[Serious] A Half-Serious Definition of God

[polymath257]

... 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?

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

[polymath257]

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

[arewethereyet]

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.