Philosophy Now Forum

So. IC's team's god supposedly created and creates everything, including humans. And IC's team's god knows everything that will happen. So IC's team's god knows that quite a few of the human beings it supposedly creates will supposedly end up roasting in hell for all eternity, maybe just for the 's...

My practical view on the matter is rather that there is now mathematically unobjectionable proof for religion while there isn't one for atheism. Atheism has always been epistemologically and methodologically untenable. It's just that atheists don't seem to have any grasp on logic; or reason. Pictur...

Perhaps here's one form of the fallacy behind some forms of anti-realism: Each of us constructs reality 'in the mind', based on sense data. Therefore, reality is nothing more than each person's mental construct based on sense data. If it is, then the empiricist skepticism - and ultimately solipsism...

OK, great! So what does that mean in computational terms? Does x=x mean the computation Equals(x,x) always halts; or never halts? I assume that it halts for finite numbers. It may halt or not halt when dealing with nonstandard models of arithmetic, but I assume the standard model here. This will ha...

An inconsistency is easy to specify. For example, if you manage to prove that 0=1, then you have your witness, which is simply the proof. I think the crux of the matter here, is that you have no actual idea what the "=" operator means. The 2nd Peano axiom literally states: For every natur...

1) Enumerate a whole bunch of arbitrarily-chosen candidate logic sentences P. 2) Try to prove P. 3) Try to prove not P. isProvable(P) can be encoded. Obviously, isProvable(not P) can be encoded too. So, you can encode this. I did not say that you will find P, but you can clearly try to. Is there ar...

Is God? A free variable. The placeholder which answers ALL philosophical questions. Greatest hack in the history of human civilization. A sealed door denying access to the infinite abyss of pointless philosophy. A dead end to the infinite "Why? train". Saving you time. Putting YOU first.

An inconsistency is easy to specify. For example, if you manage to prove that 0=1, then you have your witness, which is simply the proof. All you need to do is to discover a poison-pill statement P, prove "P", and then prove "not P". If you manage to do that from PA, then PA is ...

I don't understand your point in relation to my claim; Numbers by themselves are not mathematics per se. Numbers by themselves are absolutely Mathematics. 1, 2, 3, 4. Numbers paired WITH UNITS are not Mathematics. 1 APPLE 2 APPLES Here's AI's [wR] views. No, numbers by themselves are not considered...

If the problem is undecidable, i.e. the search algorithm does not halt, the situation is still fine. The real poison pill is the actual witness. If you find it, it is game over. This amounts to nothing more than self-justification for the paradigm of axiomatics. But that's precisely the problem! Ex...

Numbers is not mathematics per se. A numeral say 2 by itself is not mathematics which is grounded on its 'proofs'. Stating I have eaten 2 apples has nothing to do with mathematics at all. You really don't seem to have any grasp on the relevance of the formal sciences; and how they have long superse...

Numbers is not mathematics per se. A numeral say 2 by itself is not mathematics which is grounded on its 'proofs'. Stating I have eaten 2 apples has nothing to do with mathematics at all. You really don't seem to have any grasp on the relevance of the formal sciences; and how they have long superse...

Yes, that is exactly what Tarski's theory of truth develops in a mathematically unobjectionable manner. Mathematics brings consistency to the matter. That is why it is the superior approach. It does? Prove that Mathematics is consistent. And then prove that the proof-system you are using to prove t...

Yes, that is exactly what Tarski's theory of truth develops in a mathematically unobjectionable manner. Mathematics brings consistency to the matter. That is why it is the superior approach. It does? Prove that Mathematics is consistent. And then prove that the proof-system you are using to prove t...

Thesis: Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic It's like you don't understand anything. Obviously God isn't real. Not everything that exists is real. Therefore, Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic Discuss? What's there to discuss? God exists in the understanding; and you literally don't un...