godelian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:58 am
Now, a conclusion may well necessarily follow from some so-called 'its (system-wide) premises'.
Yes, axiomatic systems do not support more than that. Why are you trying to do more than a system supports? For heaven's sake, read the fine manual !!
Why can you, still, not comprehend and understand what I am pointing out and showing here?
If the so-called 'axiomatic system's' starting point is, God, or Allah, says', which was a human being made up story and written in a book, then if you want to believe 'this', and then 'follow on' from this human being made up claim and belief as though a just made up human being made up story is true, then by all means do that. But, as any sane person can see, it is just a very, very foolish way to 'look at' and 'see' things, in Life.
What that 'actual system' does is prove absolutely and irrefutably True that there are adult human beings who have not yet fully 'grown up' and will believe things that have been previous told and 'taught' to them, based on absolutely nothing at all other than the words, 'God, or Allah, says ...'.
godelian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:58 am
However, you have already stated and claimed that the premises, of 'axioms', of 'the system' do not have to be proved True.
Aristotle already explained at length why an axiomatic system works like that. You are thousands of years behind on this matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism
Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others.[2]
The reason why it works like that, is because otherwise you are just going to keep running around in circles.
Read Aristotle!
And this, coming from the one who states and claims, 'There are 'God's laws' because human beings made this up and told me so'.
Now, if you, still, cannot yet see who is the one who is 'running around in circles' here, then I do not know how I can help you to see and learn, and better understand, here.
Are you, really, still not yet aware that the one who makes the claim, but who is continually showing and proving that it cannot back up, support, nor prove 'the claim' is the one who is 'running around in circles'?
If one cannot back up, support, and prove the actual 'foundation claim', 'the axiom' here, then it is them who is lost and confused in 'circular reasoning'.
See, what I say, state, assert, or claim here has already been proved absolutely and irrefutably True, and which can be presented and shown to every one else as well. Whereas, you have absolutely nothing to base your beliefs and claims on as the ones you are trying to here have already been proved absolutely and irrefutably False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.
When, and if, you ever come to learn, see, and understand this Fact, then you might become somewhat less CLOSED and less DISTORTED here.
godelian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:58 am
you claim you only have to believe the 'premises/axioms' only. Which just shows how Truly illogical and nonsensical your 'systems' can be.
Do you really believe that your analysis defeats Aristotle on this matter? Do you really believe that you know better than Aristotle in this regard?
If I said, 'No', then you would misinterpret that and take it out of context.
And,
If I said, 'Yes', then you would misinterpret that and take it out of context, as well.
So, where does this leave 'us', exactly?
This leaves 'us' with 'you' believing whatever you want to believe is true.
godelian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 am
Your views are seriously arrogant! You sorely lack humility!
Okay. And, you are free to believe absolutely any thing you like. Which, by the way, you are continually showing and proving that you already do.
godelian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:58 am
Also, if you cannot prove your premises nor axioms to be irrefutably True, then do not expect absolutely anyone, other than you, to follow nor agree with and accept 'your system/s'.
Billions of users use the axiomatic systems of mathematics.
So what?
And, they can obviously be proved, irrefutably, True anyway.
Were you not yet aware of this Fact?
godelian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 am
Billions of users use the axiomatic systems of religion.
And, this proves, irrefutably, True how human beings, in the days when this is being written, still, have not, yet, 'grown up', 'matured', nor 'evolved', fully, yet.
godelian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 am
You are the one who is misguided, and not us.
But you do not yet even know what I have been actually saying, and meaning, here, yet.
And, please do not forget that it is you adult human beings with different 'religious views/beliefs' who are arguing, bickering, fighting, and even killing each other over your own personal 'religions/beliefs'.
godelian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 am
We have useful systems while you don't.
Yet, you adult human beings, with 'your systems', which you, laughably, call 'useful' are the ones who are actually bickering, arguing, fighting, and even killing each other over your, again laughably called, 'useful systems'.
godelian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 am
Seriously, what have you got to show for?
Again, you believe, absolutely, that I do not have some thing, right?
godelian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:58 am
Again, I do not do 'theory'. As, again, 'theory' is only an assumption or guess about what might be or might not be true.
Wrong. In this context, a "theory" is an axiomatic system.
you say, Wrong, but then go on to present 'a system' based on nothing more than a human being made up story, which parts of exists no actual proof of nor for, at all.
you, really, cannot yet see what you are doing here can you "godelian"?
godelian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 am
That is a set of basic axiomatic beliefs along with all the conclusions, i.e. theorems, that necessarily follow from these basic beliefs.
you make me laugh "godelian".
So, what 'we' have here now is "godelian" has a 'set of basic axiomatic beliefs', and with conclusions 'from' those beliefs, which it cannot back up, cannot support, and cannot prove are true, in absolutely any way at all. But, "godelian" will still believe that those 'axiomatic beliefs' are the best things to 'follow on' 'from'.
Which is making this, another, 'axiomatic belief system' even more and more illogical and nonsensical the more "godelian" tries to 'justify' 'this system' and tries to 'justify' what it does here.
What "godelian" is doing here is trying to 'justify' its position/s and belief/s in the exact same way a "christian" or "atheist" could try to 'justify' their own position/s and belief/s.
They also could say and claim that they have a 'set of axiomatic beliefs', along with all 'the conclusions', that is; the other 'theories' that necessarily follow from those 'basic beliefs'.
Now, would you "godelian" accept this attempt or form of 'logic' is those people came here and tried to use 'that', when trying to 'justify' their own 'religions' and 'beliefs'?
If yes, then why?
But, if no, then why?
If you do not answer and clarify this here now, then you have ' buried "yourself" so deep ', now, that you can get up and out of.