Message from @MKUltra

Discord ID: 363520848382132227


2017-09-29 17:33:11 UTC  

I chose that one because it was verified by an automated theorem prover.

2017-09-29 17:33:32 UTC  

A program designed to show if a theorem is valid or not.

2017-09-29 17:34:03 UTC  

The simplest one, although not simple, is the Anselm Ontological.

2017-09-29 17:34:15 UTC  

Cosmological arguements are easier to swallow.

2017-09-29 17:34:25 UTC  

Do you want to VC?

2017-09-29 17:34:33 UTC  

Sure

2017-09-29 17:35:12 UTC  

im gonna leave you two to it

2017-09-29 17:38:14 UTC  

Euthyphro

2017-09-29 23:43:19 UTC  

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.

2017-09-29 23:43:25 UTC  

wew

2017-09-29 23:49:27 UTC  

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

2017-09-30 02:36:38 UTC  

@Rin what paper are you referring to? Anything with math in it (especially Godel's work) sounds like an interesting read

2017-09-30 02:57:17 UTC  

>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.

2017-09-30 02:58:51 UTC  

>Existence is not a positive trait

2017-09-30 02:58:55 UTC  

What?!?

2017-09-30 02:59:00 UTC  

What??

2017-09-30 02:59:04 UTC  

How?

2017-09-30 02:59:30 UTC  

>things for granted that aren't necessarily true. ie. Existence is a (positive) trait

2017-09-30 03:02:04 UTC  

To have a positive trait
>Have
>State of being
>Literally asserts postivie existence whereever it is placed.

2017-09-30 03:02:15 UTC  

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?

2017-09-30 03:02:24 UTC  

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.

2017-09-30 03:03:01 UTC  

For example, you can describe traits of fictional characters that are true, but utterly false in reality.

2017-09-30 03:03:43 UTC  

For example:

2017-09-30 03:03:53 UTC  

Sherlock Holmes lives on Baker St.

2017-09-30 03:04:11 UTC  

That's true, but not in reality.

2017-09-30 03:04:28 UTC  

That is a contigent existence

2017-09-30 03:04:37 UTC  

It may well be true.

2017-09-30 03:04:50 UTC  

Why would god be any different?

2017-09-30 03:04:56 UTC  

You cannot assert that unless you have seen all existence

2017-09-30 03:05:07 UTC  

God would be in the necessary category.

2017-09-30 03:08:43 UTC  

@Akulakhan I'm not arguing for the goodness of anything here, just trying to parse a complex topic and indentify it's flaws. Like I said, it's an interesting line of thought, but it doesn't prove anything.

2017-09-30 03:08:58 UTC  

Is existence hard for you to comprehend?

2017-09-30 03:09:02 UTC  

What are you doing right now?

2017-09-30 03:10:38 UTC  

That's not really the issue here though.

2017-09-30 03:10:47 UTC  

I came in late, what is the issue?

2017-09-30 03:11:00 UTC  

What the paper actually shows.

2017-09-30 03:11:27 UTC  

Forget the actual logical proof. I trust his logic is solid, but the proof isn't sound.

2017-09-30 03:13:03 UTC  

And what do you believe the paper shows -- or rather, what do you see missing?

2017-09-30 03:13:47 UTC  

I didn't read the paper posted (it elaborates on how the proof is begin put into a language that a computer proving system can verify