Tweet
Originally posted by Juvenal
View Post
Which is again another assertion given without any supporting argument.
No. You just said to construct an axiom that shows only my divine being existed. I just said I don't think that's doable.
_____
[QUOTE}Hence the point of bringing in real world examples, including modern washing machines and self-focusing cameras, that work on fuzzy logics, which violate the classical axioms you're determined, without study, to defend as laws ... showing the arbitrary axioms of classical logics can't be treated as laws in reality. And because they can't be treated as laws in reality, they can't be extended into laws in more abstract spaces. [/QUOTE]
I would have to see how they do exactly.
Reality is not more flexible, and thanks for letting me do my own saying, k?
_____
.
Please, just don't.
Please, just don't.
Adding axioms to an axiom set doesn't "add up to" anything, it subtracts. Each additional axiom is equivalent to putting another bouncer at the door, saying "and don't let those folks in, either." Eventually, if everything works right, you end up with a decent club. Occasionally, the dance floor ends up empty.
And that's what your op was asking. Is the dance floor empty? Using logic, can we exclude Christianity?
Sure.
Using just enough of it to do calculus, we see there can be no greatest infinite.
And that's what your op was asking. Is the dance floor empty? Using logic, can we exclude Christianity?
Sure.
Using just enough of it to do calculus, we see there can be no greatest infinite.
I included him because he's philosophically fungible enough to support your position, and because his position is relevant to the larger discussion.
In a TWeb paltalk discussion with Theonomy, lo these many years ago, I pointed out that Craig's approving citation of Hilbert's "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality" was either an own goal against his apologetics, assuming an infinite God, or an admission the god whose existence he's willing to defend is not infinite.
Theonomy thought the latter was likely. I still have no evidence to the contrary. You could ask him if you get the chance. He's your buddy, not mine.
You could also ask him if Hilbert would have said the same about the number: 2.
In a TWeb paltalk discussion with Theonomy, lo these many years ago, I pointed out that Craig's approving citation of Hilbert's "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality" was either an own goal against his apologetics, assuming an infinite God, or an admission the god whose existence he's willing to defend is not infinite.
Theonomy thought the latter was likely. I still have no evidence to the contrary. You could ask him if you get the chance. He's your buddy, not mine.
You could also ask him if Hilbert would have said the same about the number: 2.
It does if we're to stay within the bounds of things we both know. I'm not big on 13th century philosophers. Anything that old, that's still useful, has long since been improved. And you don't seem well versed on anything modern.
Lots of people are made uncomfortable by that.
Kind of like never finding out who "is" is.
You get used to it.
What it doesn't do is exclude anything else from being infinite, or the infinite being well-ordered, and the conclusion there can be no greatest infinite.
Regards.
Kind of like never finding out who "is" is.
You get used to it.
What it doesn't do is exclude anything else from being infinite, or the infinite being well-ordered, and the conclusion there can be no greatest infinite.
Regards.
Your ham-fisted attempts at anti-Christian argument are consistently illogical. Are you trying to make Islam look bad?
Comment