Message from @MKUltra
Discord ID: 363521615818129410
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.
For example, you can describe traits of fictional characters that are true, but utterly false in reality.
For example:
Sherlock Holmes lives on Baker St.
That's true, but not in reality.
That is a contigent existence
It may well be true.
Why would god be any different?
You cannot assert that unless you have seen all existence
@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.
Is existence hard for you to comprehend?
What are you doing right now?
That's not really the issue here though.
I came in late, what is the issue?
What the paper actually shows.
Forget the actual logical proof. I trust his logic is solid, but the proof isn't sound.
And what do you believe the paper shows -- or rather, what do you see missing?
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
so we dont need that paper, we are just talkign about godels ontological proof
The paper's purpose is to show that the provers they are using work, not to prove the argument correct. Because there are axioms in the argument that the computer can't parse.
The ontological argument has been refuted many different ways over the years, I was under the impression going in that the paper somehow proved the argument valid, but that's not it's purpose at all.
Yeah a computer can't comprehend and determine 'positive' traits when there is no objective way to assign that characteristic.
It was showing the conversion.
So then why use it in the first place if you know it is as such?
I see I thought we were arguing the acutal proof
Then let's return the the proof itself. What issues do you see with it? What do you find missing in the proof?
Or, better yet, what issue do you find with his central premises, and the conclusion drawn?
Seems irrelevant to use a source then argue immediately after that it technically isn't correct or applicable
I didn't use the source originaly, it was shown to me and presented as proof of the argument's validity. Which it isn't, that's my only point.