Philosophy Now Forum

P1 If X is morally wrong, then X is morally wrong. P2 X is morally wrong. C Therefore, X is morally wrong. That's a slam-dunk. I agree! This is so banal it doesn't even need saying. It's just the first law of thought - identity. So why do you keep rejecting it? Why do you keep saying that the argum...

cos it's the premises and arguments that count, regardless of who makes them. How many times do you need me to demonstrate that you are lying about believing that? If premises and arguments counted you'd have conceded the objectivity of morality by now. You know, given the sound/valid argument pres...

Your understanding of ' critical thinking ' in confining it to communism is so shallow; So lets remove all confinements. Is critique of critical thinking itself critical thinking or not? What sort of thinking is non-critical thinking? Is critical thinking better than non-critical thinking; or is no...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 7:52 am Despite being valid, Godel's proof is not sound to be realistic as I had demonstrated.

Dumb empiricist.

The necessary conditions for the existence of reality are necessarily NOT real.

History keeps repeating itself. None of this is new: Say, “Indeed, I bring a flawless proof from my Lord—yet you have denied it. I do not have that for which you are impatient. The decision can only be made by Allah. He relates the truth, and He is the best of judges." Did your God bring some ...

You are fundamentally confused. When the symbols in your mathemathical proof don't refer to anything intelligible in the natural world, you haven't proven anything in the natural world. That's not even a word salad. It's a word salad that's gone in the blender. Letting the referent for the term &qu...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:24 am Most philosophers accept the Godel's Ontological Argument is Unsuccessful;

And yet they can't agree on what the problem is.

Typical idiot philosophers. Disagree first. Figure out why - never.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:34 am The whole thing colapses with the first axiom.

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Idiot-philosopher can't parse even a basic tautology.

The negation of existence is not existence.
The negation of X is not X.

That is what negation is.

It is not AI's problem. I asked AI re 'numbers-by-themselves' so it answer in terms of 'number'. When I stated ' numbers-by-themselves ' my intention was with reference to numerals or digits. ' numbers-by-themselves ' i.e. without reference to any conceptual system, e.g. mathematics, music, etc. Yo...

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...