The Roles of Logic and Science in Questions of Theology

[_Calculus Crusader]

What CC does is short-circuit the complete website taking us to only that which he wants us to see.

Observe the obvious assumptions in the opening statement from the beginning of the link.

Notice the second paragraph from the 11th. century A.D.

"The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived." (The bold emphasis I added showing we have A CLAIM, not reason)

CC is deceptive and selective as he attempts to obfuscate the available analysis for his God proof. He has none. Careful reading of his own link demonstrates that as do the links which I provided.

JAK

I realize you are lacking in native intelligence, but I linked directly to Kurt Gödel's argument because his version of the argument is the one I endorse.

[_Calculus Crusader]

It takes an IF statement and proceeds to assume the truth of that which has not been established.

How many times do I have to explain it to you, rube? In Logic one defines an object within the context of an axiomatic system, then he proceeds to prove such an object exists using those axioms. (Or he arrives at a contradiction.)

On the other hand modal logic demonstrates its fatal flaw.

Modal Logic is a valid subdiscipline, your inability to apprehend it notwithstanding.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Incidentally, I request this thread be moved to another forum, so I do not have to show restraint in responding to JAK.

[_Gadianton]

And how many books have you had published? What is your particular qualification for passing judgment on the scholarship of Armstrong? Have you read The Battle for God?

Wouldn't CC then be able to ask you what your particular qualification is for dismissing Godel? (and by the way, Armstrong isn't to religious studies as Godel is to logic)

While the world's most significant logician might have been wrong, he probably wasn't merely begging the question.

[_The Nehor]

Incidentally, I request this thread be moved to another forum, so I do not have to show restraint in responding to JAK.

Seconded, I'm not sure how to again request that he reveal his mental problems as requested without being thought of as rude.

[_Calculus Crusader]

And how many books have you had published? What is your particular qualification for passing judgment on the scholarship of Armstrong? Have you read The Battle for God?

Wouldn't CC then be able to ask you what your particular qualification is for dismissing Godel? (and by the way, Armstrong isn't to religious studies as Godel is to logic)

While the world's most significant logician might have been wrong, he probably wasn't merely begging the question.

Thank you Gad. I don't care that JAK rejects Kurt Gödel's argument, but I do care that he has the temerity to believe himself a better logician.

[Guest]

JAK previously: It takes an IF statement and proceeds to assume the truth of that which has not been established.

How many times do I have to explain it to you, rube? In Logic one defines an object within the context of an axiomatic system, then he proceeds to prove such an object exists using those axioms. (Or he arrives at a contradiction.)

JAK previously: On the other hand modal logic demonstrates its fatal flaw.

Modal Logic is a valid subdiscipline, your inability to apprehend it notwithstanding.

JAK:
Let’s see a clear, transparent definition of “subdiscipline.”

You appear to make stuff up.

The statement is nonsense absent clarity, articulate, straightforward and unambiguous definition.

“Subdiscipline” indeed. What’s that?

It’s not my ability to “apprehend” that’s in question here. It’s your capacity to address directly analysis which has been presented by quoting directly and in context -- thenresponding.

You failed to address the assumption of that which has not been established.

You failed to address the if/then fallacy which websites and I linked for you.

You substitute ad hominem for honest rejoinder to analysis and critique. It’s the last resort of one who is unable to address such analysis and critique.

Making up one’s own “definitions,” one’s own “axioms,” one’s own “theorems” and one’s own “corollary” fails to establish anything.

And in that sleight of hand lies assumptions not established.

It’s fraudulent logic to assume “conditionals” and “possibly” then claim one has acquired truth of judgment.

"Metaphysical necessity” is not established. It is assumed which further erodes reliable conclusion.

Intuitionistic logic relies on assumptions not established.

So we are left with: Which modal models are the right ones?
Assumptions contaminate logic in its comprehensive application. Assumptions devoid of evidence contaminate reasoning which is transparent and open to skeptical review.

Analysis: The central tool in virtually all modal logic work only for metaphysical modalities.

Since “metaphysical” has not been established, assumptions are inherent. There are clear and obvious reasons for rejecting metaphysical assumptions. In your illustration God-like is assumed. From that God is concluded. That non-classical claim to logic is flawed.

It leaves one with the issue: Which modal model is correct?

That question is logical because there are multiple “modal models.”

As I detailed previously one can use the word valid in the narrowest of usage to mean simply form. However, unless that is specified and agreed to by all who are in discussion, it’s far too narrow a use of the term. Hence a correct form for syllogism (deductive) does not produce a reliable conclusion.

General assumptions absent clear, transparent evidence, should be viewed with extraordinary skepticism or should be rejected. That principle of classical logic has not been refuted nor over-written by any of the modal models.

You, CC, have not addressed any of the detailed analysis with intellectual insight. One only re-read my posts and your to recognize that.

You should be challenged on any claims you make implicitly or explicitly which lack clear, transparent, evidence for those claims. I have done that.

JAK

[_Calculus Crusader]

Let’s see a clear, transparent definition of “subdiscipline.”

You appear to make stuff up.

The statement is nonsense absent clarity, articulate, straightforward and unambiguous definition.

“Subdiscipline” indeed. What’s that?

Are you really such a low-watt bulb? Modal Logic is a subdiscipline or branch of Logic just as Probability is a subdiscipline or branch of Mathematics.

It’s not my ability to “apprehend” that’s in question here. It’s your capacity to address directly analysis which has been presented by quoting directly and in context -- thenresponding.

You failed to address the assumption of that which has not been established.

You failed to address the if/then fallacy which websites and I linked for you.

To the contrary, I have responded to your inanity. If the underlying logic is invalid as you assert then you must prove it formally.

You substitute ad hominem for honest rejoinder to analysis and critique. It’s the last resort of one who is unable to address such analysis and critique.

I don't suffer fools gladly.

Making up one’s own “definitions,” one’s own “axioms,” one’s own “theorems” and one’s own “corollary” fails to establish anything.

Theorems follow from axioms, so they can't be 'made up.'

[_JAK]

JAK: And how many books have you (CC) had published? What is your particular qualification for passing judgment on the scholarship of Armstrong? Have you read The Battle for God?

Wouldn't CC then be able to ask you what your particular qualification is for dismissing Godel? (and by the way, Armstrong isn't to religious studies as Godel is to logic)

While the world's most significant logician might have been wrong, he probably wasn't merely begging the question.

(You quote from a much longer and more comprehensive post of mine.)

Why challenge Gödel? Good question

Realize that the reference to “modal logic” refers to multiple individuals each of whom have different constructs. Gödel is one.

See this for other names which have different views of “modal logic” than does Gödel. It’s a lengthy discussion with multiple links within it. The university is Princeton.

“Abstract The problems we deal with concern reasoning about incomplete knowledge. Knowledge is understood as ability of an ideal rational agent to make decisions about pieces of information. The formalisms we are particularly interested in are Moore's autoepistemic logic (AEL) and its variant, the logic of acceptance and rejection (AEL2). It is well-known that AEL may be seen as the nonmonotonic KD45 modal logic. The aim is to give an appropriate modal formalization for AEL2.”

Source

In bold (my addition) is a significant problem in “modal logic.” Another author is mentioned here.

Note the title in the following:

An Adaptive Logic for Presumptive Truth

This is a PDF file. In it you will find this statement:
“We relate the modal fragments of the adaptive logics to the corresponding temporal logics and focus on two main features:...”

I’ll not attempt to type all that the website gives.

Again, Gadianton, keep in mind there are various authors who begin with different assumptions in “modal logic” and Gödel is one.

CC has stated:
“I accept Gödel's Ontological Argument as valid and work from there.”

Since there are numerous participants in “modal logic” and since they do not begin with the same assumptions, and since all assumptions absent evidence should be view with skepticism or rejected, the position of CC is an irrational one.

Why does he take it? He takes it because he claimed that Gödel proved God. Gödel did nothing of the sort. Gödel assumed God.

If you re-read Gödel, he makes an “if/then” construction in which the “if” part has God in it. He establishes no such entity with all his sleight of hand and ruse of word.

But you, Gadianton, are quite right to ask why we might dismiss Gödel. The dismissal or skeptical review is of any construction which makes assumptions for which no evidence is provided.

I’m not sure who you thought said something you stated:

Gadianton stated:
(and by the way, Armstrong isn't to religious studies as Godel is to logic)

Who argued that? I didn’t. Only CC referred to Gödel. I addressed his flawed defense. In previous posts, I addressed CC’s posts quoting him verbatim and responding. This format makes it difficult to see exactly where a post applies since it always places any post last. As a result, a response may be far from the post to which it was a response.

In any case, CC as not addressed my analysis and issues with regard to “modal logic.” I gave several links in earlier posts which address the problematic aspects not only of Gödel but of the general frame of reference in which assumptions are made either implicitly or explicitly which are not supported by evidence.

That’s an inherent flaw in “modal logic.” There is “bi-modal logic” and “specific modal logic.”

“Presumptive truth” is a flaw in modal logic as well. When one accepts a single author among many (as CC stated he does), one is greatly limited. Any one of many “modal logic” constructs might be bette. Thus, one is making an irrational leap. “Presumptive truth” is the title in a link I gave above.

You might also visit:

An Investigation in Quantified Modal Logic

While you may only get some of this publication on the web, “Quantified Modal Logic” discusses others than Gödel (whom CC accepts).

So a better question is why does CC accept one? I have suggested the answer to that.

Another link for you:

A deduction theorem for rejection theses in L ukasiewicz's system of modal logic.

“Modal logic” is frequently obsessed with metaphysics, temporal reasoning, epistemics, the analysis of action and processes, and ethical reasoning.

In fact all those and more is discussed in a publication:
Modal Logics and Philosophy by (I think) Rod Girle.

You can look up as you like.

JAK

[_Gadianton]

Why challenge Gödel? Good question

I didn't ask that. But maybe you think it's a good question so...

Realize that the reference to “modal logic” refers to multiple individuals each of whom have different constructs. Gödel is one.

Is Karen Armstrong the only one who's written a book on religion? You seemed to think CC needed to have significant credentials to disagree with her. What are your accomplishments as a logician, to question Godel?

See this for other names which have different views of “modal logic” than does Gödel. It’s a lengthy discussion with multiple links within it. The university is Princeton.

Godel was not the most significant figure in modal logic, but if CC needs advanced degrees in religious studies to question Armstrong, I think you're just a wee bit outclassed by Godel...(and he almost surely never published anything containing a clear logical fallacy nor simply did he ever reason in circles)

“Abstract The problems we deal with concern reasoning about incomplete knowledge. Knowledge is understood as ability of an ideal rational agent to make decisions about pieces of information. The formalisms we are particularly interested in are Moore's autoepistemic logic (AEL) and its variant, the logic of acceptance and rejection (AEL2). It is well-known that AEL may be seen as the nonmonotonic KD45 modal logic. The aim is to give an appropriate modal formalization for AEL2.”

Source

In bold (my addition) is a significant problem in “modal logic.” Another author is mentioned here.

No doubt one you're intimately familiar with... What was your point though? Modal logic can be applied to many things. Are you merely saying that there exists someone else other than Kurt Godel who used modal logic for something?

Note the title in the following:

An Adaptive Logic for Presumptive Truth

This is a PDF file. In it you will find this statement:
“We relate the modal fragments of the adaptive logics to the corresponding temporal logics and focus on two main features:...”

I’ll not attempt to type all that the website gives.

So what? I'm not seeing your point.

Again, Gadianton, keep in mind there are various authors who begin with different assumptions in “modal logic” and Gödel is one.

JAK, "various authors" begin with various assumptions in anything. Even formal logic and mathematical logic. by the way, do I need to point out that Karn Armstrong holds assumptions? And that Karen Armstrong is one of many who write on her subjects of interest?

CC has stated:
“I accept Gödel's Ontological Argument as valid and work from there.”

Since there are numerous participants in “modal logic” and since they do not begin with the same assumptions, and since all assumptions absent evidence should be view with skepticism or rejected, the position of CC is an irrational one.

Do I need to point out that not all "participants in modal logic" are significantly interested in the Ontological Argument? (modal logic has only slightly more to do with the Ontological Argument as sentences in English do)

Why does he take it? He takes it because he claimed that Gödel proved God. Gödel did nothing of the sort. Gödel assumed God.

No he didn't.

If you re-read Gödel, he makes an “if/then” construction in which the “if” part has God in it. He establishes no such entity with all his sleight of hand and ruse of word.

sure...

But you, Gadianton, are quite right to ask why we might dismiss Gödel. The dismissal or skeptical review is of any construction which makes assumptions for which no evidence is provided.

What kind of evidence are you looking for in logical proofs - i'm just not sure what you're trying to say?

In any case, CC as not addressed my analysis and issues with regard to “modal logic.” I gave several links in earlier posts which address the problematic aspects not only of Gödel but of the general frame of reference in which assumptions are made either implicitly or explicitly which are not supported by evidence.

What evidence is there for Bertrand Russell's "theory of types" assumption? When you can answer that question, we'll be better able to have a discussion about "evidence" and assumptions in formal demonstrations...

“Presumptive truth” is a flaw in modal logic as well. When one accepts a single author among many (as CC stated he does), one is greatly limited. Any one of many “modal logic” constructs might be bette. Thus, one is making an irrational leap. “Presumptive truth” is the title in a link I gave above.

huh?

“Modal logic” is frequently obsessed with metaphysics, temporal reasoning, epistemics, the analysis of action and processes, and ethical reasoning.

In fact all those and more is discussed in a publication:
Modal Logics and Philosophy by (I think) Rod Girle.

So?