Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 17, 2022, 3:29 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[Serious] A Half-Serious Definition of God
#11
RE: A Half-Serious Definition of God
(December 16, 2021 at 10:34 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(December 16, 2021 at 12:05 pm)polymath257 Wrote: ... That is basic logic.

I'm using a different logic :-P

And here I thought you were an advocate of classical logic.

OK, give your axioms and rules of deduction for the logic you want to use. Make sure you include how to use quantifier logic as well as propositional logic.

In particular, give your rules for defining something prior to showing it exists and is unique.

Make sure I can't just define the Invisible Pink Unicorn to be that which is the greatest possible unicorn that is also pink and invisible. because such a thing would *have* to exist since it is the greatest, right?
Reply
#12
RE: A Half-Serious Definition of God
(December 16, 2021 at 10:37 pm)polymath257 Wrote:
(December 16, 2021 at 10:34 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I'm using a different logic :-P

And here I thought you were an advocate of classical logic.

OK, give your axioms and rules of deduction for the logic you want to use. Make sure you include how to use quantifier logic as well as propositional logic.

In particular, give your rules for defining something prior to showing it exists and is unique.

Make sure I can't just define the Invisible Pink Unicorn to be that which is the greatest possible unicorn that is  also pink and invisible. because such a thing would *have* to exist since it is the greatest, right?
He's advocating whatever benefits his belief in magic. He's an epistemic grifter for theism.
“The sun from far gives life. But get close to it and it burns anything down to ashes”

[Image: flag-ukraine_1f1fa-1f1e6.png]  Heart [Image: canada-google.png]        

 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      
Reply
#13
RE: A Half-Serious Definition of God
(December 16, 2021 at 11:38 pm)Helios Wrote:
(December 16, 2021 at 10:37 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And here I thought you were an advocate of classical logic.

OK, give your axioms and rules of deduction for the logic you want to use. Make sure you include how to use quantifier logic as well as propositional logic.

In particular, give your rules for defining something prior to showing it exists and is unique.

Make sure I can't just define the Invisible Pink Unicorn to be that which is the greatest possible unicorn that is  also pink and invisible. because such a thing would *have* to exist since it is the greatest, right?
He's advocating whatever benefits his belief in magic. He's an epistemic grifter for theism.

It does make me wonder if he has studied any logic past what Aristotle did. Maybe some Boole? Or Frege? Cantor? Russell? Hilbert? Skolem? Godel? Brouwer? Cohen?

Hell, if he wants someone with his own biases, maybe Platinga?
Reply
#14
RE: A Half-Serious Definition of God
Plantingas great sin, despite coming up with the only successful argument for any kind of god (insomuch as the apologetic community is concerned), is that his formulation only establishes what sorts of beliefs in what sorts of gods would be or could be rational in what sorts of worlds - the great majority of christian belief is necessarily excluded in his formulation. Additionally, it allows for a situation where such a belief, rationally constructed as described, could still be incorrect. That they've got the right kind of thing in mind to call a god, and are being presented with an environment which is signaling to them this thing does exist...but, not for reasons of that things existence.

In general, people want their beliefs to be inarguable. Not subject to disproof. Incapable of being incorrect. That which must exist, must exist...but the greatest conceivable being may not. Ironically, the greatest conceivable being may be greater than any existent god in this world. Any definition for a god or argument for a god no matter how well constructed that doesn't offer them these tangibles is doa in lay belief. Belief, meanwhile, is reverting back to a time when it's justifications were absolute and unassailable - a thousand years past or more. Their last safe space.

I think it's a shame, as we've learned a great deal of consequential things since the time when the phrase "that which must exist" could be offered as a god. That leaves a huge gulf of things for reformed theology to work on that would, themselves, be consequential in our lives in communities organized around these beliefs. Tough nut, though, since the institutions which formed around these concepts have every reason to resist correction from the outside or inside. Diminishes the appearance of authority, necessary to their continuation and the perpetuation of that very faith.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#15
RE: A Half-Serious Definition of God
(December 17, 2021 at 10:17 am)polymath257 Wrote:
(December 16, 2021 at 11:38 pm)Helios Wrote: He's advocating whatever benefits his belief in magic. He's an epistemic grifter for theism.

It does make me wonder if he has studied any logic past what Aristotle did. Maybe some Boole? Or Frege? Cantor? Russell? Hilbert? Skolem? Godel? Brouwer? Cohen?

Hell, if he wants someone with his own biases, maybe Platinga?

Name droppers...I'm impressed <sarcasm> :-)

Anyways, the only four people participating on the thread arn't, me included, an interesting mix. I am bowing out.
<insert profound quote here>
Reply
#16
RE: A Half-Serious Definition of God
(December 17, 2021 at 9:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(December 17, 2021 at 10:17 am)polymath257 Wrote: It does make me wonder if he has studied any logic past what Aristotle did. Maybe some Boole? Or Frege? Cantor? Russell? Hilbert? Skolem? Godel? Brouwer? Cohen?

Hell, if he wants someone with his own biases, maybe Platinga?

Name droppers...I'm impressed <sarcasm> :-)

Anyways, the only four people participating on the thread arn't, me included, an interesting mix. I am bowing out.

Seems even you aren't taking this thread seriously anymore. Color me surprised.
 “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” ~Albert Einstein                                                 
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Seriously serious no one 7 222 March 19, 2022 at 9:34 am
Last Post: Istvan
  Irony of religion and definition of success ExplodingBrain 0 646 September 13, 2014 at 8:03 am
Last Post: ExplodingBrain



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)