Like when someone “proves” that a 3-omni god can’t exist, they’ve presumed certainty about what’s good and evil. That’s a hell of a feat in and of itself. On top of that they’ve only proven that a) they’ve constructed an impossible definition, or b) that 1 certain kind of god can’t exist.
…James will bully us all in his endeavour to make us believe otherwise… he takes all the joy out of things… maybe he’s a black hole, but on a planetary level.
James, you know that this post does not negate the problem that I pointed to, and you know just as well that I don’t need to know what angle of what argument you were making for my point to stand. Don’t even try this.
Quantities and functions of objects and relations between them doesn’t prove anything about anything outside the system in which they’re being considered. Godel knew this and so do you.
Let’s talk about symbols and referents on your side, and evidence contained in private mental states on his side. I mean, I technically think that you’re both wrong.
I am sure that you’re trying to get me to put something fourth, so that I can be at a rhetorical disadvantage as the one who’s forced to induct. You’re no Socrates James. I know these tricks.
Just tell me how you get from an abstract system to a concrete fact about the world without violating the distinction between symbols and referents.
You can draw all the diagrams that you want, and you can write out all the formulas in the world, and you can quantify everything under the sun and at the end of the day the proof as to whether there is or isn’t a god just simply doesn’t rest on those things.
I’ll take your “BS” remark as your concession. It’s 5am. Have something better for when I wake up. I don’t have to quote you, I know how you think and my statement stands on its own.