Message from @MKUltra
Discord ID: 363377902261239808
>Moderninity
Who is strong in moderninity?
The US military is strong
The VDV I imagine is strong
We did debate, no doubt about it, but the debate fell rather short, because you have a different view on history than I do. I was willing to accept that my view as it was being tought in school, TV, etc. may not be correct and I said that I would go ahead and research it.
We also debated on the existence of God. I believe you were there for that.
No
I was not
I think you started on that when I left
I'm not quite sure I believe that but for now I'll operate under such an assumption. It doesn't give much benefit at this point.
Do you not remember godel's ontological arguement?
I have heard of it, but I dont remember you explaining it.
I actually opened the pdf a view hours ago.
Are the formulas part of formal logic?
Yes, it was writen by Kurt Godel, a Doctorate in mathematic? logic.
Do I need to understand formal logic in order to understand the argument correctly? I guess not?
Yes
You will.
I chose that one because it was verified by an automated theorem prover.
A program designed to show if a theorem is valid or not.
Cosmological arguements are easier to swallow.
Do you want to VC?
Sure
im gonna leave you two to it
Euthyphro
So I went over that paper on the theorem provers, it's interesting, the math is way over my head, but I'm not so sure it matters much. It seems to me that it really only sets out to prove the validity of the tech and methodology(which is impressive and likely very valuable). It does "prove" Godel's Proof with the caviat that all it's presuppositions remain intact. However, It does nothing to address the inherent flaws in axiom that I was trying to get at when we were speaking. The authors even admit as much, placing the task of determining thier validity squarely on human minds (they also acknowledge that the prover does as much to prove some of the original critiques of the argument valid as the argument itself). I've never found the ontological argument very compelling, not just because it's a purely logical argument arrived to by reason alone with no material proof involved(and trying to use logic to prove an entity that inherently defies logic seems a likely a non-starter), but because it seems to take things for granted that aren't necessarily true. ie. Existence is a (positive) trait, or that positive traits in general are universal and unchanging, or that the traits we give to concepts like this have any bearing on thier actual existence at all, or that a single entity is correct conceptually, and a few others. It's a kind of obscured circular argument, and as such, as fun as it is to think about, I think it's pretty useless and isn't going to be convincing any significant number of people any time soon.
wew
On a side note, that ED article is funny as fuck, I had never read it before. Henceforth I'm referring to myself as an apathiest. kek
@Rin what paper are you referring to? Anything with math in it (especially Godel's work) sounds like an interesting read
>trying to use logic to prove an entity that inherently defies logic seems a likely a non-starter
>God is illogical so he shouldn't be reasoned towards
>You are a man of reason and cannot be trusted.
Please kill me.
>Existence is not a positive trait
What?!?
What??
How?
>things for granted that aren't necessarily true. ie. Existence is a (positive) trait
To have a positive trait
>Have
>State of being
>Literally asserts postivie existence whereever it is placed.
Rin, I'm going to be charitable and assume you meant something more like the Buddhist anatta, rather than actual non-existence. Is this accurate? Or do you truly argue for the goodness of utter oblivion?
Kind of hard to explain, but basically existence is a prerequisite to any other trait in reality. I'm not sure how that affects it's own ability to be a trait in it's self. Also there's a difference beween traits ascribed to "imagined" agents vs real.