British Values

[Age]

Once again, this one beliefs some thing is true when it has no actual proof for the belief.

You simply do not understand what the term "proof" means. Proof demonstrates that a conclusion necessarily follows from its (system-wide) premises.

And, you keep showing and proving that you believe many, many things, which are completely and utterly False and Untrue.

Now, a conclusion may well necessarily follow from some so-called 'its (system-wide) premises'. However, you have already stated and claimed that the premises, of 'axioms', of 'the system' do not have to be proved True. you claim you only have to believe the 'premises/axioms' only. Which just shows how Truly illogical and nonsensical your 'systems' can be.

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'.

Now you argue that such proof does not prove the premises themselves. Of course, it doesn't.

I did not argue this. As I did not have to argue this. This is just what is irrefutably True.

Read up on proof theory:

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

You do not seem to understand the beginning of the beginning of what you are talking about. You fail at the most basic level of logic.

Again, I do not do 'theory'. As, again, 'theory' is only an assumption or guess about what might be or might not be true.

Once again, I go on, and off, what is actually irrefutably True only here.

And, if you cannot prove what you say and claim here, which you keep proving you cannot, then I just do not follow on 'from there', like you obviously do.

[Age]

Do you believe that I have an 'alternative system' to 'your system'?

No, you have no system because you have no starting point for one. That is why you have nothing to show for.

Once more, the best example of 'confirmation bias', itself, can be seen here.

That is; this one believes I do not have some thing, so then it then believes, 'That is why you have no thing'.

The Truly absurd and nonsensical 'circular reasoning' here is blatantly obvious and crystal clear for all to 'look at' and 'see' here.

[godelian]

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 !!

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!

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? Your views are seriously arrogant! You sorely lack humility!

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.
Billions of users use the axiomatic systems of religion.
You are the one who is misguided, and not us.
We have useful systems while you don't. Seriously, what have you got to show for?

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. That is a set of basic axiomatic beliefs along with all the conclusions, i.e. theorems, that necessarily follow from these basic beliefs.

[Age]

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 ...'.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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'.

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'.

Seriously, what have you got to show for?

Again, you believe, absolutely, that I do not have some thing, right?

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"?

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.

[godelian]

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?

Are you claiming that the axioms of mathematics are proven? Is that what you are writing?
If that is the case, that is close to the most stupid and ignorant thing I have ever read.

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.

In that case, where are the axioms of your atheist moral theory documented? Where can we find a database with jurisprudential rulings based on that atheist moral theory? Where is it?

[Age]

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?

Are you claiming that the axioms of mathematics are proven? Is that what you are writing?

No, what I am actually writing can be seen, very clearly, by the words used here, printed very clearly.

If that is the case,

Well that is, obviously, not 'the case'. As 'your words' do not match 'my words.

How much simpler can this get?

that is close to the most stupid and ignorant thing I have ever read.

Well, considering the irrefutable Fact that you are the only one who wrote 'those words', and that you 'now' 'see' 'those words' as being 'close to the most stupid and ignorant thing that you have ever read', then so be it. you wrote 'those words'.

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.

In that case, where are the axioms of your atheist moral theory documented?

Once again, you have completely and utterly missed what I have been saying and pointing out here.

Where can we find a database with jurisprudential rulings based on that atheist moral theory? Where is it?

Once again, 'your human being made up moral theory/guess' is based on the other human being made up theory/guess about other human being made up theories and guesses. None of, which have been actually proved True, and/or Right.

you have also completely and utterly missed 'the point' about 'your own personal interpretation' is not the exact same one any other human being will necessarily, ever, have.

I also noticed the parts you completely ignored. Because if you had responded you would have only ended up contradicting "yourself" and/or just ended up being hypocritical.

[Age]

In that case, where are the axioms of your atheist moral theory documented?

If you want to go on and on and on about some alleged documented 'axioms of moral theory', then just present absolutely any one of them here. That is if you are brave enough and have the courage to do. Then, and only then, 'we' will have some thing to 'look at', and discuss.

Until then, you have not presented any single so-called actual 'document axiom of your own, followed and believed, moral theory'.

Is this a common thing with you so-called "muslims"?

I know it is a common thing with other so-called "theists" and "atheists".

[godelian]

So what?

And, they can obviously be proved, irrefutably, True anyway.
Were you not yet aware of this Fact?

Are you claiming that the axioms of mathematics are proven? Is that what you are writing?

No, what I am actually writing can be seen, very clearly, by the words used here, printed very clearly.

What do you mean by "they" in what you write? Does "they" refer to "axiomatic systems" or to "theorems of axiomatic systems"? What exactly can be irrefutably proven?

Once again, 'your human being made up moral theory/guess' is based on the other human being made up theory/guess about other human being made up theories and guesses. None of, which have been actually proved True, and/or Right.

Well, in that case, atheists can do that too, can't they? So, where is their moral theory and where is the database with jurisprudential rulings that interprets it?

If you can do all of that too, then why don't you just do it?

The truth is that you've got nothing to show for. You say that you have these things, but you clearly have nothing. If you have it, then show it!

[godelian]

Until then, you have not presented any single so-called actual 'document axiom of your own, followed and believed, moral theory'.

https://quran.com/en

[Age]

Until then, you have not presented any single so-called actual 'document axiom of your own, followed and believed, moral theory'.

https://quran.com/en

And there my friends is that link where what I have been talking about is, exactly.

[Age]

Are you claiming that the axioms of mathematics are proven? Is that what you are writing?

No, what I am actually writing can be seen, very clearly, by the words used here, printed very clearly.

What do you mean by "they" in what you write?

Not just what can be proved True, 'in mathematics', but also how all of those things that can be proved True in mathematics can be proved True.

Does "they" refer to "axiomatic systems" or to "theorems of axiomatic systems"?

No, not necessarily so.

What exactly can be irrefutably proven?

'That', which is irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

Once again, 'your human being made up moral theory/guess' is based on the other human being made up theory/guess about other human being made up theories and guesses. None of, which have been actually proved True, and/or Right.

Well, in that case, atheists can do that too, can't they?

How many times do I have to say 'you', "godelian", are the exact same in this regard with all of the other "theists", and, "atheists" in the world, before you will comprehend and understand that I mean those "atheists" as well.

So, where is their moral theory and where is the database with jurisprudential rulings that interprets it?

But, 'I' do not have a 'moral theory' like 'you' and the other "theists", and, "atheists" have.

If you can do all of that too, then why don't you just do it?

Because 'I' at the stage, or level, of just wanting to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings.

However, if absolutely anyone would like to discuss absolutely any moral issue at all, or absolutely any other Truly meaningful in Life, and 'in depth' at any level here, then I am more than willing, ready, and prepared to.

But, once again, I will suggest that if absolutely anyone wants to claim anything here as being true, then expect to be questioned and/or challenged over that claim, or over any other belief one has.

The truth is that you've got nothing to show for.

If 'this' is 'the truth', to and for you, and you want to continue on believing that 'this' is absolutely true, then, by all means, please do.

After all, you will be helping me prove absolutely True another thing that I will be talking about, and showing.

You say that you have these things, but you clearly have nothing. If you have it, then show it!

What are even 'these things', which you talk about and allude to here, exactly?

[godelian]

Until then, you have not presented any single so-called actual 'document axiom of your own, followed and believed, moral theory'.

https://quran.com/en

And there my friends is that link where what I have been talking about is, exactly.

It is a moral theory, since it contains rules that classify human behavior as permissible/halal or impermissible/haraam. That is the only requirement for a document to be a moral theory.

Where can I find a copy of your moral theory?

[godelian]

Not just what can be proved True, 'in mathematics', but also how all of those things that can be proved True in mathematics can be proved True.

Here you are implicitly referring to Soundness theorem:

If a theorem is provable from its theoretical context then it is true in all its interpretations.

Is Soundness theorem provable?

Possibly, but that does not matter.

Imagine that Soundness theorem is provable, is it therefore true? No, because you need Soundness theorem to be true already to that effect. Hence, the proof for Soundness theorem is irrelevant. Soundness theorem always needs to be assumed, irrespective of whether it is provable or not. Therefore, its proof is essentially useless.

Therefore, it may be possible to prove that "how all of those things that can be proved" is sound but it does not prove soundness to be true. You can only assume it. Once you assume soundness, all other proven theorems are indeed true in all their interpretations.

By the way, you may be able to prove the soundness of a system but never its consistency. According to Godel's second incompleteness theorem, if system consistency can be proven from a system, it is necessarily inconsistent.

Note:
- soundness: provable implies true.
- consistency: if P can be proven from the system, then not P cannot be proven from it.

(Soundness is a semantic property while consistency is exclusively syntactic)

You say that you have these things, but you clearly have nothing. If you have it, then show it!

What are even 'these things', which you talk about and allude to here, exactly?

A moral theory and a database of jurisprudential rulings that interprets it.

[Age]

https://quran.com/en

And there my friends is that link where what I have been talking about is, exactly.

It is a moral theory, since it contains rules that classify human behavior as permissible/halal or impermissible/haraam. That is the only requirement for a document to be a moral theory.

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', which some very vulnerable people, like "godelian", are then tricked, fooled, and deceived into believing is true.

So you become aware "godelian" those rules are just some human beings made up rules or laws, only. They are certainly not God's one and only actual guiding rule nor law. And, as once again this has already been proved True, and will be proved absolutely irrefutably True to and for everyone else as well.

Where can I find a copy of your moral theory?

In this forum.

But, you will never going looking for it because you believe, absolutely, that none exists, right?

you do believe that I have nothing, correct?

[Age]

Not just what can be proved True, 'in mathematics', but also how all of those things that can be proved True in mathematics can be proved True.

Here you are implicitly referring to Soundness theorem:

Okay, if you say so and believe so.

If a theorem is provable from its theoretical context then it is true in all its interpretations.

Is Soundness theorem provable?

Possibly, but that does not matter.

Okay. So then, there was not much point in bringing it up here now, right?

Imagine that Soundness theorem is provable,

Why?

Would you like to explain here now what some so-called 'soundness theorem' even is, exactly, to you, first?

Also, if it does not matter if that 'theorem' is provable, like you say and claim it does not, then what would the purpose be in imagining if it is provable. That would, also, not matter, correct?

is it therefore true? No, because you need Soundness theorem to be true already to that effect. Hence, the proof for Soundness theorem is irrelevant.

So, again, imagining if it is provable actually, really, does not matter all, true?

Soundness theorem always needs to be assumed, irrespective of whether it is provable or not. Therefore, its proof is essentially useless.

Okay, but just so you become fully aware I was not even thinking about, let alone ever talking about, some so-called 'soundness theorem'. So, literally, what you have just gone on about here was, really, very irrelevant, useless, and does not matter all, also, and as well.

Therefore, it may be possible to prove that "how all of those things that can be proved" is sound but it does not prove soundness to be true.

Okay, if you say so. But, what even is 'soundness' to you, exactly, which you believe and claim cannot be proved true.

You can only assume it.

This may well be only what you are capable of and can only do. But, when 'you' try to speak for 'me', then 'you' will be Wrong on some occasions, like this one here.

Once you assume soundness, all other proven theorems are indeed true in all their interpretations.

Okay. Now, can you prove this?

By the way, you may be able to prove the soundness of a system but never its consistency. According to Godel's second incompleteness theorem, if system consistency can be proven from a system, it is necessarily inconsistent.

Just to remind you. I never ever thought about, let alone talked about, any of this here.

All of this here is coming from your own imagination and presumptions, alone, and only.

Note:
- soundness: provable implies true.
- consistency: if P can be proven from the system, then not P cannot be proven from it.

you appear to not yet be fully aware that by adding the 'p' in things like this can totally confuse and/or twist things into absurdity.

I suggest instead you provide actual examples, and then 'we' can discuss much more successfully. Until then, you are, literally, on your own here.

(Soundness is a semantic property while consistency is exclusively syntactic)

You say that you have these things, but you clearly have nothing. If you have it, then show it!

What are even 'these things', which you talk about and allude to here, exactly?

A moral theory and a database of jurisprudential rulings that interprets it.

But, what I say and claim are not necessarily 'interpreted' Accurately, by 'others'. As the misinterpretations of 'my words', so far, has proved irrefutably True, Right, and Correct.

And just as True is that your claim of 'jurisprudential' is, obviously, just human beings deciphering and/or just interpreting just what other human beings have said, written down, and claimed.

Remember, the whole of what you call 'jurisprudential rulings' are just based solely on the written words of other human beings, only.

you seem to keep forgetting here that the 'moral theory' and a 'database of rulings' off of that 'moral theory' is nothing more than just words and rules/laws that individual human beings have 'bandied together', and then claimed where 'God's laws and rules'.

So you become aware "godelian" 'God's actual lore' is very, very different from just about all of those human being made up 'assumptions and guesses', which you go on about here.