Oh yes, you once again try to argue other points so you aren't faved with the one you lost at.

So is the model wrong? You said it was a few pages ago

 

[Denny Crane]

The same reason the proof that the earth is 6000 years old is bullshit is why Godel's is.

Game over. You lose.

Do yourself a favor and read up modal logic. This could have been an interesting discussion.

 

[magnifier661]

The same reason the proof that the earth is 6000 years old is bullshit is why Godel's is.

Game over. You lose.

Do yourself a favor and read up modal logic. This could have been an interesting discussion.

And what's that? Show me where it says the Bible is 6,000 years old?

Regardless, you still haven't proved the model is wrong.

 

[Denny Crane]

And how does that have anything to do with the description of God in this axiom? Oh yes, you once again try to argue other points so you aren't faved with the one you lost at.

So is the model wrong? You said it was a few pages ago

The axioms are wrong. The proof is correct, but based upon bullshit.

Again, as further pointed out, the first three axioms are bullshit. Thus the rest of the logic is meaningless.

I dare you to prove the first axiom he offers is correct. Chicken? Bawk bawk!

 

[magnifier661]

The axioms are wrong. The proof is correct, but based upon bullshit.

Again, as further pointed out, the first three axioms are bullshit. Thus the rest of the logic is meaningless.

I dare you to prove the first axiom he offers is correct. Chicken? Bawk bawk!

Lmao Denny you have it all wrong once again. I don't disagree with the axiom, therefor I don't have the burden of proof. You are required to prove its wrong

 

[Further]

Lmao Denny you have it all wrong once again. I don't disagree with the axiom, therefor I don't have the burden of proof. You are required to prove its wrong

Your thought is flawed in this case because it is the responsibility of an axiom to be almost universally accepted.

 

[Denny Crane]

How can the earth be older than 6000 years when it's documented in the bible that it's 6000 years old?

http://creation.mobi/6000-years

There's Godel's same sort of logic.

Refute it!

 

[Denny Crane]

Your thought is flawed in this case because it is the responsibility of an axiom to be almost universally accepted.

The truth.

 

[magnifier661]

How can the earth be older than 6000 years when it's documented in the bible that it's 6000 years old?

http://creation.mobi/6000-years

There's Godel's same sort of logic.

Refute it!

That hasn't proved its that old. Have you factored what a timeless God and a day? Even you argued time is different in different parts of the universe. So what's the baseline? Because we have young earth christians and old earth ones. But both believe God is positive.

Try again

 

[magnifier661]

Your thought is flawed in this case because it is the responsibility of an axiom to be almost universally accepted.

So in our argument, singularity is held to the same principle? Maybe the Big Bang? All aren't universally accepted. Are they held from different parameters?

And show me where is must be universally accepted?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

LINCOLN — An imprisoned "Pastafarian" has sued Nebraska prison officials, saying staff violated his civil rights by denying him the chance to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Stephen Cavanaugh, 23, filed the federal civil rights lawsuit against the Department of Correctional Services and Nebraska State Penitentiary officials, saying penitentiary staff repeatedly discriminated against him by not allowing him the right to meet for worship services and classes, or to wear religious clothing and pendants.

"The only reason (my) requests were denied is that (my) religion does not conform to the 'traditional' Abrahamic belief structure," said Cavanaugh, who claims he isn't the only Pastafarian at the prison.

Adherents believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world and pirates were its initial followers, according to the church's website. They are known to wear colanders on their heads.

An Oregon man who brought the so-called religion to prominence in 2005 said more than 10 million people "have been touched by His Noodly Appendage." Members claim Pastafarianism isn't anti-religion but rather the rejection of dogma.

The Nebraska prison system recognizes 20 different religions, including Rastafarianism and Satanism.

Officials claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a satirical movement, which Cavanaugh calls insulting.

"The founder of Pastafarianism stated that it was a parody of religion," a prison official wrote in denying one of Cavanaugh's requests. "The Nebraska Department of Correctional Services will not dedicate administrative and facility resources to support a parody."

Department spokesman James Foster declined comment, citing the pending litigation.

Inmates seeking accommodations for their faith must submit a written request to the prison's

http://columbustelegram.com/news/lo...cle_7b39b361-d0c4-52b8-a2cb-afc479e4cda5.html

 

[Further]

That hasn't proved its that old. Have you factored what a timeless God and a day? Even you argued time is different in different parts of the universe. So what's the baseline? Because we have young earth christians and old earth ones. But both believe God is positive.

Try again

You argue his point. If the "truth" can't be agreed upon then it can't be used as an axiom. The creationists believe totally that the earth is 6k years old so they would feel like that's a given, usable as an axiom because it's blatently true. But to you, and to me, it sounds totally ridiculous. Hence, not usable as an axiom.