echidna

(Chuckle) I should probably add that personally I don’t have a clear idea of omnipotence myself, but I do understand incoherence a little better.

Mike Rosoft

>Nope, it's not. And that's not the same argument. H says that H is not true. G says that
>G[od] will never prove G. It makes a world of difference.

Where is the difference? Using your reasoning, I have proven that H is true. If it is not the same, show me how.

I have also shown how God can prove G. Is the proof flawed? If so, what's wrong with it?


Mike Rosoft

TheJesusConspiracy

"Then you are a fool."

At this point, I have continuously trounced every argument you people have been able to provide.

I cite the idiot fallacy:

"G is not true because I refuse to believe G."

I will not bother respond to posts in this thread as the last fifteen have been reiterations of the same fallacious nonsense. You have been unable to poke a hole in my arguments. I have reduced all of your arguments to utter absurdity. You have failed to integrate one post with another. You have failed to understand crucial differences in implication when I have written them in at third grade reading level. The problem is that you people are all amateurs and I should have known better than to wax philosophical with you after the initial wave of nonsense you posted in reply.

Good luck in your future intellectual oblivion.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: TheJesusConspiracy ]</p>

Jobar

[Mr. Spock voice]Such an angry display of emotion is illogical.[/Mr. Spock voice]

Synaesthesia

TJC,
Some arguments have been trounced, others have been ignored.

The problem is that your argument does not and cannot weaken the two most prominent conceptions of Omnipotence.

The most you can claim to have done is shown that if God's intellectual capabilities can be characterized by a formal system, he cannot prove that he cannot prove G.

Most people, if I am not mistaken, agree with you there. I simply point out mystical theories invoke supernatural beings precisely because they are not constrained by the same structural rules as the material world and it's formal systems.

This metaphysical magic-trick of course brings out a host of theoretical difficulties, but godelization is not necessarily one of them.

There are limits to the applicability of Godel's theorem which your use of it disregards. God is not a formal system, things like infinite regress aren’t even a problem for him. Moreover, the chap simply does not need to be able to formally decide the truth value of formally undeniable prepositions.

This is not altered a mite by the fact that I have yet to graduate from high school, nor would it be if you could muster nobel prize-winners to support your position. Your contemptuous dismissal of your opponents obscures the issue every bit as much as any other insult.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

curbyIII

Intellectual oblivion?? Oh God no! What do I do? For the love of God tell me what to do!!! Oh mighty JesusConspiracy have mercy on your intellectual inferiors. Only your exalted mind can possibly comprehend your grand ideas far beyond the minds of mortal men. I can only hope that in the distant future I may improve my complete ignorance and stupidity to be able to contemplate the brilliance of your glory. Oh great and wise JesusConspiracy truly you are a God among men.

Loser

Adrian Selby

"1. If G is not a meaningful proposition, then G cannot be proven by anything.
2. If G is not a meaningful proposition, God will never and can never prove G, for proving G is a logical absurdity.
3. The proposition claiming that God will never prove G is thus true per 2.
4. G claims that that God will never prove G. G is true.""

I've thought about this a bit further. I don't think that 1. is an assumption, I think it is the case that the proposition is meaningless.

This is because the proposition is not saying anything.

The move from 3. to 4. troubles me.

3. is stating God will never prove the proposition "God cannot prove G" But this statement is not G. Why, because G is meaningless. G itself does not say "God will never prove the proposition "God cannot prove G" G is saying "God cannot prove G".

G is a proposition about itself
3. is a proposition about the status of G as a proposition.

G, not being a proposition, because it is meaningless cannot therefore be a meaningful commentary on its status as a proposition.

There cannot be a false assumption in the starting premise, because it is not an assumption. This is a self referential proposition, the same as variants of the Liar paradox.

I'm also sorry that among others, my posts are fallacious nonsense. I hope you'll do me the courtesy of responding as I'm genuine in my inquiry into the nature of your argument, and your arrogant refusal to entertain argument speaks volumes for your status as a philosopher, and teacher, for certainly you know more about logic than I do, hence this fallacious nonsense.

A pity you're unwilling to help me learn, if indeed you do ignore this thread.

Adrian

bd-from-kg

Amazing. Actually I decided to stop posting on this thread when I saw TJC's statement

"G claims that that God will never prove G."

In the context it was clearly being implied that this is true even if G does not express a proposition. But a sentence cannot meaningfully be said to "claim" something unless it expresses a proposition that states or implies it. Thus a statement that does not express a proposition cannot be said to "claim" anything, even if it appears to on its face.

This is an elementary boner.

This guy is under the impression that he's so much smarter than the rest of us that we're not worth his time? Looks like the other way around to me.

RogerLeeCooke

TheJesusConspiracy wrote:

"Since no explicit claim was made that I am an amateur, if that was not intended, the following does not matter.

If however, this is meant to be a sweeping attack on my arguments, I beg to differ."

I'm sorry if it seemed I was attacking your credentials. I never had any thought of you in mind when I made the reference to "eager amateurs". Let me try to make my point more succinctly. I've spent a good deal of time trying to help people who think they have trisected any angle with ruler and compass. And, for practical purposes, they often have done so. But they've heard vaguely that mathematicians claim it can't be done. They just don't realize that that mathematical claim refers to a Platonic heaven where none of us live, where the numerical values of numbers like the square root of 2 are known with infinite precision. I've spent *so* much time trying to explain this to people that I've begun to question seriously whether such impossibility proofs do any good and whether the concept of infinite precision really has any meaning that makes a difference to anyone. (My answer, after reflection, is "yes", but it would take too long to go into it.)

curbyIII

I'm pretty sure that JesusConspiracy is no longer reading these posts.

If he is then I want to make it clear that I think that he is a pompous ass who is so full of his "credentials" that he can't see how wrong and stupid his argument is.