British Values

[godelian]

And, as I have been pointing out here that document is where what is actually just made up by human beings is very, very Wrongly and Falsely passed off as 'God's rules or laws' ...

Where is your own moral theory and your own database of jurisprudential rulings? I am not interested in what you claim to be its origin. If you have a system to show for, then show it. If not, then the only thing that I can conclude is that you have nothing to show for.

[godelian]

Okay, but just so you become fully aware I was not even thinking about, let alone ever talking about, some so-called 'soundness theorem'.

Of course, I did not mean to say that you actually know what you are talking about.

You obviously don't.

That is why I said: "you are implicitly referring to".

From what you wrote, it was obvious to me that you are totally unfamiliar with the mathematical notions of "soundness" and "consistency".

Soundness establishes the connection between syntactic entailment (⊢) and semantic entailment (⊨):

if Γ ⊢ P then also Γ ⊨ P

Of course, I know that you do not know that you accidentally broached the subject by somehow vaguely claiming that the axiomatic proof method preserves truth.

Since you are clearly not familiar with the literature on the subject, you wrote something that can be true, but it needs to be qualified more precisely.

What you wrote, was for once, not completely wrong. It was even somewhat vaguely correct. It stands in stark contrast with what you usually write, which is not even wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

That is not only not right; it is not even wrong.

Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!

Wolfgang Pauli

[Age]

And, as I have been pointing out here that document is where what is actually just made up by human beings is very, very Wrongly and Falsely passed off as 'God's rules or laws' ...

Where is your own moral theory and your own database of jurisprudential rulings? I am not interested in what you claim to be its origin. If you have a system to show for, then show it. If not, then the only thing that I can conclude is that you have nothing to show for.

1. I do not do 'theory'. So, this obviously includes 'moral theories'. Therefore, I do not have nor use 'moral theories', let alone have my 'own' 'moral theory'.

2. Even if I did have my 'own' 'moral theory', presenting that here is completely and utterly irrelevant. As what I have been pointing out here is that your claim that that human being made up moral theory in the quran is not what you have been believing, saying, and claiming it is.

3. That 'moral theory', which you have been going on about here, is not 'God's law'. Can you comprehend and understand this?

4. Will you stop trying to deflect and either agree that 'that moral theory' is, actually, not 'God's law, and is just human being made up laws and rulings, or disagree with this?

5. If I decide to show you God's actual way, then I will do that. Until then, 'we' are waiting for you to either accept, or not, that what you claim are Allah/God's laws are actually not.

6. you concluded and believed, from the outset, that I had nothing. And, you are completely free to keep concluding and believing whatever you like here "godelian".

[godelian]

1. I do not do 'theory'. So, this obviously includes 'moral theories'. Therefore, I do not have nor use 'moral theories', let alone have my 'own' 'moral theory'.

Fine. In that case, you do not have any opinion on what is right and wrong. What would you base it on anyway? That is fine. I have no problem with that. Note, however, that I will remind you of this conclusion if you ever say that something is right or wrong.

[Age]

Okay, but just so you become fully aware I was not even thinking about, let alone ever talking about, some so-called 'soundness theorem'.

Of course, I did not mean to say that you actually know what you are talking about.

You obviously don't.

In case you are not yet aware one has to actually be thinking about or talking about some thing, before any Accurate assumption about that one knowing what they are talking about could be made.

That is why I said: "you are implicitly referring to".

But I was not. you were only inferring that I was, and very Wrongly I will add.

Once more, you Wrongly presumed some thing here.

Look, you claimed that 'God/Allah's laws' are in the quran, I then showed and proved how, when, where, and why this is False, which just proved and meant that you did not know what you are talking about. This seems to have upset you, and 'now' you are brought up other absolutely False things, and then claiming that that is what I was talking about, when I was obviously not, and you are doing this in the hope of you being seen as though you do know what you are talking about.

From what you wrote, it was obvious to me that you are totally unfamiliar with the mathematical notions of "soundness" and "consistency".

But, you still are not yet aware of what it was that I was actually talking about, and meaning.

So, presuming I was implying and talking about some thing, which I was not, and then saying and claiming that the other does not know what they are talking about, proves that you, literally, do not even know what you are talking about.

Once again, you inferred Wrongly.

Soundness establishes the connection between syntactic entailment (⊢) and semantic entailment (⊨):

if Γ ⊢ P then also Γ ⊨ P

Of course, I know that you do not know that you accidentally broached the subject by somehow vaguely claiming that the axiomatic proof method preserves truth.

See, this is another example of, exactly, where you are making Inaccurate and Wrong assumptions, which you believe are true, which then leads you to make other very Wrong and Inaccurate assumptions, and claims, as well.

Since you are clearly not familiar with the literature on the subject, you wrote something that can be true, but it needs to be qualified more precisely.

What you wrote, was for once, not completely wrong. It was even somewhat vaguely correct. It stands in stark contrast with what you usually write, which is not even wrong.

If this what you believe, then okay.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

That is not only not right; it is not even wrong.

Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!

Wolfgang Pauli

So, you say and claim things that are not Accurate and 'not even wrong', and then say and claim that I write things that are not even wrong, also.

The only difference here is that I showed where, when, how, and why what you wrote and claimed is Wrong, whereas you Wrongly assumed that I was talking about some thing, which I was not, and then said and claimed that I do not know what I am talking about when I was not even talking about 'that thing'. Remember, is was you who Wrongly presumed 'that thing' from the outset.

[Age]

1. I do not do 'theory'. So, this obviously includes 'moral theories'. Therefore, I do not have nor use 'moral theories', let alone have my 'own' 'moral theory'.

Fine. In that case, you do not have any opinion on what is right and wrong.

Correct, and this is just because I 'know' what is Right, and, what is Wrong, in Life.

There is a huge difference between what you human beings 'think' is what is right and wrong, and which you human beings have written down in books like the quran, and which you keep discussing over because you cannot reach agreement, from what is actually 'God/Allah's lore' and which absolutely every one agrees with instinctively, or Naturally.

One day "godelian" you too might also get to see and understand this 'actual difference' here.

What would you base it on anyway?

Agreement with, and acceptance from, every one.

What else would you think 'morality', or what is, actually, Right and Wrong in Life, would be based upon?

Some of you adult human beings, only? Or, maybe you consider that it would be based on only what some of you male gendered adult human beings have to say and claim?

What do you base 'your morality' on anyway "godelian"?

That is fine. I have no problem with that. Note, however, that I will remind you of this conclusion if you ever say that something is right or wrong.

Notice and see how absolutely Truly BLIND and DEAF these posters could be here.

This one firstly presumes some thing, which although the actual presumptions itself was Correct this one presumed 'the Correct conclusion' in the absolutely Wrong and Incorrect way. Which then led it to write down a 'clarifying question' but never for even a split-second considered that I would answer it, or would answer it in some other way than 'the way' it imagined and believed that questioned would be answered. And then this one writes down the most Truly absurd, ridiculous, illogical, and nonsensical things, as though they are in relation to what 'my answer' would be to 'the question' asked here.

The absolutely only thing the last three sentences of "godelian" here are in relation to are of 'its very own personal conclusion, which could not be more further away from the actual Truth here, even if it was trying to be.

[godelian]

Look, you claimed that 'God/Allah's laws' are in the quran, I then showed and proved how, when, where, and why this is False

It is not possible to prove that a particular foundation of basic beliefs such as the Quran is true or false. The goal of an axiomatic system is to prove from such basic beliefs. Hence, what exactly are you going to prove the basic beliefs themselves true or false from?

Our distributed database of jurisprudential rulings, "al fiqh", proves its rulings from the Quran. Our database does not seek to prove the Quran itself, because we are not even supposed to try to prove the set of foundational basic beliefs in our system.

You are thousands of years behind on what Aristotle already explained:

https://iep.utm.edu/foundationalism-in-epistemology

Foundationalists maintain that some beliefs are properly basic and that the rest of one’s beliefs inherit their epistemic status (knowledge or justification) in virtue of receiving proper support from the basic beliefs.

Aristotle in the Posterior Analytics argues for foundationalism on the basis of the regress argument. Aristotle assumes that the alternatives to foundationalism must either endorse circular reasoning or land in an infinite regress of reasons. Because neither of these views is plausible, foundationalism comes out as the clear winner in an argument by elimination.

Why do you believe that you know better than Aristotle? I find myself in a position that I have to keep repeating basic principles from epistemology 101 to you. You are very, very ignorant of epistemology. What you are trying to argue, does not work. That is why you have nothing to show for. Where is your moral theory? Where is your database with jurisprudential rulings? You simply have nothing to show for!

[godelian]

Correct, and this is just because I 'know' what is Right, and, what is Wrong, in Life.

You write that you "know", but what you have written so far, demonstrates a total lack of familiarity with the very basics of the theory of knowledge, i.e. epistemology. You clearly do not even know what "to know" means.

[Age]

Look, you claimed that 'God/Allah's laws' are in the quran, I then showed and proved how, when, where, and why this is False

It is not possible to prove that a particular foundation of basic beliefs such as the Quran is true or false. The goal of an axiomatic system is to prove from such basic beliefs. Hence, what exactly are you going to prove the basic beliefs themselves true or false from?

Our distributed database of jurisprudential rulings, "al fiqh", proves its rulings from the Quran. Our database does not seek to prove the Quran itself, because we are not even supposed to try to prove the set of foundational basic beliefs in our system.

Look "godelian" you claimed, 'Allah has permitted trade, he has also permitted trade profits.

Now, I have already shown and proved how, when, where, and why this 'foundation of basic belief', of yours', is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. So, you 'now' claim that it is not possible to prove a particular foundation of so-called 'basic belief true nor false' is also False and Wrong. Because I just did what you said is not possible.

Also, you saying and claiming that it is not possible for absolutely anyone to prove a so-called 'foundation of basic belief' true nor false' is just another attempt
at you trying to 'justify' your beliefs that you cannot back up nor support at all, which then allows you to believe and say any thing, no matter how Truly absurd and foolish it really is.

you claim that God permits you to trade things for monetary profit, so that you can then tell "yourself" that you are allowed to make profit, while others miss out. This, obviously, would not be one of God/Allah's laws at all and so could not be more of a Truly personal absurd, foolish, greedy, and selfish thing of you to say and claim here.

And then claiming that no one could prove what you say and claimed here False is even more absurd and foolish.

you will never be able to 'justify' your personal greedy and selfish ways, to the detriment of others, "godelian", no matter how hard you try to here.

You are thousands of years behind on what Aristotle already explained:

https://iep.utm.edu/foundationalism-in-epistemology

Foundationalists maintain that some beliefs are properly basic and that the rest of one’s beliefs inherit their epistemic status (knowledge or justification) in virtue of receiving proper support from the basic beliefs.

Aristotle in the Posterior Analytics argues for foundationalism on the basis of the regress argument. Aristotle assumes that the alternatives to foundationalism must either endorse circular reasoning or land in an infinite regress of reasons. Because neither of these views is plausible, foundationalism comes out as the clear winner in an argument by elimination.

Why do you believe that you know better than Aristotle?

Why do you introduce and bring up things that have never been said nor claimed?

I find myself in a position that I have to keep repeating basic principles from epistemology 101 to you. You are very, very ignorant of epistemology. What you are trying to argue, does not work. That is why you have nothing to show for. Where is your moral theory? Where is your database with jurisprudential rulings? You simply have nothing to show for!

And, you keep trying to deflect from the fact that I have already showed that what you have tried to claim here is true, is actually False.

[Age]

Correct, and this is just because I 'know' what is Right, and, what is Wrong, in Life.

You write that you "know", but what you have written so far, demonstrates a total lack of familiarity with the very basics of the theory of knowledge, i.e. epistemology. You clearly do not even know what "to know" means.

Okay.

If this is what you 'believe' and/or 'know', then okay.