The Roles of Logic and Science in Questions of Theology

[_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?

CC wrote:
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.

JAK wrote: 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.

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

JAK wrote:
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.

CC wrote:
I don't suffer fools gladly.

JAK wrote:
More ad hominem

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

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

JAK wrote:
You have given no refutation regarding Gödel’s assumptions which you accept. It’s flawed reasoning.

Quote JAK:
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 -- then responding.

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.

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

JAK:
CC, you appear to know little in this area. The burden of proof lies with you. Why? Because it is you who are making the claims.

It is you who must prove the assumptions to be correct.
It is you who must prove the if part of a construction is correct.

You claim that which is not established. God is not established by you and not by Gödel whom you accept.

Understand this about burden of proof.

He who asserts must prove. And, you falsely claim you “have responded.” Anyone can go back and read the detailed analysis which I made following your posts -- First by quoting you verbatim, and Second by responding directly to your words.

The evidence in the posts will show that your rejoinder was largely ad hominem as I pointed out.

CC stated:
Are you really such a low-watt bulb?

JAK:
That’s an example of ad hominem. I wonder if you know what that term means. It means an attack of a person addressing an issue rather than addressing the issue(s) raised.

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

JAK:
Your request that I must prove “invalid” a claim of yours is a failure to understand with whom the burden of proof lies. You’re making claims.

Claims absent evidence should be disregarded is a principle of modern-day science and of classical logic. Hence, when you make claims, it is not my responsibility to prove them invalid (unreliable). It's your responsibility to prove your claims.

CC stated:
Modal Logic is a subdiscipline...

JAK:
Previously, I asked you for a clear, transparent definition of “subdiscipline.” You have not given it. Instead, you continue using a term for which you offer no clear meaning.

CC stated:
Modal Logic is a subdiscipline or branch of Logic just as Probability is a subdiscipline or branch of Mathematics.

JAK:
An incorrect analogy. This is worse because of failed clarity in terms. “Modal logic” as my various websites demonstrated is built upon assumptions. Hence, whatever it is, it’s flawed. Logic addressing “probability” is inherently linked to possibility certain based on evidence for that possibility -- even if remote.

Since multiple authors have different constructs for “modal logics,” different authors make different assumptions. Hence, such assumptions are unreliable. Mathematics is hardly comparable to “modal logics” as it is discussed in various websites which I linked for you.

Mathematics makes no God assumption for example. Why? No evidence for such an entity. But in the “modal logic” of Gödel, that entity is assumed. Others who make different assumptions in their “modal logics” do not make the same assumptions as does Gödel. Most contemplate no such entity at all (which is probably your reason for favoring Gödel) over other “modal logic” authors.

As a result of different assumptions made in “modal logics,” such various constructs are unreliable. Wrong or flawed assumptions lead to wrong or flawed conclusions. (Not all women are stupid you should recall from a previous post challenging deductive reasoning from a flawed major premise)

You have not established discipline as you claim modal logic is a subdiscipline. And with the various weblinks which I provided, we can see that “modal logic” is myopic. Perhaps that’s your justification for calling it a “subdiscipline.” Pseudo-discipline would be more appropriate unless it’s significantly better than you have given any detail or support.

You have yet to give a definition. Why? You simply keep using "subdiscipline" in assertion. That’s not a definition.

Further flawed thinking of CC:

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

JAK:
The statement begs the question. If the “axioms” are flawed, no “theorems” which follow from flawed axioms are reliable.

In “modal logic” assumptions are inherent in the axioms. It’s part of the sleight of hand and ruse of words.

My analysis was not refuted by your statement here.

In review, I stated:

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

So with a flawed made up axiom, indirectly, that which follows is also made up and also flawed. And by that, I mean unreliable/untrue/incorrect.

Your response again fails to address the analysis.

CC, I think if you read all the links which I provided along with the analysis, you might recognize the problematic difficulties in multiple “modal logics.”

JAK

[_Calculus Crusader]

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.

I quite understand that you believe you know what you are discussing here, despite reality.

You have given no refutation regarding Gödel’s assumptions which you accept. It’s flawed reasoning.

That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?

Your request that I must prove “invalid” a claim of yours is a failure to understand with whom the burden of proof lies. You’re making claims.

Claims absent evidence should be disregarded is a principle of modern-day science and of classical logic. Hence, when you make claims, it is not my responsibility to prove them invalid (unreliable). It's your responsibility to prove your claims.

What claim did I make, lunkhead? I wrote that I accept Kurt Gödel's argument. That is not a claim.

[_Calculus Crusader]

“Modal logic” as my various websites demonstrated is built upon assumptions.

So also are the various branches of Mathematics. The assumptions are called axioms. Read a math book. (Or, more appropriately, have one read to you.)

[_marg]

“Modal logic” as my various websites demonstrated is built upon assumptions.

So also are the various branches of Mathematics. The assumptions are called axioms. Read a math book. (Or, more appropriately, have one read to you.)

First of all CC..the majority of your posts in this thread are ad hominem fallacy, not much substance. Not many people read this forum and this particular level is read even less than the others, so who are you trying to impress?
Gad? Your excessive ad hominem is inappropriate in this particular level of the forum. It gives the impression you are disingenuous in the discussion. I've asked you questions you've not answered. You also are not addressing the points JAK makes. So it not as if you have been attempting to explain your position, or point of view with clarity up to this point.

The weakness or problem with the way you are using this modal logic is that it is a game or system which does not have to connect to the actual world but you are using it as if it does connect. If it is used as if it links to the actual world but there in fact is no link, then it's used incorrectly. And that means the logic has broken down. Your conclusions will not be logically derived. If this God proof Godel logic doesn't link to an actual world, then any conclusion drawn can not be relied upoon as saying anything true about the actual world.

CC, where is the link/connection to the actual world in this Godel logic for God? What definition of a god is it theoretically concluding exists in the actual world? Perhaps instead of dishing out personal attacks, you instead respond with sincerity addressing substance of the issues. That would be a nice change.

[_Gadianton]

Marg,

Where are my "ad hominems"? I never insult people and only have an interest in serious intellectual discussions.

I think I've explained my position fairly well. It's not my fault, today, 8/27/2007 is the first day JAK ever heard of modal logic, went on to Google up a storm, and then posted one heck of a disjointed analysis that frankly, made almost no sense whatsoever. Did you make sense of it? I'm a little curious.

I don't know what Godel's personal beliefs were about God, I've heard that he did believe in God but as to anything remotely approaching the Christian God, who knows, maybe JAK can do some google searches and tell us. Godel's main comittment was platonism for sure, as is the case for many mathematicians who are realists about their profession, and that's evident in his most famous contribution that I'm sure you and JAK are intimately familiar with. As for the Ontological Argument on its own, even if true, it doesn't tell us very much. But let's be clear on a few things:

1) the Ontological argument existed long before "modal logic" so JAK's list of sources hoping to show that there isn't agreement on formalizing modal logic is only slightly more interesting than the fact that there is no exhaustive formal list of rules for writing in English and one may, write in English, on many different topics, just like one can use modal logic to pursue many things other than the Ontological Argument which most philosphers today probably have little interest in.
2) modal logic could at least potentially tell us many things about the world without "emperical evidence". There are those on the ultra skeptical side about that like say, Daniel Dennett, but he holds a very minority view and plenty of atheists comitted to a purely physical and natural world, as an example for the other side of the extreme, David Lewis (who was a modal realist, which is possibly even more extreme than being a Platonist), make strong arguments about the way the world is using modal logic without actually engaging any "evidence". So you can shout all you like about the need for emperical evidence, and I sure do like evidence myself, but all the emperical evidence in the world isn't going to tell you whether numbers are real or not, or whether moral statements are real. "God" in theism reasoned from ontology, similarily, isn't something emperical evidence will ever say much about.


3) sorry, but JAK has not, nor will he ever find a simple logical fallacy in Godel's thinking, no matter what Godel was thinking about.

[_marg]

Marg,

Where are my "ad hominems"? I never insult people and only have an interest in serious intellectual discussions.

My post was directed to CC, I quoted him.

I think I've explained my position fairly well. It's not my fault, today, 8/27/2007 is the first day JAK ever heard of modal logic, went on to Google up a storm, and then posted one heck of a disjointed analysis that frankly, made almost no sense whatsoever. Did you make sense of it? I'm a little curious.

I've followed, and agreed with every single one of JAK's posts. But you are talking as if you and CC are one and the same person, that I don't understand. JAK has presented his argument, what don't you agree with?

I don't know what Godel's personal beliefs were about God, I've heard that he did believe in God but as to anything remotely approaching the Christian God, who knows, maybe JAK can do some google searches and tell us. Godel's main comittment was platonism for sure, as is the case for many mathematicians who are realists about their profession, and that's evident in his most famous contribution that I'm sure you and JAK are intimately familiar with. As for the Ontological Argument on its own, even if true, it doesn't tell us very much. But let's be clear on a few things:

1) the Ontological argument existed long before "modal logic" so JAK's list of sources hoping to show that there isn't agreement on formalizing modal logic is only slightly more interesting than the fact that there is no exhaustive formal list of rules for writing in English and one may, write in English, on many different topics, just like one can use modal logic to pursue many things other than the Ontological Argument which most philosphers today probably have little interest in.
2) modal logic could at least potentially tell us many things about the world without "emperical evidence". There are those on the ultra skeptical side about that like say, Daniel Dennett, but he holds a very minority view and plenty of atheists comitted to a purely physical and natural world, as an example for the other side of the extreme, David Lewis (who was a modal realist, which is possibly even more extreme than being a Platonist), make strong arguments about the way the world is using modal logic without actually engaging any "evidence". So you can shout all you like about the need for emperical evidence, and I sure do like evidence myself, but all the emperical evidence in the world isn't going to tell you whether numbers are real or not, or whether moral statements are real. "God" in theism reasoned from ontology, similarily, isn't something emperical evidence will ever say much about.

I don't think JAK has been critical of modal logic. I think he has been critical of the argument given by CC that one can use Godel's ontological argument using modal logic to justify there is logical proof of God's existence. Modal logic may be useful, I've got no qualms with that and I doubt JAK does either. The problem is with how someone uses it. If one is going to set up a definition and assume axioms and then use that closed system/game whatever you want to call it, to say something about the actual world, there has to be some link to the actual world to warrant doing that. You say "God in theism reasoned from ontology, similarily, isn't something emperical evidence will ever say much about." Well that's fine but then one should be clear and honest about the limitations of what an ontological argument regarding a God concept can say. It can not say, it has logical proof of the existence of an actual God.

3) sorry, but JAK has not, nor will he ever find a simple logical fallacy in Godel's thinking, no matter what Godel was thinking about.

Yes but Godel's logic is a closed system. I'm sure JAK appreciates that if one wants to restrict one's reasoning to such a closed reasoning system, it is limited to what information can be derived from it with regards to the actual world we live in.

[_marg]

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?

Gad, CC has completely lost this argument and it’s one of the reasons he’s focusing on personal attacks on JAK instead addressing JAK’s words with a reasoned argument.

It’s really not fair to JAK that your adding tangents, which essentially seem to me to be for harassment purposes..

Let’s look at how this Karen Armstrong issue evolved, which you keep going on and on about.

CC: Without formal logic 'anything goes,' which is not acceptable to me.

JAK: But in religion, anything does go. The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong details some of the details which allow religious denominations, sects, and cults to claim that their doctrines are the true doctrines.

And CC’s response: I am not impressed with Karen Armstrong; she is a popular, not a serious, scholar.

So I ask you has CC refuted JAK’s point..that various religious denominations, sects, and cults claim that their doctrines are the true doctrines? And if, as is the case, various religious denominations all claim true doctrine which are in conflict with each..then logically they can not all be correct, only one. Further if one investigates how each group arrives at their doctrines invariably it is found the evidence is suspect at best. So it’s really irrelevant to the point JAK was making that CC is not impressed with Karen as a scholar. I think given her extensive writing in the areas of religion she is qualified at the very least to detail doctrines of various religious groups. I should hope you agree with that about her.

JAK never claimed Karen is the only one who’s written on religion, so why are you even asking him that question?

Then you say “You (JAK)seemed to think CC needed to have significant credentials to disagree with her.” I have no idea what you are reading but where does CC disagree with her? What CC does is simply side-step the point made by JAK, by dismissing Karen Armstrong as a person who can back up what JAK wrote. But JAK's point was not beyond the bounds of Karen's expertise.

If Godels’ ontological argument was accepted by philosophers as proof for the existence of an actual God, then I could appreciate your criticism of JAK’s logic. But he’s presented his argument clearly, and he is correct for all the reasoning and explanation he’s given, that Godel’s argument doesn’t prove the existence of an actual God.

You say you “only have an interest in serious intellectual discussions”. That’s not how it appears to me right now Gad. You seem more interested in harrassing than anything else.

[_richardMdBorn]

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?

Gad, CC has completely lost this argument and it’s one of the reasons he’s focusing on personal attacks on JAK instead addressing JAK’s words with a reasoned argument.

It’s really not fair to JAK that your adding tangents, which essentially seem to me to be for harassment purposes..

Let’s look at how this Karen Armstrong issue evolved, which you keep going on and on about.

CC: Without formal logic 'anything goes,' which is not acceptable to me.

JAK: But in religion, anything does go. The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong details some of the details which allow religious denominations, sects, and cults to claim that their doctrines are the true doctrines.

And CC’s response: I am not impressed with Karen Armstrong; she is a popular, not a serious, scholar.

So I ask you has CC refuted JAK’s point..that various religious denominations, sects, and cults claim that their doctrines are the true doctrines? And if, as is the case, various religious denominations all claim true doctrine which are in conflict with each..then logically they can not all be correct, only one. Further if one investigates how each group arrives at their doctrines invariably it is found the evidence is suspect at best. So it’s really irrelevant to the point JAK was making that CC is not impressed with Karen as a scholar. I think given her extensive writing in the areas of religion she is qualified at the very least to detail doctrines of various religious groups. I should hope you agree with that about her.

KA has in recent writings portrayed a version of Islam which in my opinion is at variance with the facts.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c ... 121902.asp

[_JAK]

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?

Gad, CC has completely lost this argument and it’s one of the reasons he’s focusing on personal attacks on JAK instead addressing JAK’s words with a reasoned argument.

It’s really not fair to JAK that your adding tangents, which essentially seem to me to be for harassment purposes..

Let’s look at how this Karen Armstrong issue evolved, which you keep going on and on about.

CC: Without formal logic 'anything goes,' which is not acceptable to me.

JAK: But in religion, anything does go. The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong details some of the details which allow religious denominations, sects, and cults to claim that their doctrines are the true doctrines.

And CC’s response: I am not impressed with Karen Armstrong; she is a popular, not a serious, scholar.

So I ask you has CC refuted JAK’s point..that various religious denominations, sects, and cults claim that their doctrines are the true doctrines? And if, as is the case, various religious denominations all claim true doctrine which are in conflict with each..then logically they can not all be correct, only one. Further if one investigates how each group arrives at their doctrines invariably it is found the evidence is suspect at best. So it’s really irrelevant to the point JAK was making that CC is not impressed with Karen as a scholar. I think given her extensive writing in the areas of religion she is qualified at the very least to detail doctrines of various religious groups. I should hope you agree with that about her.

KA has in recent writings portrayed a version of Islam which in my opinion is at variance with the facts.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c ... 121902.asp

richardMdBorn stated:
KA has in recent writings portrayed a version of Islam which in my opinion is at variance with the facts.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c ... 121902.asp


By any objective measure, the National Review is a right-wing, partisan publication. Considering the total number of books KA has written and her status among academics, in what way are you qualified to evaluate her discussions of Islam?

I’m skeptical.

The National Review was founded by arch conservative William F. Buckley and presents conservative views on world subjects. Buckley was a member of The Order of Skull and Bones. It has historically been a very secretive club because of its far right positions. It included George H.W. Bush decades ago.

That the National Review is critical of Karen Armstrong is a compliment to her. The conservatism of the National Review is a philosophy. The likes of Larry Kudlow parroted every false claim of the George W. Bush administration on Iraq beginning with the weapons of mass destruction right to the present.

It’s understandable that such a publication would oppose any rational, thoughtful, academic approach. Today, with expanded and expanding information, right-wing ideologues must pound the table and excrete dogma to counter open, transparent, objective reporting and analysis. Currently, Larry Kudlow (with his own history of psychiatric problems) carries the banner of the right-wing for the National Review.

Previously I listed works of Karen Armstrong:

Through The Narrow Gate (2005) Karen Armstrong
A History of God (1993) Karen Armstrong
The Great Transformation (2007) Karen Armstrong
The Battle for God (2000) Karen Armstrong

Let me just list these and others in a more complete list.

Books by Karen Armstrong
· The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions (2006)
· Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time (2006)
· A Short History of Myth (2005)
· The Spiral Staircase (2004)
· Faith After September 11th (2002)
· The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (2000)
· Buddha (2000)
· Islam: A Short History (2000)
· In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis (1996)
· Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths (1996)
· A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (1993)
· The End of Silence: Women and the Priesthood (1993)
· The English Mystics of the Fourteenth Century (1991)
· Muhammad: a Biography of the Prophet (1991)
· Holy War (1988)
· The Gospel According to Woman: Christianity's Creation of the Sex War in the West (1986)
· Tongues of Fire: An Anthology of Religious and Poetic Experience (1985)
· Beginning the World (1983)
· The First Christian: Saint Paul's Impact on Christianity (1983)
· Through the Narrow Gate (1982)

And richardMdBorn wrote:
KA (Karen Armstrong) strikes me as worse than superficial.

Public Broadcasting Host BILL MOYERS on Karen Armstrong: She was a spark plug in my PBS series on Genesis, her books are best sellers, "The History of God", "The Battle for God", "Jerusalem". She's written a biography of Buddha, and a short history of Islam. Soon we'll have her new memoir of her life after the convent where she spent seven years as a nun. Joining me now is one of the world's foremost students of religion, Karen Armstrong.

My reference to this author was to demonstrate with evidence that Armstrong’s status is as Bill Moyers characterized her: “one of the world’s foremost students of religion.”

It was a response to one-liner attacks on Armstrong absent evidence. It was not to address the problematic issues inherent in “modal logics.” I have addressed those elsewhere.

JAK

[_JAK]

Marg,

Where are my "ad hominems"? I never insult people and only have an interest in serious intellectual discussions.

My post was directed to CC, I quoted him.

I think I've explained my position fairly well. It's not my fault, today, 8/27/2007 is the first day JAK ever heard of modal logic, went on to Google up a storm, and then posted one heck of a disjointed analysis that frankly, made almost no sense whatsoever. Did you make sense of it? I'm a little curious.

I've followed, and agreed with every single one of JAK's posts. But you are talking as if you and CC are one and the same person, that I don't understand. JAK has presented his argument, what don't you agree with?

I don't know what Godel's personal beliefs were about God, I've heard that he did believe in God but as to anything remotely approaching the Christian God, who knows, maybe JAK can do some google searches and tell us. Godel's main comittment was platonism for sure, as is the case for many mathematicians who are realists about their profession, and that's evident in his most famous contribution that I'm sure you and JAK are intimately familiar with. As for the Ontological Argument on its own, even if true, it doesn't tell us very much. But let's be clear on a few things:

1) the Ontological argument existed long before "modal logic" so JAK's list of sources hoping to show that there isn't agreement on formalizing modal logic is only slightly more interesting than the fact that there is no exhaustive formal list of rules for writing in English and one may, write in English, on many different topics, just like one can use modal logic to pursue many things other than the Ontological Argument which most philosphers today probably have little interest in.
2) modal logic could at least potentially tell us many things about the world without "emperical evidence". There are those on the ultra skeptical side about that like say, Daniel Dennett, but he holds a very minority view and plenty of atheists comitted to a purely physical and natural world, as an example for the other side of the extreme, David Lewis (who was a modal realist, which is possibly even more extreme than being a Platonist), make strong arguments about the way the world is using modal logic without actually engaging any "evidence". So you can shout all you like about the need for emperical evidence, and I sure do like evidence myself, but all the emperical evidence in the world isn't going to tell you whether numbers are real or not, or whether moral statements are real. "God" in theism reasoned from ontology, similarily, isn't something emperical evidence will ever say much about.

I don't think JAK has been critical of modal logic. I think he has been critical of the argument given by CC that one can use Godel's ontological argument using modal logic to justify there is logical proof of God's existence. Modal logic may be useful, I've got no qualms with that and I doubt JAK does either. The problem is with how someone uses it. If one is going to set up a definition and assume axioms and then use that closed system/game whatever you want to call it, to say something about the actual world, there has to be some link to the actual world to warrant doing that. You say "God in theism reasoned from ontology, similarily, isn't something emperical evidence will ever say much about." Well that's fine but then one should be clear and honest about the limitations of what an ontological argument regarding a God concept can say. It can not say, it has logical proof of the existence of an actual God.

3) sorry, but JAK has not, nor will he ever find a simple logical fallacy in Godel's thinking, no matter what Godel was thinking about.

Yes but Godel's logic is a closed system. I'm sure JAK appreciates that if one wants to restrict one's reasoning to such a closed reasoning system, it is limited to what information can be derived from it with regards to the actual world we live in.

marg’s analysis:

I would be remiss not to recognize that you are reading me correctly and that your additions and analysis are correct as well.

To pick up on one point from you (Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:17 pm):

marg stated:
Yes but Godel's logic is a closed system. I'm sure JAK appreciates that if one wants to restrict one's reasoning to such a closed reasoning system, it is limited to what information can be derived from it with regards to the actual world we live in.

A primary reason that modal logics is referred to in academic circles with an s being added to the word logic is for the very observation you make here. Such constructs are closed. And, as I identified, they make assumptions which must be included or their constructions disintegrate.

You will recall in CC’s posting for Gödel,
“Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive”

Prior to that Gödel creates his own definitions:
“Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive”

(These are as posted by CC previously.)

As you, marg, correctly observed, we have a “closed reasoning system...”

God is assumed in both the definition and the axiom.

Yet CC attempted to say that Gödel proved God. Of course Gödel did nothing of the kind. Hence, in “model logics” we are confined by claims which ignore that which is not within the “closed __ system” as you astutely recognized.

I’m sure you recognize (as you imply) that reasoning is actually removed by constraints of a closed system.

In the listing CC provided, many questions which could/should be asked are precluded by definition and axiom making them off limits.

In “Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive,” we have insurmountable begging of question.

In addition to the assumptions, we also have no definition of “positive.” Is there universal agreement on what is positive? There is not.

“Essential properties” assumes there are unessential “properties. Otherwise, why use the word. Why not say “properties”?

“Essential” is not clarified and therefore not known.

If we are to have “only those properties which are positive,” we require detailed analysis of what qualifies and what is disqualified. Secondarily, we need consensus on conclusions regarding that.

Now the definition reduces all of these unknowns to “x”. So while we appear to be setting up for a form of deductive argument, in fact, we have no clarity for “x”.

Absent clarity & transparency for definition 1, building upon that also lacks clarity & transparency.

JAK