It is Impossible for God to Be Real [3]

[Gary Childress]

The proof [philosophical not mathematical] is in the OP

There is only mathematical proof.

There is also logical proof and empirical proof.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

I don't really care for any more of this bullshit. You have failed the test, it was always going to go that way. Maybe we'll try again in a couple of years and see if you have made any progress by then.

[godelian]

The proof [philosophical not mathematical] is in the OP

There is only mathematical proof.

There is also logical proof and empirical proof.

Logical proof is a subset of mathematical proof. There is no empirical proof. There is only empirical evidence.

[Gary Childress]

There is only mathematical proof.

There is also logical proof and empirical proof.

Logical proof is a subset of mathematical proof. There is no empirical proof. There is only empirical evidence.

Technically, there can be logical "proof" that something is the case and there can be empirical "proof" that something is the case. In what way is logic a "subset" of math?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is only mathematical proof.

There is also logical proof and empirical proof.

Logical proof is a subset of mathematical proof. There is no empirical proof. There is only empirical evidence.

Here is a quickie from Google-Search-AI:

Empirical proof, or empirical evidence, is information that is gathered through observation or experimentation and is used to support or disprove a hypothesis or claim. It is a key part of the scientific method and is also used in other fields, such as epistemology and law.

The point is 'prove' and 'proof' are common words and there is a need to specify the context to avoid confusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I don't really care for any more of this bullshit. You have failed the test, it was always going to go that way. Maybe we'll try again in a couple of years and see if you have made any progress by then.

Don't be that arrogant when your philosophical views are grounded on an illusion.

[godelian]

Technically, there can be logical "proof" that something is the case and there can be empirical "proof" that something is the case.

"Proof" only exists about abstract, Platonic objects. It does not exist about the physical universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)

A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition.

There is no incontrovertible evidence possible for a claim about the physical universe. It cannot be done.

In what way is logic a "subset" of math?

Propositional logic is an axiomatic system. The rule for "what is math" is rather simple. If you can axiomatize the system, then it is math.

ChatGPT: Axioms of propositional calculus

The axioms of propositional calculus are formal statements that define the logical foundation for reasoning in this system. These axioms are chosen to be minimal and sufficient to derive all valid formulas (theorems) in propositional logic. Below is a common set of axioms used in Hilbert-style systems of propositional calculus.

Common Axioms of Propositional Calculus

Axiom 1 (Implication Introduction):
A→(B→A)

This expresses that any proposition A implies that B implies A.

Axiom 2 (Transitivity of Implication):
(A→(B→C))→((A→B)→(A→C))

This expresses the transitivity of implication: if A implies B→C, and A→B, then A→C.

Axiom 3 (Contraposition):
(¬A→¬B)→((¬A→B)→A)

This axiom governs the behavior of negation and implication.

Additional Logical Axioms (Optional)

While the three axioms above form a common minimal set, additional axioms can be included depending on the desired formalism:

Axiom for Negation:
A∨¬A

(Law of excluded middle) – This states that a proposition is either true or its negation is true.

Axioms for Conjunction and Disjunction:
A∧B→A
A∧B→B
A→(B→(A∧B))
A→(A∨B)
B→(A∨B)
(A→C)→((B→C)→((A∨B)→C))

Inference Rule: Modus Ponens

The single inference rule in a Hilbert-style propositional calculus is Modus Ponens:

If A and A→B are true, then B is true.

Notes

Minimality: The axioms are designed to be as minimal as possible while still allowing derivation of all valid formulas.

Soundness and Completeness: The axiomatic system ensures that every derived formula is logically valid (soundness) and every valid formula can be derived (completeness).

Variants: Different sets of axioms can be used, but they are often interderivable, meaning they lead to the same theorems.

ChatGPT: first-order logic as an axiomatic system

First-order logic (FOL) as an axiomatic system builds on the framework of propositional logic by introducing quantifiers, predicates, and variables. It provides a formal foundation for reasoning about objects and their relationships. An axiomatic system for FOL includes axioms for both propositional logic and the additional elements of first-order logic.

Key Elements of First-Order Logic as an Axiomatic System
...

[godelian]

Empirical proof, or empirical evidence, is information that is gathered through observation or experimentation and is used to support or disprove a hypothesis or claim. It is a key part of the scientific method and is also used in other fields, such as epistemology and law.

The point is 'prove' and 'proof' are common words and there is a need to specify the context to avoid confusion.

There is no "proof" in science:

ChatGPT: Can science provide incontrovertible proof?

In science, the idea of "incontrovertible proof" is not typically a goal, as the nature of scientific inquiry is inherently open to revision and updates based on new evidence. Science is not concerned with proving something in an absolute, unchangeable sense, but rather with gathering evidence that strongly supports or contradicts hypotheses, and refining theories over time based on this evidence.
...
In short, science provides extremely strong support for certain theories, but it doesn’t aim for absolute, incontrovertible proof. Instead, it builds an evolving understanding of the natural world, always ready to adapt when new, credible evidence emerges.

It is absolutely not recommended to use the term "proof" in the context of science, because it does not even exist:

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

The Logic of Science. Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing.

Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”

In spite of all the literature warning not to use the term "proof" in the context of science, there are still lots of people doing that anyway. They usually do that to spread their misconceptions about science.

[godelian]

There is also logical proof and empirical proof.

Logic is a subdivision of math.

Incontrovertible proof does not exist anywhere outside math:

Proof is meant to be always incontrovertible but I still have to add the qualifier "incontrovertible" because lots of people use the term "proof" for evidence that is not incontrovertible at all:

ChatGPT: Does incontrovertible proof exist in mathematics?

Yes, incontrovertible proof exists in mathematics.

ChatGPT: Does incontrovertible proof exist in science?

No, incontrovertible proof does not exist in science in the same way it does in mathematics.

ChatGPT: Does incontrovertible proof exist in philosophy?

Incontrovertible proof, as it exists in mathematics, does not typically exist in philosophy.

You cannot prove anything outside math. Everything else produces just evidence and never proof.

[Gary Childress]

There is also logical proof and empirical proof.

Logic is a subdivision of math.

Incontrovertible proof does not exist anywhere outside math:

Proof is meant to be always incontrovertible but I still have to add the qualifier "incontrovertible" because lots of people use the term "proof" for evidence that is not incontrovertible at all:

ChatGPT: Does incontrovertible proof exist in mathematics?

Yes, incontrovertible proof exists in mathematics.

ChatGPT: Does incontrovertible proof exist in science?

No, incontrovertible proof does not exist in science in the same way it does in mathematics.

ChatGPT: Does incontrovertible proof exist in philosophy?

Incontrovertible proof, as it exists in mathematics, does not typically exist in philosophy.

You cannot prove anything outside math. Everything else produces just evidence and never proof.

OK. Since you now qualify the term with the word "incontrovertible", that makes more sense.

[seeds]

If you, yourself, possessed a tiny smidgen of intellectual integrity and honesty, you would, at the very least, have admitted long ago that your little syllogism is perhaps a bit of an overreach when it comes to allegedly proving that God is an impossibility to be real,...

...for the only thing it "proves" (or implies/reveals) is that silly little humans can think or believe anything they wish, however, whatever it is they are thinking or believing might not have anything whatsoever to do with what is actually real or true.

At least you are attempting to counter my argument but unfortunately it is not thorough, nor rigor and fair.

You merely post my syllogism alone without the critical supporting explanations.

If you have more intellectual integrity and honesty you would have given the points raised OP and the 3 relevant posts after the OP.
Preferably you give AI the links to the OP and the next 3 posts, then ask for its comments.

OP: viewtopic.php?p=748493#p748493
Post 1: viewtopic.php?p=748495#p748495
Post 2: viewtopic.php?p=748496#p748496
Post 3: viewtopic.php?p=748499#p748499

Try giving AI the above links and ask for its comments based on whatever views you have.

You are something else.

You asked me to get AI involved in this discussion, and when I do by offering it your key syllogism that represents the very core of your argument,...

• P1. Theists claim, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real,
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real.
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist as real.

...you complain because I didn't torture ChatGPT's algorithms with multiple links to your supportive arguments.

Well, the fact of the matter is that I could have given ChatGPT every word you have ever uttered on this issue, and it still would not alter the fact that this...

"If the entire enterprise of the present state of humanity’s take on theism was to be proven false, it still would not be evidence (or proof) of the impossibility of God’s existence."

...will continue to stand as the ultimate and unassailable refutation of your claim.

I am talking about this claim...

"...It is Impossible for God to Be Real..."

...that is clearly and unambiguously presented in all of the OP titles of this ongoing series of threads that should have ended long ago.

However, you now have the gall to ask me to link ChatGPT to the OP of this present thread which you have - within the last few hours - sneakily edited to include the following "clarification" (in a tiny ["read the fine print"] font, no less)...

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.

...in an attempt to retroactively cover your egregiously over-reaching claim about God that everyone (especially ChatGPT) can see is flawed.

Btw, with that little "read the fine print" addendum, are you implying that you are open to the possibility that the Hindu, Greek, and Pagan gods exist as real?

Of course not!

You're just trying to divert attention away from your central and misleading error that you are now scrambling to correct.

Anyway, seeing how you have no problem with retroactively editing your posts to, again, sneakily give the impression that your interlocutor's subsequent counter arguments had been addressed in your OPs and earlier ("Notes: KIV") posts,...

...what you need to do is change all of your OP titles dedicated to this particular subject to read as follows...

"...It is Impossible for a "Perfect" God to Be Real..."

...in order to reflect what you "really meant" to *say.

*(But be sure to do it in a tiny font size so that nobody will notice the ol' switcheroo. )

Oh, and don't forget to also change your syllogism to this...

• P1. Many theists claim, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real.
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for a "perfect" God to exist as real.

All of this nonsense is just another instance of you proving to me that you are one of the most deceptive and dishonest denizens of a philosophy forum I have ever come across.

Indeed, it speaks volumes regarding the effect that reading and worshiping Kant has had on your morality.
_______

[godelian]

OK. Since you now qualify the term with the word "incontrovertible", that makes more sense.

Only "incontrovertible" evidence can be called "proof". Calling anything else "proof" constitutes abuse of terminology.

[Gary Childress]

OK. Since you now qualify the term with the word "incontrovertible", that makes more sense.

Only "incontrovertible" evidence can be called "proof". Calling anything else "proof" constitutes abuse of terminology.

Fair enough. So if 10 people witnesses a crime committed by X and they all testify in court that they saw X commit the crime, that is not "proof" of X's guilt?

[godelian]

Fair enough. So if 10 people witnesses a crime committed by X and they all testify in court that they saw X commit the crime, that is not "proof" of X's guilt?

No, it is not "proof", because you cannot exclude that the testimonies are still false, no matter how unlikely.

Only when the theoretical possibility for the claim to be false cannot exist, it is "proof".

There is no "proof" possible about the physical universe. No empirical data can ever constitute such proof.

In the case of X, he is guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt".

Of course, lots of people will still call the evidence against X "proof", because it is very solid, but that is abuse of terminology, because no matter how solid empirical evidence may be, it can never be incontrovertible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Preferably you give AI the links to the OP and the next 3 posts, then ask for its comments.

OP: viewtopic.php?p=748493#p748493
Post 1: viewtopic.php?p=748495#p748495
Post 2: viewtopic.php?p=748496#p748496
Post 3: viewtopic.php?p=748499#p748499

All of this nonsense is just another instance of you proving to me that you are one of the most deceptive and dishonest denizens of a philosophy forum I have ever come across.

Indeed, it speaks volumes regarding the effect that reading and worshiping Kant has had on your morality.

I have never presented merely my syllogism alone without the relevant supporting notes in the three threads.
That you merely presented my syllogism for ChatGpt to comment, confirmed "to me that you are one of the most deceptive and dishonest denizens of a philosophy forum I have ever come across."

Refer to my OP:

here is a discussion I have with AI on my argument,
It is Impossible for God to Be Real.
Previous OPs: Thread 1: Thread 2

In the above I referred to my discussion with AI on the said argument, surely whatever is discussed with AI is relevant to the argument. So the OP and the 3 posts are critical as contexts to the issue on hand.

I also linked my previous threads on the issue,
Thread 1[/url]: Thread 2 [/quote]

The qualification is not a new thing, it is included in Thread 2 [/quote].
In my first OP, there was a confusion where some theists claimed they do not insist their God is absolutely perfect, which I agree. So I raised a new thread-2 to confine the argument to theists who claim God is absolutely perfect which is related to the Abrahamic theists.

As for those who do not claimed their God is absolutely I have a separate argument for it.

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.
viewtopic.php?p=749557#p749557

For philosophy sake, it would be interesting for you to submit to 'your' ChatGpt my syllogism plus the comments by my ChatGpt [the 4 links] above and ask for your ChatGpt to comments.
It is easy, i.e. they are merely links which your ChatGpt could read easily.
I am very interested to read the comments from your ChatGpt.