For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
There is also logical proof and empirical proof.godelian wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:24 amThere is only mathematical proof.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:01 am The proof [philosophical not mathematical] is in the OP
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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:24 amYou are just blabbering and complaining without any valid counter arguments.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:05 amThat's all irrelevant. They don't have to accept anything to be almost correct but slightly mistaken.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 5:28 am
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.
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.
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.
Logical proof is a subset of mathematical proof. There is no empirical proof. There is only empirical evidence.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:29 amThere is also logical proof and empirical proof.godelian wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:24 amThere is only mathematical proof.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:01 am The proof [philosophical not mathematical] is in the OP
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?godelian wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:38 amLogical 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:godelian wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:38 amLogical proof is a subset of mathematical proof. There is no empirical proof. There is only empirical evidence.
The point is 'prove' and 'proof' are common words and there is a need to specify the context to avoid confusion.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.
Don't be that arrogant when your philosophical views are grounded on an illusion.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:35 amI 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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:24 amYou are just blabbering and complaining without any valid counter arguments.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:05 am
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.
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.
"Proof" only exists about abstract, Platonic objects. It does not exist about the physical universe.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:47 am Technically, there can be logical "proof" that something is the case and there can be empirical "proof" that something is the case.
There is no incontrovertible evidence possible for a claim about the physical universe. It cannot be done.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)
A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition.
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
...
There is no "proof" in science:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:58 amThe point is 'prove' and 'proof' are common words and there is a need to specify the context to avoid confusion.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.
It is absolutely not recommended to use the term "proof" in the context of science, because it does not even exist: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.
Logic is a subdivision of math.
You cannot prove anything outside math. Everything else produces just evidence and never proof.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.
OK. Since you now qualify the term with the word "incontrovertible", that makes more sense.godelian wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:14 amLogic 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:
You cannot prove anything outside math. Everything else produces just evidence and never proof.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 are something else.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 3:13 amAt least you are attempting to counter my argument but unfortunately it is not thorough, nor rigor and fair.seeds wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 6:31 pm 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.
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 complain because I didn't torture ChatGPT's algorithms with multiple links to your supportive arguments.
- 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.
...will continue to stand as the ultimate and unassailable refutation of your claim."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."
...in an attempt to retroactively cover your egregiously over-reaching claim about God that everyone (especially ChatGPT) can see is flawed.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.
)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.
- 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.
Only "incontrovertible" evidence can be called "proof". Calling anything else "proof" constitutes abuse of terminology.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 2:03 pm OK. Since you now qualify the term with the word "incontrovertible", that makes more sense.
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 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:34 amOnly "incontrovertible" evidence can be called "proof". Calling anything else "proof" constitutes abuse of terminology.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 2:03 pm OK. Since you now qualify the term with the word "incontrovertible", that makes more sense.
No, it is not "proof", because you cannot exclude that the testimonies are still false, no matter how unlikely.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 2:02 am 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?
I have never presented merely my syllogism alone without the relevant supporting notes in the three threads.seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 8:07 pmAll 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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 3:13 am 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
Indeed, it speaks volumes regarding the effect that reading and worshiping Kant has had on your morality.
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.
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.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