Philosophy Now Forum

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:46 am So, let's conclude that the Christian doctrine contains lots of bullshit in its deductive closure. Christianity is clearly a bullshit belief system.

Real-world reasoning is not deductively closed.

Anyone trying to force it into that box is a bullshitter with an agenda.

And I do mean you. You are a bullshitter with an agenda.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:47 am

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:46 am So, let's conclude that the Christian doctrine contains lots of bullshit in its deductive closure. Christianity is clearly a bullshit belief system.

Real-world reasoning is not deductively closed.

Any system trying to force it into that box is bullshit.

This problem does not occur in Judaism.
This problem does not occur in Islam.
This problem does not occur in Buddhism.

This problem only occurs in Christianity.

Christianity seems to have a monopoly on bullshit beliefs.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:49 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:47 am

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:46 am So, let's conclude that the Christian doctrine contains lots of bullshit in its deductive closure. Christianity is clearly a bullshit belief system.

Real-world reasoning is not deductively closed.

Any system trying to force it into that box is bullshit.

This problem does not occur in Judaism.
This problem does not occur in Islam.
This problem does not occur in Buddhism.

This problem only occurs in Christianity.

Christianity seems to have a monopoly on bullshit beliefs.

For as long as you refuse to encode your problem-decider - the "problem" will occur anywhere you want it to; and it won't occur anywhere you don't wait it to.

Frankly, until you specify the Problem() predicate... it's not even possible to determine if there is even a problem.

You assert a problem. But anyone can assert anything when they refuse to explicate their methodological criteria.

You are no authority on problemacy.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:49 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:47 am

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:46 am So, let's conclude that the Christian doctrine contains lots of bullshit in its deductive closure. Christianity is clearly a bullshit belief system.

Real-world reasoning is not deductively closed.

Any system trying to force it into that box is bullshit.

This problem does not occur in Judaism.
This problem does not occur in Islam.
This problem does not occur in Buddhism.

This problem only occurs in Christianity.

Christianity seems to have a monopoly on bullshit beliefs.

But, of course - this problem does occur in every system of thought issuing imperatives/commands for the devout to follow.

You simply subject it to a WIttgensteinian treatment.

no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule

And so any follower of any tradition can simply claim they are the Perfect Embodiment of Divine Command.
Any divine command can be interpreted to justify virtually any behavior.

Which is precisely what Christianity fixes. You get an embodied standard. A concrete (non-abstract!) referent. Jesus.

However you end up interpreting the rules, if your behaviour mismatches that of Jesus - you are doing it wrong.

No doctrine in which God is merely an abstract entity can ground divine command to moral behaviour.
Because you can't solve the symbol-grounding problem!

Look! The first one's back. Nice.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:52 am

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:49 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:47 am
Real-world reasoning is not deductively closed.

Any system trying to force it into that box is bullshit.

This problem does not occur in Judaism.
This problem does not occur in Islam.
This problem does not occur in Buddhism.

This problem only occurs in Christianity.

Christianity seems to have a monopoly on bullshit beliefs.

For as long as you refuse to encode your problem-decider - the "problem" will occur anywhere you want it to; and it won't occur anywhere you don't wait it to.

Frankly, until you specify the Problem() predicate... it's not even possible to determine if there is even a problem.

You assert a problem. But anyone can assert anything when they refuse to explicate their methodological criteria.

You are no authority on problemacy.

It is trivially easy to demonstrate that the deductive closure of Christian doctrine contains statements that are so obviously false that Christians themselves resolutely reject them. This does not occur in other religions. In fact, it is Buddhism that takes the greatest risk in this respect, with their catuskoti. Graham Priest formalized it and proved that the Buddhist tetralemma is consistent. Hence, it is pure genius.

Christianity, on the other hand, is unusable as a belief system. It simply does not work. The people who designed it, were just not smart enough to create something that adds up and makes sense. In 325 AD, a bunch of stupid baboons came together in Nicaea and concocted something truly stupid, called "the Nicene creed".

Gemini

The Edict of Thessalonica, issued on February 27, 380 AD, by Roman Emperor Theodosius I, declared Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. It also condemned other Christian creeds, such as Arianism, as heresies and authorized their punishment.

In 380 AD, emperor Theodosius did something that will eventually destroy Christianity as a religion. He started persecuting anybody who rejected the Nicene bullshit. Now that Theodosius is dead, we can finally say what needs to be said: It's all just complete bullshit.

Ever since 380 AD, Christianity has been an utmost detestable religion.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 9:09 am It is trivially easy to demonstrate that the deductive closure of Christian doctrine contains statements that are so obviously false.

Hold on there buddy! you are talking about deductive closure. You are strictly talking about validity.

When you begin using "true" and "false" as evaluative terms you are no longer doing logic.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 9:09 am Graham Priest formalized it and proved that the Buddhist tetralemma is consistent. Hence, it is pure genius.

Internally consistent systems still fail to handle the translation from abstract theory into concrete behaviour.

Humans are memetic. What do these rules mean in practice?!?

How do I execute them now that I "believe" them? Given that I can manifest any behaviour then justify it as modeling the rules.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 9:10 am Hold on there buddy! you are talking about deductive closure. You are strictly talking about validity.
When you begin using "true" and "false" as evaluative terms you are no longer doing logic.

The example deduction is not "invalid". It is false:

ChatGPT: Can a man create something like a physical universe?

In short: no, a man (or humanity collectively) cannot currently create something on the scale of a physical universe in the sense of our observable cosmos — a space-time continuum with matter, energy, physical laws, and potentially billions of galaxies.

1. Not Possible: Creating a Physical Universe from Scratch

The statement "A man created the physical universe" will not be valid/invalid, but true/false.
So, the deductive closure of Christian doctrine contains a falsehood.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 9:17 am The example deduction is not "invalid". It is false:

Deductions are neither true nor false. Deductions either follow from the premises (valid) or they don't (invalid)

True/false are evaluative terms!

Validity preserves semantic value. Even if that value is "false".

If the premises are false and the deduction is valid then the conclusion is necessarily false.
If the premises are false and the deduction is invalid then the conclusion is NOT necessarily false.

You are perpetually smuggling in value-judgments.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 9:23 am

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 9:17 am The example deduction is not "invalid". It is false:

Deductions are neither true nor false. Deductions either follow from the premises (valid) or they don't (invalid)

True/false are evaluative terms!

Validity preserves semantic value. Even if that value is "false".

If the premises are false and the deduction is valid then the conclusion is necessarily false.
If the premises are false and the deduction is invalid then the conclusion is NOT necessarily false.

You are perpetually smuggling in value-judgments.

ChatGPT's answer was clearly an evaluation:

ChatGPT: Can a man create something like a physical universe?

So, you pick something from the deductive closure and then evaluate it against its known model.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 9:44 am So, you pick something from the deductive closure and then evaluate it against its known model.

That right there. What's your evaluation function?

And you are still failing to address the real issue.

Even if you evaluate something as true; or false. How do abstract true (or false) propositional beliefs translate into actual behaviour?

How do you execute your beliefs?

Your entire project (evaluating religious doctrines for truth/falsity) - is irrelevant to the actual problem religions try to solve. Which is how to live in accord with your values.

This is a practical/ethical problem, not a logical/epistemological one.

Nobody cares if Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Judaism is true. They only care whether their doctrine helps them live well.

In fact the only reason apologetics exists is because idiots like you operate on the principle of "If doctrine X is not literally true, then you must not believe/practice it".

Complete and utter failure to recognize doctrine as socially pre-computed heuristics for effective living.

You are criticizing religions as inaccurate maps, when they're to be understood as optimized routing algorithms.

12 years ago I was in an AirBnB in Wells-next-the-Sea, looking landward from my bedroom window, and there were starlings arrayed on the telegraph wires. I wish I'd taken a picture and worked out what tune they were playing by their perching. Here there's a similar opportunity. But the key of the notes is subjective.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 9:55 am This is a practical/ethical problem, not a logical/epistemological one.
Nobody cares if Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Judaism is true. They only care whether their doctrine helps them live well.

Christianity also fails on that count. According to the Christian doctrinal imbecilarium, if I sleep with a woman, then she should be given the right to spend all my money and to abscond at any time with half of my assets. Is that a recipe for "living well"? Islam, or Buddhism, and Judaism do not have Compendium Imbecilarium. Only Christianity has one.

You cannot possibly live well if you follow the guidelines in the Christian Compendium Imbecilarium.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 12:16 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 9:55 am This is a practical/ethical problem, not a logical/epistemological one.
Nobody cares if Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Judaism is true. They only care whether their doctrine helps them live well.

Christianity also fails on that count. According to the Christian doctrinal imbecilarium, if I sleep with a woman, then she should be given the right to spend all my money and to abscond at any time with half of my assets. Is that a recipe for "living well"? Islam, or Buddhism, and Judaism do not have Compendium Imbecilarium. Only Christianity has one.

You cannot possibly live well if you follow the guidelines in the Christian Compendium Imbecilarium.

You can't possibly live well with your utterly transactional/materialistic obsession.

Most of all. You sound too incompetent to hire a lawyer and draft a prenup. Whatever your faith.

The "problem" you are wrestling with isn't actually a problem for competent people who know how to use the systems/tools at their disposal.