The Roles of Logic and Science in Questions of Theology

[_Tarski]

JAK

Again:
Criticise this version:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/2/3/ ... 788b38.png

In particular, without deviating from what is written in this symbolic argument show how the existence of God is "assumed".

Until you can do that, or until you actually show signs of understanding Godel's logic and a willingness to learn appropriate to your actual expertise (or lack thereof), I will forgo anymore useless banter with you.
I should have taken Gad's warning. Arguing with you is basically the same experience as arguing with a relentless creationist who pretends to be knowledgeable in biology but really only presents pages of the kind of garbled science found on answersingenesis.com together with interminable accusations of this or that fallacy.
They seem to never back down either no matter who they are talking to or what points are made.

[_Gadianton]

Do you defend use of “God-like”? If not and if “God-like” is equal to “dog-like,” why would Godel not have used “dog-like”?

Go back and read my post. Actually, buy a book on logic and then come back to the table. also axiom 3 assuming "god-like" is positive assumes nothing more than the property of having all positive properties is positive. We can call that dog-like.

I second Tarski's observation that JAK doesn't even know his basic fallacies, it was late last night so i didn't include a good hearty chuckle over JAK using "begging the question" where he should be writing "raising the question". Also, it can't be an ad hominem if you're arguing with a computer program.

[_marg]

Again:
Criticise this version:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/2/3/ ... 788b38.png

In particular, without deviating from what is written in this symbolic argument show how the existence of God is "assumed".

Well Descartes used math, Euclidean geometry to set up an argument for the existence of a God.

He used the deductive proof for triangles to deduce the addition of the inside angles adding up to 180 degrees.

He then replaced triangles with God, the definition of a triangle with the definition of a god and the inference of 180 degrees with the inference of existence. So did he prove a god's existence, even though he followed the same form as a deductively valid mathematical form?

If not then a god must have been assumed in the definition.

[_marg]

Gad if you can not post anything more than ad hominem don't post, because you are not adding anything useful to the discussion.

[_marg]

previously: You say the following "I only argued that definition 1 does not assume the existence of God. If it did, then the form itself would be invalid." I don't follow why the form of the argument would be altered if one assumes something in the definition?

Because it is improper and invalid in deductive form to assume the existence of something as part of it's very definition when the goal is to prove existence.

For example, the following is an improper definition. Just make it clear that it is indeed the logical form at issue, I will state it somewhat symbolically:

Definition (improper): An "H" is defined to be a G that is larger than the first H.

This definition is bad.
However, Definition 1 in the Godel argument makes no such error.

I agree that the def'n you give is logically false. If H =G and G> H, then H can not equal H.

However any statement which defines a word is not logically false just because it assumes existence. Perhaps the entire argument is not sound but the one statement definition alone I don't see as being false if it makes an assumption of a thing existing.

In addition it seems to me that modal logic deals with imaginary possible worlds as well as the world we live in. So effectively, what one can conceive of is assumed to exist within modal logic unless it is a logical contradiction. i.e. a squarecircle.


previously: You also say this "by the way JAK, Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the insult is not presented as part of a logical argument but is rather just an observation. In this case an observation about your competence. Merely insulting someone or commenting negatively on their competence is not a logical fallacy if it is not part of a logical argument."

An ad hominem is not a fallacy if it is legitimate and is argued as part of an argument.

To say "you are incompetent" is not a logical fallacy.
To say "you are incompetent therefore you conclusions are false" is a logical fallacy. I did not commit such a fallacy. JAK claims that I did. That is evidence that he doesn't understand the fallacy.

To say one is incompetent when it has not been established and when it is in lieu of arguing the issues is a fallacy . If you say "you are incompetent and your conclusions are false" and you have demonstrated that the incompetence is a factor which resulted in wrong/false warrants for a conclusion, it is not a logical fallacy.

I agree with JAK you did commit ad hominem fallacy. You have not demonstrated in my opinion his argument false due to incompetence.

[_Gadianton]

Gad if you can not post anything more than ad hominem don't post, because you are not adding anything useful to the discussion.

marg, i'll post whatever i want to. second, i've added plenty of substance. I can't help it if you and JAK are too dense to go back and look at the assumption of positivity. I can't help it if JAK doesn't understand that in assumption 3 that saying god-like is positive is saying that the property of having all positive properties is itself positive. does that comment lack substance? If JAK would just go back and try to understand definition 1 as a definition, "god-like" as nothing more or less than a term in a biconditional, where the other side of the equation is the property of having all positive properties, then he's never going to get anywhere. His campaign of attacking the coinage, "god-like" as "loaded" is just beyond hilarious and sorry if it's hard to refrain from having a good laugh in addition to pointing out where he goes drastically wrong.

[_marg]

Gad if you can not post anything more than ad hominem don't post, because you are not adding anything useful to the discussion.

marg, I'll post whatever I want to. second, I've added plenty of substance. I can't help it if you and JAK are too dense to go back and look at the assumption of positivity. I can't help it if JAK doesn't understand that in assumption 3 that saying god-like is positive is saying that the property of having all positive properties is itself positive. does that comment lack substance? If JAK would just go back and try to understand definition 1 as a definition, "god-like" as nothing more or less than a term in a biconditional, where the other side of the equation is the property of having all positive properties, then he's never going to get anywhere. His campaign of attacking the coinage, "god-like" as "loaded" is just beyond hilarious and sorry if it's hard to refrain from having a good laugh in addition to pointing out where he goes drastically wrong.

I want you to tell me in your own words, what Godel's God is.

[_Gadianton]

In addition it seems to me that modal logic deals with imaginary possible worlds as well as the world we live in.

Here's a novel idea, instead of just going by your gut instincts on everything, why not learn something?

http://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/bsdconf/m ... /intro.pdf

It seems to JAK that begging questions is raising them. But how things seem to your and JAK aren't how things are. Thank God.

[_Gadianton]

Gad if you can not post anything more than ad hominem don't post, because you are not adding anything useful to the discussion.

marg, I'll post whatever I want to. second, I've added plenty of substance. I can't help it if you and JAK are too dense to go back and look at the assumption of positivity. I can't help it if JAK doesn't understand that in assumption 3 that saying god-like is positive is saying that the property of having all positive properties is itself positive. does that comment lack substance? If JAK would just go back and try to understand definition 1 as a definition, "god-like" as nothing more or less than a term in a biconditional, where the other side of the equation is the property of having all positive properties, then he's never going to get anywhere. His campaign of attacking the coinage, "god-like" as "loaded" is just beyond hilarious and sorry if it's hard to refrain from having a good laugh in addition to pointing out where he goes drastically wrong.

I want you to tell me in your own words, what Godel's God is.

I'm not going to play silly games on your terms and completely waste my time. You and JAK can't even understand how a biconditional trivially defines terms. You and JAK still aren't at all curious about the word "positive" in Godel's axioms. Niether of you care to learn anything about modal logic other than worrying it insists upon imaginary worlds. Hell, neither of you have any interest in standard, non-modal formal logic. JAK's only interests are logical fallacies, which he doesn't have a firm handle on, and basic syllogisms. If you read my post from last night, you'd have a clue on what I think Godel's conception of God is. But to just spell it out, well, you insist on not learning the tools to understand it properly.

You aren't a supreme court justice who has the right to sit back and let everyone else make a case while you decide, usually based on nothing at all, what you like or don't like about what's presented. You're the one who's behind on the tools to have the conversation you're having, you should be the one willing to do some work.

[_marg]

previously: I want you to tell me in your own words, what Godel's God is.[/quote]

I'm not going to play silly games on your terms and completely waste my time. You and JAK can't even understand how a biconditional trivially defines terms. You and JAK still aren't at all curious about the word "positive" in Godel's axioms. Niether of you care to learn anything about modal logic other than worrying it insists upon imaginary worlds. Hell, neither of you have any interest in standard, non-modal formal logic. JAK's only interests are logical fallacies, which he doesn't have a firm handle on, and basic syllogisms. If you read my post from last night, you'd have a clue on what I think Godel's conception of God is. But to just spell it out, well, you insist on not learning the tools to understand it properly.

You are the one who has demonstrated to me in previous discussion when you represented yourself as grayskull that you don't understand formal logic. But that's another issue.

I'm not playing games. Quite simply if Godel's ontological argument is so respected and so profound to you then I want you to explain in your own words, what Godel's god is. It's not a trick question, it's not a game. As far as your comment that "I'm not curious about the word "positive"..why do you think I'm asking you to tell me what you think Godel's god is. I went back to your post and didn't see any explanation for what I'm asking.

As an aside you've presented yourself from the very beginning in this discussion as hostile and disingenuous. Instead of just answering the question, it is you playing games. Godel's argument is short , so the explanation to my question shouldn't be all that long. Just answer the question and then we can see how brilliant you are, or at the very least you can demonstrate some knowledge.

You aren't a supreme court justice who has the right to sit back and let everyone else make a case while you decide, usually based on nothing at all, what you like or don't like about what's presented. You're the one who's behind on the tools to have the conversation you're having, you should be the one willing to do some work.

Again ad hominem. So what if I'm behind on the tools, I'm asking you a question which as is typical of you throughout this thread are avoiding. You've obviously got issues which go beyond what's going on in this thread. You have hostility in just about every post of yours in this thread. And yes I've read your complaint, you dislike atheists even more than theists who think they know more than you or more than philosophers you respect. You've not demonstrated much knowledge Gad, but more than that you've not demonstrated much ability to even think well. This constant ad hominem with every post of yours is pathetic.