It is Impossible for God to Be Real [3]

[godelian]

There is no claim that Pythagoras' theorem is immutable till eternity; it is based on a consensus by fallible humans, there is no absolute certainty to it.

The term eternally [Pythagoras' theorem] definitely is not used in the same mode within the theistic framework.

You wrote some bullshit about Pythagoras' theorem. What you believe about it, is simply not true. You won't be able to retract that glaring error of yours with just another word salad. You managed to write a pile of nonsense about it. Just own your error!

[seeds]

And secondly, it is precisely for philosophy's sake that I am not going to torture ChatGPT's algorithms with your dubious defense of something that has already been thoroughly refuted and debunked - for the umpteenth time - by 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."

The above is a strawman.

No, little V, the above is a factual statement that completely pulls the rug out from under your argument.

In fact, if anything, it is your syllogism that is a strawman relative to the "real argument" as to whether or not God exists.

Indeed, the process of you erecting - and then knocking down - a "side argument" that is constructed from the notion that just because it is allegedly impossible for absolute perfection to exist as real, it therefore means that God is an impossibility to be real,...

...has provided the forum with a veritable masterclass example of what a failed strawman argument is all about.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

All Abrahamic theists must enter into a covenant with God where the terms of 'contract' are confined to the main holy texts.

You do not get to say what other people must do.
You do not get to provide advice or interpretation for a religion that is not even yours.
Your mentality is extremely irritating!

WHO ARE YOU to insist "You do not get to say what other people must do." you're God?

It make you very silly to impose the above points.
This is a Philosophy Forum where one can freely discuss whatever topic subject to the rules of this Forum.

The fact is you are ignorant of the substance of the Abrahamic religions.
Why are you complaining when I am presenting what is in the holy texts?
If you think it is wrong, provide your objections.

There is a serious subject of Covenantal Theology supporting the fact that all Christians are offered to enter into a covenant [divine contract] with God:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who have faith in Christ. God also promises the Holy Spirit to the elect to give them willingness and ability to believe.
...
The covenant of grace became the basis for all future covenants that God made with mankind such as with Noah (Genesis 6, 9), with Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 17), with Moses (Exodus 19–24), with David (2 Samuel 7), and finally in the New Covenant founded and fulfilled in Christ.

I have already given loads of supporting reference on the imperative covenant [mithaq, ahd] between Muslims and Allah.

Q7:172 And ˹remember˺ when your Lord brought forth from the loins of the children of Adam their descendants and had them testify regarding themselves. ˹Allah asked,˺ “Am I not your Lord?” They replied, “Yes, You are! We testify.” ˹He cautioned,˺ “Now you have no right to say on Judgment Day, ‘We were not aware of this.’

[Q13:20-23] Those who fulfil the covenant [biʿahdi] with God, and break not the compact {agreement} [l-mīthāqa];
who join what God has bidden to be joined; and dread their Lord and fear the evil reckoning;
who remain patient, craving their Lord's countenance; and perform the prayer; and
expend [in alms] of what We have provided them secretly and openly; and
ward off evil with good
—these shall have the recompense of the [eternal) abode, Gardens of Eden which they shall enter. (XIII, 20-23)

[Veritas Aequitas]

....

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no claim that Pythagoras' theorem is immutable till eternity; it is based on a consensus by fallible humans, there is no absolute certainty to it.

The term eternally [Pythagoras' theorem] definitely is not used in the same mode within the theistic framework.

You wrote some bullshit about Pythagoras' theorem. What you believe about it, is simply not true. You won't be able to retract that glaring error of yours with just another word salad. You managed to write a pile of nonsense about it. Just own your error!

Did you read the response from my ChatGpt to your ChatGpt in here,
viewtopic.php?p=750078#p750078

You are just making noises.
Provide counters to the response from my ChatGpt.
You can refer my ChatGpt response to your ChatGpt.

Btw, however you immaturedly described whatever I wrote as 'word-salad', your holy text is the worst kind of word salad. Here is one justification among many:
Absurdity in the Quran [521 verses]
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ ... _list.html

[Veritas Aequitas]

And secondly, it is precisely for philosophy's sake that I am not going to torture ChatGPT's algorithms with your dubious defense of something that has already been thoroughly refuted and debunked - for the umpteenth time - by 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."

The above is a strawman.

No, little V, the above is a factual statement that completely pulls the rug out from under your argument.

In fact, if anything, it is your syllogism that is a strawman relative to the "real argument" as to whether or not God exists.

Indeed, the process of you erecting - and then knocking down - a "side argument" that is constructed from the notion that just because it is allegedly impossible for absolute perfection to exist as real, it therefore means that God is an impossibility to be real,...

...has provided the forum with a veritable masterclass example of what a failed strawman argument is all about.
_______

Still giving silly excuses.
I started this thread, so I am well aware if your point is off target, i.e. a strawman.

Instead of merely referencing to the syllogism, you excluded the critical and relevant texts that support the syllogism and its conclusion.

I suggest you give the links provided above and ask 'your' ChatGpt to critique and comment. This is a very easy task. Don't be a coward on this.

To anyone:
Please post to your ChatGpt the following links and ask for its critique and 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

[godelian]

WHO ARE YOU to insist "You do not get to say what other people must do." you're God?

Why would you get to say what other people must do? Who are you?

[godelian]

There is no claim that Pythagoras' theorem is immutable till eternity; it is based on a consensus by fallible humans, there is no absolute certainty to it.

The term eternally [Pythagoras' theorem] definitely is not used in the same mode within the theistic framework.

You wrote some bullshit about Pythagoras' theorem. What you believe about it, is simply not true. You won't be able to retract that glaring error of yours with just another word salad. You managed to write a pile of nonsense about it. Just own your error!

Did you read the response from my ChatGpt to your ChatGpt in here,

Pythagoras: theorem will eternally be provable from classical Euclidean geometry, while everything you have said about this, has turned out to be mere bullshit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

WHO ARE YOU to insist "You do not get to say what other people must do." you're God?

Why would you get to say what other people must do? Who are you?

I told you already, this is a Philosophy Forum where any member can post whatever they like subject to the rules of this Forum.
Why is this fact so difficult to get into your head?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You wrote some bullshit about Pythagoras' theorem. What you believe about it, is simply not true. You won't be able to retract that glaring error of yours with just another word salad. You managed to write a pile of nonsense about it. Just own your error!

Did you read the response from my ChatGpt to your ChatGpt in here,

Pythagoras: theorem will eternally be provable from classical Euclidean geometry, while everything you have said about this, has turned out to be mere bullshit.

If ChatGpt support my view, there must be something to it.
The starting point of my view is about eternity within theism.

I suggested you post the response from my ChatGpt to your ChatGpt to ask why there is a difference.

[godelian]

WHO ARE YOU to insist "You do not get to say what other people must do." you're God?

Why would you get to say what other people must do? Who are you?

I told you already, this is a Philosophy Forum where any member can post whatever they like subject to the rules of this Forum.
Why is this fact so difficult to get into your head?

Well, by using a self-referential diagonalization it is indeed possible to prove the incompleteness of libertarian theory. This can actually be done with pretty much every non-trivial theory. So, yes, you can use libertarian theory itself to prove that you have the freedom to tell other people what to do, and turn libertarian theory against itself.

[godelian]

If ChatGpt support my view, there must be something to it.

ChatGPT does not support the following:

There is no claim that Pythagoras' theorem is immutable till eternity; it is based on a consensus by fallible humans, there is no absolute certainty to it.

It is just bullshit.

Pythagoras' theorem will forever be provable from classical Euclidean geometry. The fact that the foundations of Euclidean geometry are essentially arbitrary, does not change anything about that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why would you get to say what other people must do? Who are you?

I told you already, this is a Philosophy Forum where any member can post whatever they like subject to the rules of this Forum.
Why is this fact so difficult to get into your head?

Well, by using a self-referential diagonalization it is indeed possible to prove the incompleteness of libertarian theory. This can actually be done with pretty much every non-trivial theory. So, yes, you can use libertarian theory itself to prove that you have the freedom to tell other people what to do, and turn libertarian theory against itself.

So it will go on until the moderator, not you, said so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If ChatGpt support my view, there must be something to it.

ChatGPT does not support the following:

There is no claim that Pythagoras' theorem is immutable till eternity; it is based on a consensus by fallible humans, there is no absolute certainty to it.

It is just bullshit.

Pythagoras' theorem will forever be provable from classical Euclidean geometry. The fact that the foundations of Euclidean geometry are essentially arbitrary, does not change anything about that.

Yes, "Pythagoras' theorem will forever be provable from classical Euclidean geometry" only from the ambit of "classical Euclidean geometry" but it has nothing to do with the framework and context theism.

I stated within the ambit of the Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, whatever delivered by God is to last till eternity.

Then you bring in Pythagoras' theorem and Maths as a strawman to conflate with theism [the main point].

[godelian]

There is no claim that Pythagoras' theorem is immutable till eternity; it is based on a consensus by fallible humans, there is no absolute certainty to it.

Yes, "Pythagoras' theorem will forever be provable from classical Euclidean geometry"

As I have pointed out, your earlier claim on the matter was complete nonsense.