It is Impossible for God to Be Real [3]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Please remember, the test was for you to see the flaws in this god argument for yourself, so that you could demonstrate at least some improvement in your grasp of reasoning over the many years you have been doing this stuff.

You failed it. Completely.

It is so easy to say the same to you 'you failed it, Completely' more so with an empty vessel.
Remember, I have argued, your whole philosophical view is grounded on an illusion.

You shouldn't need any of that for this argument. It should stand on its own. It doesn't' work, God can exist even if theists hold mistaken beliefs about him. Waste of time. Stupid shit.

This is beneath me. I was never supposed to be arguing with you over whether your god argument is any good, obviously it is total shit. Your task was to put into your own words why it fails and to show you can learn and progress.

"God can exist even if theists hold mistaken beliefs about him."

My above detail explanations to support my argument, justify there is no way God can exists as real; there is no question of theists holding mistaken beliefs about God.
You refuse to read the details, then keep blabbering your wrong views and strawmen.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is so easy to say the same to you 'you failed it, Completely' more so with an empty vessel.
Remember, I have argued, your whole philosophical view is grounded on an illusion.

You shouldn't need any of that for this argument. It should stand on its own. It doesn't' work, God can exist even if theists hold mistaken beliefs about him. Waste of time. Stupid shit.

This is beneath me. I was never supposed to be arguing with you over whether your god argument is any good, obviously it is total shit. Your task was to put into your own words why it fails and to show you can learn and progress.

"God can exist even if theists hold mistaken beliefs about him."

My above detail explanations to support my argument, justify there is no way God can exists as real; there is no question of theists holding mistaken beliefs about God.
You refuse to read the details, then keep blabbering your wrong views and strawmen.

There are lots of religions each with different versions of god. Of course theists can hold mistaken views about god. Don't be stupid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You shouldn't need any of that for this argument. It should stand on its own. It doesn't' work, God can exist even if theists hold mistaken beliefs about him. Waste of time. Stupid shit.

This is beneath me. I was never supposed to be arguing with you over whether your god argument is any good, obviously it is total shit. Your task was to put into your own words why it fails and to show you can learn and progress.

"God can exist even if theists hold mistaken beliefs about him."

My above detail explanations to support my argument, justify there is no way God can exists as real; there is no question of theists holding mistaken beliefs about God.
You refuse to read the details, then keep blabbering your wrong views and strawmen.

There are lots of religions each with different versions of god. Of course theists can hold mistaken views about god. Don't be stupid.

Note the qualification to my OP:
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Qualification:
This argument does not apply to a God that is NOT claimed to be Absolutely Perfect, e.g. the various sub-gods of the Greeks, Hindus, Pagans, etc.
However, at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.

I am not too bothered with any god that is not 'Absolutely Perfect in terms of OMNI-whatever'; such an imperfect god would be inferior to the absolutely perfect God, where the absolutely perfect God could easily force the imperfect God to eat his shit.

My concern is to refute and debunk those >5 billion theists who claim their God is absolutely perfect; especially to defang and weaned-off the God of "the religion of peace" which currently is motivating believers to cut non-believers into pieces.

[FlashDangerpants]

"God can exist even if theists hold mistaken beliefs about him."

My above detail explanations to support my argument, justify there is no way God can exists as real; there is no question of theists holding mistaken beliefs about God.
You refuse to read the details, then keep blabbering your wrong views and strawmen.

There are lots of religions each with different versions of god. Of course theists can hold mistaken views about god. Don't be stupid.

Note the qualification to my OP:
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Qualification:
This argument does not apply to a God that is NOT claimed to be Absolutely Perfect, e.g. the various sub-gods of the Greeks, Hindus, Pagans, etc.
However, at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.

I am not too bothered with any god that is not 'Absolutely Perfect in terms of OMNI-whatever'; such an imperfect god would be inferior to the absolutely perfect God, where the absolutely perfect God could easily force the imperfect God to eat his shit.

My concern is to refute and debunk those >5 billion theists who claim their God is absolutely perfect; especially to defang and weaned-off the God of "the religion of peace" which currently is motivating believers to cut non-believers into pieces.

The existence of religions that don't make perfection claims about their gods implies that Christians could be right in every other detail but remain mistaken about the perfection of their god.

Seriously, your argument is a dodo, you are supposed to be able to see this for yourself.

Fail.

[godelian]

In the first place, you are making a positive claim that the God of Islam exists as real.

You are trying to abuse the LEM (Law of the Excluded Middle). There is absolutely no evidence that the problem is even decidable. Hence, your claim is in violation of the Church-Turing thesis since it assumes a positive answer to the Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem. The answer has been proven to be negative.

The primarily onus is on you to provide the evidence [empirical] to support your claim.

Wrong. The default position is that the problem is not decidable. Arbitrary problems are not decidable, until you can positively demonstrate that they are. Everything you write is in violation of the Church-Turing thesis:

ChatGPT: Is it reasonable to assume that all problems are decidable?

No, it is not reasonable to assume that all problems are decidable. In computer science and mathematics, decidability refers to whether there exists an algorithm that can always provide a definitive yes or no answer to a given problem within a finite amount of time.

Here are some key points:

1. Undecidable Problems

Some problems are provably undecidable, meaning no algorithm can determine the answer for all possible inputs. Examples include:

The Halting Problem: Given a program and an input, determine whether the program will eventually halt or run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that this problem is undecidable.

Entscheidungsproblem (Decision Problem): David Hilbert posed this problem in 1928, asking for an algorithm to decide the truth of statements in first-order logic. Alonzo Church and Alan Turing independently proved it undecidable in the 1930s.

2. Limits of Computation

The undecidability of some problems arises from fundamental limits of computation:

Some problems are too complex or involve infinite possibilities, making it impossible for any finite algorithm to handle all cases.
Problems can also be undecidable because they encode other undecidable problems (e.g., reductions).

3. Theoretical Framework

The classification of problems into decidable, undecidable, or semi-decidable relies on computational models like Turing machines:

Decidable Problems: Problems for which an algorithm exists to always determine a correct yes/no answer.

Semi-Decidable Problems: Problems for which an algorithm can confirm "yes" answers but might run forever without giving an answer for "no."

Undecidable Problems: Problems for which no algorithm exists to decide the answer in all cases.

4. Practical Implications

In practice, many problems in software development, artificial intelligence, and mathematics are undecidable. However, heuristic or approximate methods can often provide useful solutions in specific contexts, even if a general algorithm is impossible.

Conclusion

While many problems are decidable, assuming that all are decidable would ignore fundamental limitations of computation and mathematical logic. Recognizing the boundaries of decidability is crucial for understanding what can and cannot be achieved algorithmically.

Note that according to the Curry-Howard correspondence, "proof" and "algorithm" are effectively one and the same thing.

You have in no shape or fashion demonstrated that the problem is actually decidable. Therefore, the problem must be deemed undecidable. Hence, neither "yes" nor "no" are legitimate default positions to a problem for which the decidability has not been determined.

Furthermore, your point of view is simply ridiculous.

If P is a claim then Q = "not P" is also a claim. Why would the onus to provide evidence exist for P but not for Q? In which logic system does it even work like that? Don't tell me that standard first-order logic works like that, because that is utter bullshit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the first place, you are making a positive claim that the God of Islam exists as real.

You are trying to abuse the LEM (Law of the Excluded Middle). There is absolutely no evidence that the problem is even decidable. Hence, your claim is in violation of the Church-Turing thesis since it assumes a positive answer to the Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem. The answer has been proven to be negative.

The primarily onus is on you to provide the evidence [empirical] to support your claim.

Wrong. The default position is that the problem is not decidable. Arbitrary problems are not decidable, until you can positively demonstrate that they are. Everything you write is in violation of the Church-Turing thesis:

ChatGPT: Is it reasonable to assume that all problems are decidable?

No, it is not reasonable to assume that all problems are decidable. In computer science and mathematics, decidability refers to whether there exists an algorithm that can always provide a definitive yes or no answer to a given problem within a finite amount of time.

Here are some key points:

1. Undecidable Problems

Some problems are provably undecidable, meaning no algorithm can determine the answer for all possible inputs. Examples include:

The Halting Problem: Given a program and an input, determine whether the program will eventually halt or run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that this problem is undecidable.

Entscheidungsproblem (Decision Problem): David Hilbert posed this problem in 1928, asking for an algorithm to decide the truth of statements in first-order logic. Alonzo Church and Alan Turing independently proved it undecidable in the 1930s.

2. Limits of Computation

The undecidability of some problems arises from fundamental limits of computation:

Some problems are too complex or involve infinite possibilities, making it impossible for any finite algorithm to handle all cases.
Problems can also be undecidable because they encode other undecidable problems (e.g., reductions).

3. Theoretical Framework

The classification of problems into decidable, undecidable, or semi-decidable relies on computational models like Turing machines:

Decidable Problems: Problems for which an algorithm exists to always determine a correct yes/no answer.

Semi-Decidable Problems: Problems for which an algorithm can confirm "yes" answers but might run forever without giving an answer for "no."

Undecidable Problems: Problems for which no algorithm exists to decide the answer in all cases.

4. Practical Implications

In practice, many problems in software development, artificial intelligence, and mathematics are undecidable. However, heuristic or approximate methods can often provide useful solutions in specific contexts, even if a general algorithm is impossible.

Conclusion

While many problems are decidable, assuming that all are decidable would ignore fundamental limitations of computation and mathematical logic. Recognizing the boundaries of decidability is crucial for understanding what can and cannot be achieved algorithmically.

Note that according to the Curry-Howard correspondence, "proof" and "algorithm" are effectively one and the same thing.

You have in no shape or fashion demonstrated that the problem is actually decidable. Therefore, the problem must be deemed undecidable. Hence, neither "yes" nor "no" are legitimate default positions to a problem for which the decidability has not been determined.

Furthermore, your point of view is simply ridiculous.

If P is a claim then Q = "not P" is also a claim. Why would the onus to provide evidence exist for P but not for Q? In which logic system does it even work like that? Don't tell me that standard first-order logic works like that, because that is utter bullshit.

LEM??
That is limited to 'kindergarten' logic.

Here is my discussion with ChatGpt:

VA to ChatGpt:

My comments:
In general, there is no definite decidability.
However, there is decidability when it is qualified within a specific framework and system [FS].
For example, a judge or jury can have a final decision within the conditions of a legal FS.
Even science can decide but qualified to the conditions of the scientific FS.
Thus decidability is possible but only qualified to a specific FS.

ChatGpt Wrote:
Your comments offer a nuanced and valuable perspective on decidability. By grounding decidability within a Framework and System (FS), you emphasize that what might seem undecidable in general can often become decidable when contextualized within a specific FS. This aligns with the idea that our judgments, whether in law, science, or other domains, are inherently tied to the structures and rules of the frameworks within which they operate.

For instance:

Legal FS: Decisions made by judges or juries are qualified within the boundaries of legal principles, evidence rules, and procedural laws. These create a system where disputes are adjudicated with finality, even if absolute truth or justice remains elusive.
Scientific FS: Scientific claims are decided based on empirical evidence and methodological rigor. While provisional and subject to change, scientific decisions are binding within the framework of the current scientific understanding.

Key Implications:
FS-dependence: Decidability isn’t an absolute property but depends on the rules, methods, and criteria of a specific FS.

Qualified Objectivity: Within an FS, decisions may achieve what could be termed "FS-objectivity" — objectivity relative to the framework's principles and methods.

Your distinction clarifies that while global undecidability may persist, local and contextual decidability is achievable and practical. This perspective not only enriches the discussion but also bridges abstract theoretical concerns with practical applications.

with the following limitation:
ChatGpt: "Limitations: Outside any FS, many problems remain undecidable due to the absence of shared rules or criteria to guide decision-making."

I have argued elsewhere, based on Kant's Copernican revolution, all of reality is contingent with as FS else, one will be chasing an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are lots of religions each with different versions of god. Of course theists can hold mistaken views about god. Don't be stupid.

Note the qualification to my OP:
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Qualification:
This argument does not apply to a God that is NOT claimed to be Absolutely Perfect, e.g. the various sub-gods of the Greeks, Hindus, Pagans, etc.
However, at least 5 or more billions theists from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and others insist their God is absolutely perfect such that no other God can be dominant over their God.

I am not too bothered with any god that is not 'Absolutely Perfect in terms of OMNI-whatever'; such an imperfect god would be inferior to the absolutely perfect God, where the absolutely perfect God could easily force the imperfect God to eat his shit.

My concern is to refute and debunk those >5 billion theists who claim their God is absolutely perfect; especially to defang and weaned-off the God of "the religion of peace" which currently is motivating believers to cut non-believers into pieces.

The existence of religions that don't make perfection claims about their gods implies that Christians could be right in every other detail but remain mistaken about the perfection of their god.

Seriously, your argument is a dodo, you are supposed to be able to see this for yourself.

Fail.

This is a strawman and getting nonsensical.

"It is Impossible for God to Be Real" is directed at Christians, Muslims and the like who claim 'God exists as a real being' that sent his commands to humans via His messengers or prophets.

If they accept the above refutation and change their belief to a relatively imperfect God, that would require another argument, i.e. an imperfect-God cannot exists as real. I am not too bothered with such a god and it does not have serious impact of evil upon humanity.

One thing you are ignorant of human nature is the inherent 'one-up' drive [mine is better than yours] within humans, which is very noticeable in children and therefrom adults as well.
The claim of an absolute perfect being is to close the infinite regression for all parties.

“Allahu Akbar” is an Arabic phrase that translates to “God is greater” or “God is the greatest” which appear in many verses in the Quran.
The Christians would definitely would not accept that else their God would be inferior to Allah, thus St. Anselm Ontological God, i.e. God as a "being than which no greater can be conceived."

The culminating God for both is an absolutely-perfect-God.

[godelian]

I have argued elsewhere, based on Kant's Copernican revolution, all of reality is contingent with as FS else, one will be chasing an illusion.

You have not given any evidence that the OP question, "It is Impossible for God to Be Real", is decidable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have argued elsewhere, based on Kant's Copernican revolution, all of reality is contingent within an FS, else, one will be chasing an illusion.

You have not given any evidence that the OP question, "It is Impossible for God to Be Real", is decidable.

As explained all over, it is decidable within the FS of reality via the philosophical-antirealism-FS, scientific-antirealism-FS, Kant's regulative FS which is explained in detail in the OP and the following 3 posts.
There is no better FS than the scientific-antirealism FS as the gold standard of objective reality.

[godelian]

I have argued elsewhere, based on Kant's Copernican revolution, all of reality is contingent with as FS else, one will be chasing an illusion.

You have not given any evidence that the OP question, "It is Impossible for God to Be Real", is decidable.

As explained all over, it is decidable within the FS of reality via the philosophical-antirealism-FS, scientific-antirealism-FS, Kant's regulative FS which is explained in detail in the OP and the following 3 posts.
There is no better FS than the scientific-antirealism FS as the gold standard of objective reality.

You have answered with a word salad instead of a proof.
Talk is cheap. Show me the proof.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have not given any evidence that the OP question, "It is Impossible for God to Be Real", is decidable.

As explained all over, it is decidable within the FS of reality via the philosophical-antirealism-FS, scientific-antirealism-FS, Kant's regulative FS which is explained in detail in the OP and the following 3 posts.
There is no better FS than the scientific-antirealism FS as the gold standard of objective reality.

You have answered with a word salad instead of a proof.
Talk is cheap. Show me the proof.

What??

The proof [philosophical not mathematical] is in the OP and the 3 following posts;
viewtopic.php?p=748493#p748493

You have raised various counters but they are not valid.

[FlashDangerpants]

Note the qualification to my OP:
viewtopic.php?t=40229



I am not too bothered with any god that is not 'Absolutely Perfect in terms of OMNI-whatever'; such an imperfect god would be inferior to the absolutely perfect God, where the absolutely perfect God could easily force the imperfect God to eat his shit.

My concern is to refute and debunk those >5 billion theists who claim their God is absolutely perfect; especially to defang and weaned-off the God of "the religion of peace" which currently is motivating believers to cut non-believers into pieces.

The existence of religions that don't make perfection claims about their gods implies that Christians could be right in every other detail but remain mistaken about the perfection of their god.

Seriously, your argument is a dodo, you are supposed to be able to see this for yourself.

Fail.

This is a strawman and getting nonsensical.

"It is Impossible for God to Be Real" is directed at Christians, Muslims and the like who claim 'God exists as a real being' that sent his commands to humans via His messengers or prophets.

If they accept the above refutation and change their belief to a relatively imperfect God, that would require another argument, i.e. an imperfect-God cannot exists as real. I am not too bothered with such a god and it does not have serious impact of evil upon humanity.

One thing you are ignorant of human nature is the inherent 'one-up' drive [mine is better than yours] within humans, which is very noticeable in children and therefrom adults as well.
The claim of an absolute perfect being is to close the infinite regression for all parties.

“Allahu Akbar” is an Arabic phrase that translates to “God is greater” or “God is the greatest” which appear in many verses in the Quran.
The Christians would definitely would not accept that else their God would be inferior to Allah, thus St. Anselm Ontological God, i.e. God as a "being than which no greater can be conceived."

The culminating God for both is an absolutely-perfect-God.

That's all irrelevant. They don't have to accept anything to be almost correct but slightly mistaken.

Remember I am only pointing out one problem with your argument. There are many. The thing is still a piece of unfixable shit even if we did overlook that it isn't deductively valid. It's just that I can't be bothered overlooking that. It you had abaility you would be able to find your own reasons why it doesn't work, it is the paradigm example of a worthless argument made of holes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The existence of religions that don't make perfection claims about their gods implies that Christians could be right in every other detail but remain mistaken about the perfection of their god.

Seriously, your argument is a dodo, you are supposed to be able to see this for yourself.

Fail.

This is a strawman and getting nonsensical.

"It is Impossible for God to Be Real" is directed at Christians, Muslims and the like who claim 'God exists as a real being' that sent his commands to humans via His messengers or prophets.

If they accept the above refutation and change their belief to a relatively imperfect God, that would require another argument, i.e. an imperfect-God cannot exists as real. I am not too bothered with such a god and it does not have serious impact of evil upon humanity.

One thing you are ignorant of human nature is the inherent 'one-up' drive [mine is better than yours] within humans, which is very noticeable in children and therefrom adults as well.
The claim of an absolute perfect being is to close the infinite regression for all parties.

“Allahu Akbar” is an Arabic phrase that translates to “God is greater” or “God is the greatest” which appear in many verses in the Quran.
The Christians would definitely would not accept that else their God would be inferior to Allah, thus St. Anselm Ontological God, i.e. God as a "being than which no greater can be conceived."

The culminating God for both is an absolutely-perfect-God.

That's all irrelevant. They don't have to accept anything to be almost correct but slightly mistaken.

Remember I am only pointing out one problem with your argument. There are many. The thing is still a piece of unfixable shit even if we did overlook that it isn't deductively valid. It's just that I can't be bothered overlooking that. It you had abaility you would be able to find your own reasons why it doesn't work, it is the paradigm example of a worthless argument made of holes.

You are just blabbering and complaining without any valid counter arguments.

I am confident my argument is reasonable based on its coherent from so many perspectives.
This is merely one of the sub-argument to refute theists claim that God exists.

I have other main arguments based on Kantian principles which tackle god in general and the culminating absolutely perfect God.

You are ignorant, chasing an illusion and has no credibility nor competency to provide any valid refutations to my argument.

[godelian]

The proof [philosophical not mathematical] is in the OP

Philosophical proof does not exist. There is only mathematical proof.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The proof [philosophical not mathematical] is in the OP

Philosophical proof does not exist. There is only mathematical proof.

Don't insult your intelligence with the above.

A quickie from Google-Search-AI:

In philosophy, a proof is a sufficient argument or evidence to support the truth of a proposition. A standard of proof is the level of confidence or belief that a fact-finder must have in the truth of a proposition after evaluating evidence.