Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:48:36 UTC No. 16298970

Flawed

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:49:36 UTC No. 16298971

>>16298970
You dare question science? Scientists and mathematicians are always right no matter what. You need to trust the science. You need to trust the math. Put your faith and belief in science and math.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:09:29 UTC No. 16298997

>>16298968
you mean the guy who starved himself to death due to literal schizophrenia? yeah, i don't believe a word that idiot said

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:12:47 UTC No. 16299000

rationalists are pathetic. Reason is not a tool to access higher truths.

Rationalists have been rationalizing for thousands of years AND THEY FOUND NO TRUTH

AND THEY STILL CAN"T PROVE REASON LEADS TO TRUTH

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:13:05 UTC No. 16299001

>>16298997
Many geniuses had schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a legit superpower that allows people to access higher realms within their consciousness.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:14:42 UTC No. 16299002

>>16299000
Lol problem of induction, faggot

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:16:08 UTC No. 16299003

>>16299001
lol no. godel's works are schizobabble and people are scared to admit they don't understand it so somehow his schizophrenia became known as gospel.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:17:28 UTC No. 16299006

>>16298968
Modal logic is worthless and has no real applications, so anything derived using it is false.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:21:00 UTC No. 16299010

>>16299003
He produced ground breaking theorems. He shattered formalism and his theorems prove math is objectively real beyond us. There is a truth to life itself.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 02:07:21 UTC No. 16299828

>>16299010
>his theorems prove math is objectively real beyond us.
How do you figure?

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 02:09:50 UTC No. 16299832

>>16298968
>define god as existing
>therefore, god exists
Not very impressive to use your assumption as your conclusion.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 02:13:15 UTC No. 16299836

>>16298968
A4 seems unjustified

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 02:20:39 UTC No. 16299839

>>16298968
>QM violates A1, quantum objects are waves and particles at the same time despite both being polar opposites physically. Hence, induction cannot be used here and the premise is flawed. Therefore, there is no God. QED

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 02:37:40 UTC No. 16299845

This doesn't prove god exists. It just proves it should exist given that a set of axioms are true (which, you know, we aren't really sure if are true)

Math (logical science) doesn't work like the other sciences (empirical sciences like biology or geology )

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 03:03:12 UTC No. 16299862

>>16299839
Bicameral thinking

Is what he was stuck in too, there can theoretically a positive with no negative, the rule of polarization just aplies to all know objects

And particles can travel in wavelike fashion is just speed

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 03:27:48 UTC No. 16299878

>>16299839
A wave of what?

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 04:37:47 UTC No. 16299943

>>16299878
Depends on the object in question

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:20:33 UTC No. 16300915

>>16298968
Test

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:28:08 UTC No. 16300920

>>16298968
Axiomatically this ontological proof is incorrect in terms of establishing truth value as a function of what entails a positive property and a necessity.

It's stated by Godel as a matter of fact in his logic but presupposes that such things exist without satisfying the burden of proof.

For example,
Let's say one is to presuppose in informal logic that on Earth, it is a necessary property of the Sun in space to exist as a function of light illuminating the Earth.

The positive presumption is that the Sun is always there as a function that you see it in the sky.

This isn't necessarily true if something were to happen to the Sun and it were to disappear, although highly extremely improbable, but let's say for example in the thought experiment that a roaming black hole that we did not detect consumed the sun.

As a function of how long it takes light to get to Earth and the limitation of the speed of light, we would still see the Sun in the sky in terms of the photons that reach our eyes but technically, it's not really there.

In Godel's ontological argument, there is a presumption that existence entails God without demonstrating that he actually is there. I'll post my own ontological argument in first order logic later, but basically, this question is most likely never going to be solved because it requires demonstrative proof beyond presumption in fallacy. Anslem's ontological argument is fallacious in the same sense that axiomatically it presumes without demonstration, failing to satisfy the litmus test beyond logical deduction.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:35:23 UTC No. 16300928

>>16300920
Even my own argument in first order logic is axiomatically fallible in terms of being able to establish truth value. This is fundamental philosophy; logical deduction of premises can only create the consistency and logic of an argument, but what is necessary to establish truth is what propositionally converges as close to the probabilistic nature of the integrity propositional bases.

For example,

One might say in a simple fallacious argument,

It rains sometimes,
Therefore, it will rain right now.

The argument in simplest terms is consistent and logical, but it's fallacious because it presumes in the second proposition a truth value that is always true without any conditional statement establishing that truth.

A better argument, for example, would be

It rains sometimes,
Therefore if I can measure the humidity of the atmosphere, the carrying capacity of the local atmosphere along with temperature, I can predict when it will rain with significant certainty.

Here, propositionally, truth is established as a convergence to the probability of the empirical measurements that the proposition entails exist, instead of the presumption of necessity or positivity.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:39:12 UTC No. 16300931

not reading all that nigger babble.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:41:19 UTC No. 16300933

>>16298968
Call me a brainlet but I don't see how he concludes T3. Shouldn't the correct conclusion just be "God is possible"?

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:46:45 UTC No. 16300940

>>16300928
Variables:

God = G

Singularity = S

Existence after the Singularity = E

Timelessness=T

Unity via Indivisibility = U

Incorporeality = In

Simplicity = Si

Immutability = I

Anthropomorphic Notions of God = AnG

∃S ∧ ∃!S

(T+U+in+Si+I)∈S

(T+U+in+Si+I)∈G

AnG ∈ E

E∉S ∧ S ≠ E

S (T+U+in+Si+I)⊢¬AnG

S G

This argument is much better than Saint Anselm’s argument or the later derivatives of his argument, which fundamentally consist of

God exists in my understanding and in my mind.
Therefore, God exists

Or alternatively,

” “
” “
God is the highest source of morality.
Therefore God exists

Still, fundamentally, even with my argument, there are presumptions of what God entails that can not be propositionally falsified to establish the integrity of the claims.

The best evidence we would get would satisfy all of the logical prerequisites of what God entails, which would be impossible in through logical deduction alone.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:54:16 UTC No. 16300960

>>16300940
For the last proposition 4chan doesn't have the logical equivalence symbol so that's what belongs between s and g.

My argument, in simple terms, is stating that God and the singularity at the beginning of time possess the same qualities as what constitutes God, minus anthropomorphic notions of God, and that these notions only exist after the singularitarity.

The problem is, that this is not necessarily true in totality to establish mutual inclusivity between the two things.

A proper and true ontological argument is impossible until we have definitive proof of an argument's propositional logic, like for example, an argument which demonstrates the all phenomena inclusive to God occurring in physical reality.

Maybe we have seen this before in the past with a person like Jesus Christ, but there is no evidence that remains today of that particular entity, God, in reality that is interacting with physical reality in tears of consensus peer review.

I'm not sure if we will ever see that, ergo, why religion is a matter of faith instead of logical derivation of truth.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:55:57 UTC No. 16300964

>>16300960
*Terms of

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 23:16:16 UTC No. 16301076

>>16300960
>>16300940
Sorry I new to logic so just have a question. How do you conclude ~AnG? Is it on the basis of lines 4 and 5? But E not being in S does not imply anything about AnG's relationship to S.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 23:37:59 UTC No. 16301108

>>16301076
Ang is a sub element of E in so far as we understand what the singularitarity entails and what exists after it, in my argument.

So, by that logic, what I am saying is since that the singularity is not equivalent to what comes after it, nor is what comes after it an element of the Singularity, we by obvious logic prove that Ang is not true.

The problem with this is that it's indeterminate to know what is exactly in a singularity as it constitutes everything, but it's not exactly God in an anthropomorphic sense.

So, in terms of the inclusive qualities between the two, we can determine that the singularity both mutually possess the qualities of timelessness, Unity via Indivisibility incorporeality, simplicity and mutability.


I readily admit and concede that it is still impossible to determine the truth about whether the two things are mutually equivalent but this is a problem of all ontological arguments as I stated before.

Like I said, unless we get direct evidence of God and it propositionally satisfies all arguments logically, it will never be possible to logically deduce an ontological argument of God.

This, is an ontological divide between our physical reality and wherever God comes from beyond this.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 23:39:00 UTC No. 16301109

>>16301108
*The singularitarity and God both mutually possess

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:08:17 UTC No. 16301659

>>16298968
>D1
A godlike being also posseses all negative properties which cancel out all the positive ones and leave net 0 properties.

>A3
Then why can't I positively touch or see or smell or hear god at all times? Its because some of the "positive" properties are actually negative, being invisible for instance is the positive addition of a negative quality and is apparantly one of god's properties since it is supposedly everywhere, but can't be directly envisioned.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:09:35 UTC No. 16301664

>>16299010
>his theorems prove math is objectively real beyond us.
No, his theorems, specifically incompleteness, proved that math, or any formal system for that matter, cannot actually describe the whole of reality.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:25:26 UTC No. 16301670

>>16298968
When people say trust the science, they mean current scientific concensus. Not one cherrypicked scientist that was born more than a century ago.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:35:06 UTC No. 16301678

>>16300940
>God exists in my understanding and in my mind.
Therefore, God exists
You omitted half of the proof.
God is an omnipresent being.
If an omnipresent being exists somewhere, it must exist everywhere, by definition.
God has an omnipresent existence in my understanding and in my mind.
Therefore, an omnipresent God being must exist everywhere.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 12:26:08 UTC No. 16301724

>>16301678
But the problem with Anslem's argument and every ontological argument is that THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR AN OMNIPRESENT BEING!!!

WHERE IS HE IF HE'S EVERYWHERE AT ONCE?

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 12:33:39 UTC No. 16301727

>>16298968
>Logic is fake
>My metalogic underpins logic
>Metalogic, which doesn't follow logic, proves via logic that God exists
>>16301664
>In fact my metalogic proves which logic that what we know to be true without proof cannot be proven to be true
I seriously cannot believe people take this shit seriously, and whats more herald him as some profound God of mathematics and logic. Words cannot express the degree of disgust I feel at this.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 12:36:21 UTC No. 16301730

>>16301724
God is without cause, depends on no relations, and therefore has no configuration. He is everywhere to the same degree that he cannot be distinguished.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 12:38:09 UTC No. 16301733

>>16298968
>Logic is insufficient
>My metalogic underpins logic
>Metalogic, which doesn't follow logic, proves via logic that God exists
>>16301664
>In fact my metalogic proves with logic that what we know to be true without proof cannot be proven to be true
I seriously cannot believe people take this shit seriously, and whats more herald him as some profound God of mathematics and logic. Words cannot express the degree of disgust I feel at this.

Look at all the key theorems proposed by metalogic, and recognize them as everything that plagues modern mathematics.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 12:51:03 UTC No. 16301747

Replace God with Allah and you'll find the flaw very quickly

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:48:37 UTC No. 16302002

>>16301730
But that is a priori logical induction without ANY PROOF!

YOU'RE STATING THINGS AS A MATTER OF FACT WITHOUT ANY FACTS!

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:54:03 UTC No. 16302010

>Being godlike means to exist
>god is godlike
>therefore god exists
Am I doing it right?

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:24:31 UTC No. 16302048

>>16301678
"Existence" is not a property of a concept, but a relationship between the concept and the actual state of the world. It's why Anslem's arguments (don't) apply as well to omnipresent unicorns.

"God" does not exist in your mind. You can't "think" him into existence. What exists in your mind is "the concept of God". Whether that concept has any corespondent in the real world is a property of the world, not of the concept.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:33:18 UTC No. 16302056

>>16302048
But, what properties does your ideal GF give up when becoming real?
https://honkfm.com/2622/whalehog-plapjak-anthem/

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:00:54 UTC No. 16302099

>>16302048
But that still isn't true! You're literally saying that a priori induction is real but it requires proof to exist in reality!

This is why string theorists and theorists studying supersymmetry are wasting their time. It's all abstraction based on things that can't be experimentally falsified!

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:49:24 UTC No. 16303020

>>16301724
Read the proof again, the absolutely known existence of god in the mind is the evidence and since it exists there, it must exist everywhere because that is how omnipresence works.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:36:01 UTC No. 16303047

>>16301747
Kek

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 13:50:14 UTC No. 16303255

>>16299862
A positive that's simultaneously negative if anything supports God theory, and that's pretty much what Christ being the ground of being is about.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:04:28 UTC No. 16303269

>axiom god exist
>schizobabble
>ergo god exist
>I am very smart

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:38:33 UTC No. 16303308

Doesn't seem like anyone can refute it, I don't think they understand it even.
>>16298970
>>16303269

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:42:03 UTC No. 16303315

>>16303308
>don't think they understand it even.
See
>>16301733

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:45:05 UTC No. 16303324

>>16301733
Who are you quoting, schizo?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:57:06 UTC No. 16303347

>>16303324
Not an argument. I accept your concessions

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:09:05 UTC No. 16303359

>>16303347
Typical shit-eating reply from some subhuman retard who thinks misrepresenting what others say is an argument instead of just making your argument in plain text. I bet you'll cry about "muh ad hominem" now too since your fee-fees were hurt, ignoring your own logical fallacies.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 16:20:33 UTC No. 16303408

>>16303359
Not an argument. I accept your continued concessions

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 16:39:59 UTC No. 16303416

>>16298968
St. Anselm called and wants his argument back.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:11:00 UTC No. 16303434

>>16298968
Harry Potter, like god, has the "existence" property... in your imagination
The ontological proof misses the point.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:25:10 UTC No. 16303497

>>16303434
Harry Potter does not have a necessary existence property, not at all. It is contingent.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:41:19 UTC No. 16303515

>>16301747
Why? Allah is just simply the Arabic translation of the word "God"

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:46:22 UTC No. 16303526

Is purpleness a positive quality?
Either way it's still just saying
>imagine god as all good
>part of goodness is existing
>therefore you imagine god as existing
>therefore god exists

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:11:45 UTC No. 16303631

>>16298968
It's bullshit. Immanuel Kant already gave a pretty comprehensive explanation of why you can't use pure reason to understand metaphysical experiences and phenomena.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 20:52:37 UTC No. 16303690

>God exists because he is defined to possess the property of existance, among other positive properties
>existance it is a positive property because he said so
Yeah. I'm not convinced.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:27:43 UTC No. 16303723

>>16302048
>pic
lmao

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:32:27 UTC No. 16303727

>>16299001
It literally causes you to have ~15pts lower IQ

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:32:42 UTC No. 16303728

I still have a beef with this anon:
>just defining souls into existence
Now let's examine your argument more rigorously: some statements can be verified by observation and some can not. So far I agree with you. I also I agree that we should be skeptical of statements that can not be verified as an object of observation like ''soul'', ''consciousness'' , ''god'' and such.

Now we should also be skeptical of the claim that only observable objects are real. For example: you learned as a child that your mom doesn't really disappear when she leaves the room. Furthermore you believe that there's time even though time is not an object you can point at. You also believe that there are trees even though objectively there's only this particular wooden structure and that particular wooden structure.

Now you observe that there's regularity and repeatability. Such consistency is not an object of observation but it's real, is it not? Now what is the cause for the existence of consistency in the world? Again it must follow that the cause is either God, math or God = math.


Checked, but wrong
The concept of a vampire does exist, but this has no bearing on reality.
Given some set of axioms, you could argue that 2 + 2 = 1, for example in modular arithmetic base 3. This is 100% true, within those axioms, but in reality 2 things and 2 things still gives you 4 things.

You could logically define "soul" as "the thing that every living human has and is immaterial," but that's still just defining souls into existence. Same for god, same for anything.
My point is that if the universe were different, we'd have different laws of logic and mathematics, and you'd still be able to say
>see? math describes reality, therefore god.
You just have the thing backwards. It's as simple as that.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:41:49 UTC No. 16303736

>>16303727
>By starting with the axiom that God exists, we can prove that God exists

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:44:43 UTC No. 16303741

>>16303728
Where are you pulling objects from? Your "analysis" of my claim is meaningless.
This is a long post, so feel free to just read the last block as I think that's the most important.

Can we observe up? Yes, we define up as away from the flow of gravity, generally.
Is there a platonic object of "up" that contains maximal upness? No, I don't think so, it's a meaningless concept.
Can you describe logic as existing? Sure, you could say an argument has logic if blah blah blah.
Is there a being containing maximum "logicality?" No, again you're not using the term correctly.

If reality is logical, why did we have to invent logic to describe reality? Why can something be logical while not pertaining to reality?
>all unicorns vomit rainbows
>some unicorns are blue
>therefore blue unicorns vomit rainbows
But does this say anything about the real existence of unicorns?

I'm not a Platonist, defining something as existing doesn't mean it exists any more than defining something as not existing means it doesn't exist.
If something exists, and you have a word for it, then the word describes an existing thing.
Can you show that god or math exist platonicly, in such a way that they can preempt the universe?
Logic can describe non-real things, and math can describe non-real things, so why do you think that reality is based off them rather than them based off reality?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 22:31:24 UTC No. 16303814

>>16303741
>Is there a platonic object of "up" that contains maximal upness?
You're misrepresenting my viewpoint by assigning a hidden quality to a particular state of a structure. My viewpoint is that the dynamic patterns that we recognize are the hidden quality and I'm agnostic whether that hidden quality is part of the things we observe or outside of the observable universe.

Imagine an effective underwater replication strategy: it looks like a fish. Of course your objection would be that this is a prime example of Plato's Cave type of thinking which you reject.
So let's consider a more materialistic perspective: movement of material is not arbitrary but constrained. No matter how many ways a universe can be a universe must be some way. More specifically: there must be constraints. Now what determines these constraints? Do you want to argue that the idea of the observable universe being constrained is just my imagination?

1/2

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 22:37:17 UTC No. 16303820

>>16303814
>if there are laws of physics, who wrote the lawbook?
Is there a particular reason that if matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, nor could the laws that they abide?
Could it have been otherwise? If so, you'd need to demonstrate that to me, because I don't believe it could have been otherwise.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 22:40:49 UTC No. 16303824

>>16303814
>>16303820
To preempt your bottom of the barrel apologetics with a gloss of philosophy, answer this exact question:
Can you define soul, god, or math is such a way that doesn't assume its existance (the thing everyone has, the immaterial self, etc) and then demonstrate in any capacity that one exists?
I can do one for math, it's the set of principals we use to describe counts, numbers, and more complex relations in reality.
Must math exist by this definition? No, we may as well have never invented it.
Is math real by this definition? Yes, it's the label we give to numbering reality.
If math exists, but isn't required to exist, is the universe "made of math?" No, that's a faith claim that is unprovable, and breaks any application of occam's razor

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:11:12 UTC No. 16303848

>>16303741
>Why can something be logical while not pertaining to reality?
Your example does pertain to reality. We have observed horses, horns, rainbows and vomit. We've combined the memories of these observations to create something that has not been reliably observed as an object and therefore it's existence as such is to be doubted.

It's apples and oranges to compare such creativity with ideas that can be verified by observation to which you seem to hold a double standard assuming that you believe that gravity exists even though gravity itself is not an object of observation. My viewpoint is that there's no difference between believing in gravity and believing that everything we observe has a logical essence or is dictated by a supernatural logic.

>Logic can describe non-real things, and math can describe non-real things, so why do you think that reality is based off them rather than them based off reality?
Because I'm skeptical of the claim that there's a clear-cut difference between an internal and external world. From this skepticism al sorts of considerations follow. On example of such consideration is: we might as well be narcissus observing our own reflection. That's not solipsism. If we assume that what we observe is a model constructed by our brain then it follows that the brains we observe are part of the model as well. From here it follows that the real brain is outside our observation. What we observe follows the rules of construction by the real brain. That's another way to state Plato's Cave I guess.

Another consideration is that the lack of boundaries between inside and outside imply continuity. For example: a square pattern from outside activates our neurons in a square configuration.

There's also determinism and free will to consider: what enables us to act in accordance with or independent from everything that we observe? It's similar to the earlier question: what constrains the universe?

2/2

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:15:25 UTC No. 16303853

The problem of evil shows how possessing all positive properties is paradoxical, and thus this proof's premise that a Godlike being possesses all positive properties is a false premise

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:19:18 UTC No. 16303859

>>16298968
Why is necessary existence a positive property
People have posited that evil must necessarily exist for good to exist, that would mean either evil can't really exist or evil cannot necessarily exist, since evil itself should not possess positive properties

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:25:39 UTC No. 16303870

>>16303848
free will doesn't exist, physicalism

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:30:56 UTC No. 16303877

>>16303820
>Could it have been otherwise?
I'm confused by your argument that there is no determinant of constraints because there's no observable evidence of possible worlds other than the world that exists. It's a legit mind fuck. Are you sure that you logically understand the argument that you're making?

>Can you define soul, god, or math is such a way that doesn't assume its existance
Can you define gravity in such a way? Can you define energy in such a way?

>If math exists, but isn't required to exist,
If some kind of rulebook is not inherent or superior to the universe then the universe would be an arbitrary mess. How can the universe be constrained and consistent without having the property of being constrained and consistent? I can imagine the following response:
>it just is
>it doesn't have to make sense
Both types of responses are arbitrarily drawing the line between what does and does not have to be explained with logic and reason.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:32:20 UTC No. 16303879

>>16303870
Agreed. Now what determines the way in which movement of matter is constraint?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:44:13 UTC No. 16303885

>>16302048
>pic
Lol

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:45:29 UTC No. 16303886

>>16303879
The laws of physics are descriptions of how material energy moves, which seem to be inherent to matter.
Fine tuning is non-existent unless you prove they could have been otherwise, which I don't believe.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:49:33 UTC No. 16303887

>>16303877
>Can you define gravity in such a way? Can you define energy in such a way?
Observation: things go towards each other at certain speeds and accelerate depending on distance
Definition: this thing we observe will be called gravity.
Observation prior to definition, not defining itself into existence. Fucking retard.
Observation: mechanical work takes effort, and certain types of things can be converted into work
Definition: energy is the work/effort, and energy transfer is taking one kind of work/effort and turning it into another
Again, observation before definiton, retard.

Lets look at yours:
>uhh uhhh uhhhh
>stuff is the way it is
>something must have made it that way (assumed for no reason)
>and that something happens to be my god
>therefore god

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:54:40 UTC No. 16303890

>>16303877
>How can the universe be constrained and consistent without having the property of being constrained and consistent?
As vapid and meaningless as you possibly could be, how is mathematics the property of constraint?
Here's a fun question for you, can you show me the real existance of 1? Not 1 of something, just 1.
Can you do 1?
Can you conceptualize a 1?
1 is a mathematical notation, not a real object. If the universe is made of real objects, how can abstract mathematical notation influence objective reality?
Could there not be 1 of something unless math exists to say 1 + 1 = 2?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:58:51 UTC No. 16303893

>>16303877
>If some kind of rulebook is not inherent or superior to the universe then the universe would be an arbitrary mess.

theistards always reveal their principle motivation comes from their anxieties about rules and regularity lmao

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:03:50 UTC No. 16303898

>>16303893
It's a funny way to say
>if things were different, it wouldn't be this way!
while trying to shoehorn in their god of choice.
That's why I always ask them to show that it could have been different and the laws of physics aren't inherent to material energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:15:58 UTC No. 16303909

>>16303886
>inherent to matter.
There you have it: matter has an abstract quality. So it's possible for abstract qualities to not only exist in the mind but in reality as well. Of course you could've deduced that from the physicalist assumption that matter is conscious,
Fine tuning is a misrepresentation of the fact that the universe is constrained. I'm not claiming that the universe is constrained for a specific purpose. It's constrained and your answer to what determines the constrains is that constrains are an inherent property of matter.

>>16303887
>Observation prior to definition
I observe that the table in front of me has the same shape and color. It still has the same shape and color. It keeps having the same shape and color. I define that observation with words like regularity, consistency, rule-bound, constrained. The rest of your reply is shitposting at this point.

>>16303890
>how is mathematics the property of constraint
I use words like math, logic, rules, constrains, regularity, continuity and so on interchangeably. You seem to project that I literally think there are literal equations engraved in a hidden dimension or something written by an old man with a grey beard in a white dress. All you've been doing is misrepresenting my viewpoint which is the simple observation that shapes, colors, the way things move are regular, consistent, constrained. Since regularity is itself not an object of observation it must be an abstract quality of either matter itself like consciousness or dictated from outside of what we can observe.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:16:27 UTC No. 16303912

>>16298968
everything is contained in the axiom as usual. These "proofs" are mostly circular.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:20:57 UTC No. 16303918

>>16303909
What is abstract about gravity? Magnatism? They're literally objective things about reality, not objective like not subjective, objective like relating to physicality
Moron.
I skipped the rest of the first sentence because that was so extremely retarded, you are so stupid.

The next sentence was even dumber, that literally means nothing.

>i define all these things to be the same even when they're not
Great, I got that from the get go, I'm calling your definiotn stupid.
>math is the same as regularity
???
Math IS regular, regularity is prior to mathematics.
Logic IS regular, regularity is prior to logic
They're not the same thing

Stupid theist.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:22:15 UTC No. 16303921

>>16303909
>I use words like math, logic, rules, constrains, regularity, continuity and so on interchangeably.
perhaps you should stop if you want to speak coherently

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:23:54 UTC No. 16303922

what is a "positive property"?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:23:55 UTC No. 16303923

>>16303909
>I observe that the table in front of me has the same shape and color. It still has the same shape and color. It keeps having the same shape and color. I define that observation with words like regularity, consistency, rule-bound, constrained. The rest of your reply is shitposting at this point.
Did the word table, or the concept of tables, come before or after you observed a table?
Did you know the word first, or the object?
Did you have to define tables to exist before you believed in the concept that the word "table" represents?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:26:11 UTC No. 16303924

Why is necessary existence a "positive property". Maybe not existing at all is actually better, who knows.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:29:10 UTC No. 16303928

>>16303918
Since you are not willing to have a friendly and constructive discussion you are not worth responding to anymore.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:31:18 UTC No. 16303930

>>16303928
>I use words like math, logic, rules, constrains, regularity, continuity and so on interchangeably

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:31:23 UTC No. 16303932

>>16299003
just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that others don't

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:32:18 UTC No. 16303935

There are some truths that no honorable man would ever call into question
>there are only two genders
>Jews will ALWAYS sell you out
>niggers are ALWAYS going to cause trouble and do pointless crime
and lastly the Abrahamic god is a work of fiction, complete fabrication. Case closed.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:33:27 UTC No. 16303939

>>16301733
filtered

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:35:37 UTC No. 16303943

>>16303939
Fag'd

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:37:54 UTC No. 16303946

>>16303939
not an argument. i accept your concession

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:46:44 UTC No. 16303958

>>16303924
Rather existence itself is neutral and its positivity is defined by the object's actions and actions it receives

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:51:39 UTC No. 16303967

>>16303958
What the hell is a "positive action" supposed to be

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 03:00:08 UTC No. 16304120

>>16298968
This has been disproven since Kant. Existence is transcendental, it's not a property.

Here's a nice point about it in Russian:
https://youtu.be/GnqNQM6mP-s

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:01:12 UTC No. 16304340

>>16302048
>"God" does not exist in your mind.
Proof?
>You can't "think" him into existence.
Then how did God make the jump from existing in one person's mind to existing in billion's of people's minds through vast amounts of literature and media if not for being thought about further to increase the reach of its existence from purely an idea into a ubiquitous audiovisual spectacle?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:03:48 UTC No. 16304346

>>16303269
Nope its
>investigate god definition
>definition conforms to reality
>ergo god exists in reality

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:05:11 UTC No. 16304347

>>16303515
Arabs worship Godin?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:07:16 UTC No. 16304351

>>16303690
>existance (sic) it is a positive property because he said so
No, its positive because it describes the additional rather than the negation of a property, nonexistence would be the negative counterpart to existence since it describes the lack of a property.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:08:44 UTC No. 16304354

>>16303736
Except he started with the definition of god and showed why the thing defined had to exist rather than starting with the direct assumption of existence itself.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:11:14 UTC No. 16304358

>>16304354
Do people really believe this shit, or was it that you were indoctrinated as a child and this is the rationalization phase rather than the acceptance phase

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:17:42 UTC No. 16304366

>>16304358
>Do people really believe this shit,
Its exactly what happened, D1 was just the abstract definition not some final proof of existence which is why it was labeled with a D for definition instead of an A (axiom) or T (theorem).

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:19:34 UTC No. 16304369

>>16304366
D1. Unicorns process necessary existence
Therefole they exist
If you disagree, just look at D1. I'm not assume they exist, it's not an axiom, it's just a definition.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:22:49 UTC No. 16304375

>>16304369
D1 doesn't say its existence is necessary, though, it just presents the definition of god-like being, the necessary existence doesn't come until several steps later at T3 after the definition of necessary existence has also been established and it has been shown that necessary existence and godlike being overlap.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:25:32 UTC No. 16304378

>>16304375
That's ok, unicorns are defined to be necessarily existent, no need for the fluff with them.
No way do you really believe this shit right?
I could define anything I want to have the property of existing.
Can you actually show it exists?
As other anons pointed out, this theory breaks down with the problem of evil, unless evil is a positive quality, in which case a god-like being is maximally evil.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 07:35:31 UTC No. 16304388

>>16304378
>That's ok, unicorns are defined to be necessarily existent, no need for the fluff with them.
Ok, if you want to do that with your silly unicorn logical proof that will never be taken seriously because it has nothing to do with the actual logic being discussed, fine, but its not representative of this thread or godel's logic which you clearly don't even understand since you clearly didn't even know the difference between the D labels and T labels.

>I could define anything I want to have the property of existing.
You could sure, but that is not what is happening in godel's proof, so doing that has nothing to do with this thread.

>Can you actually show it exists?
Sure, in the same way you can show that everything exists.

>As other anons pointed out, this theory breaks down with the problem of evil,
No they haven't, there hasn't been a single logical definition of evil presented by anons ITT let alone logical proof that evil necessarily exists.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 17:44:11 UTC No. 16304796

>>16299000
Old dumb men have spouted this for millenia. They will say the same even today, but you cannot deny the fact that we're slowly moving closer to the truth of the universe.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 18:03:27 UTC No. 16304816

>>16304388
You're not very bright.
>in the same way you can show that everything exists.
So demonstrate god. If it's that easy, grab your telescope look away from Saturn and point it to god. Saturn is part of everything, and you can prove it with a telescope, so there you go.
Is this what you meant? No, because what you meant is "no I can't actually demonstrate god," but you lied and it's what you said.

Suppose there is a god who has all positive properties
One of these properties would be the power to stop evil
Another one of these properties would be the ability to know everything.
Another would be the desire to stop evil
...
From whence cometh evil?
Therefore there is no god with all positive properties
I'm sure you've heard the full proof by contradiction before, so I didn't feel the need to restate it.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:07:28 UTC No. 16305607

>>16304816
>Saturn is part of everything, and you can prove it with a telescope
You can't see everything with a telescope any more than you can see god with one.

>From whence cometh evil?
From your first axiom where you defined it to cometh and failed to define it as the absence of recognizing godliness which is actually a negative property.
>Therefore there is no god with all positive properties
>Durr god is evil, therefore there is no god at all.
That doesn't follow at all.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:10:18 UTC No. 16305608

>>16305607
The demiurge has as much evidence as Bigfoot or Santa.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:11:56 UTC No. 16305611

>>16305607
>Filtered by epicurus
>Gobbles gödels cock
If you got filtered by epicurus there is zero chance you understand gödels argument

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:14:33 UTC No. 16305615

>>16305611
Except you got filtered by it since you allowed it to change the contents of your mind without actually being able to justify why it is logical while mistaking properties like stop as positive.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:15:34 UTC No. 16305616

>>16305608
Which both have as much evidence as some other object called everything.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:18:01 UTC No. 16305620

>>16305615
What is this babble?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:21:31 UTC No. 16305621

>>16305620
Language far beyond your sophomoric level of thought just like advanced tech seems like magic to the machineless, advanced languages seems like babble to the mindless.