It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"The purpose of the four theorems is to show that the property of being God-like is exemplified by some thing x" is not an answer. you are placeholding for something we specifically requested and you are unable to provide. or unwilling? it would be so much more conducive to discussion if you just provided an example instead of insisting you dont have to.
This argument only works when you know all of the facts. There are zero facts in this word problem. The definition of "godlike" might as well be "unicornlike". Nobody has ever seen one, so I can make up the properties of what i think unicorns should be like. Based on the traditional stories. Or how about dragon like?
It is the arbitrary axioms that that don't make sense. Why would i assume that a godlike thing only has positive attributes?
I do have a problem with the statement that something/anything has godlike properties. Even if you define it as something that has only positive attributes. You and godel are only redefining things that we already have names for.
Why would i assume that a godlike thing only has positive attributes?
why define godlike that way when we already have a long history of examples of what gods are from thousands of ancient cultures?
2) is there anything that has only positive attributes? Why would that thing be a god?
Sye brugencate used this presupositional argument on matt dilahunty and got put in his place.
The set of whole numbers implies the number zero. However zero is neither positive or negative.
A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive Zero is neither positive nor negative.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive [Axiom 3 depends upon 1 and 2 being true, which they are not, so axiom 3 is no usable]
On their face, all 5 axioms are false, so there is no point moving on to theorem's.
I am getting hung up on the third. He defines godlike, as something that has only positive attributes? I understand the word godlike is a placeholder word. What i don't get is, how can something only have positive attributes?
originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
The set of whole numbers implies the number zero. However zero is neither positive or negative.
[Axiom 1 is shown to be false]
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Zero is neither positive nor negative.
[Axiom 2 is shown to be false]
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
[Axiom 3 depends upon 1 and 2 being true, which they are not, so axiom 3 is no usable]
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
[Axiom 4 depends upon 1 and 2 to be true, which are not, so axiom 4 is not usable]
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property
[Axiom 5 depends upon 1 and 2 being true, which they are not]
On their face, all 5 axioms are false, so there is no point moving on to theorem's.
Kev
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm
Lol you call pointing out the fact that he used the fallacy of equivocation in his rebuttal mental gymnastics. Sometimes I wonder where all the critical thinkers have gone.
Sure, but you must show that there is something that has only positive attributes, otherwise you are just assuming that there is something. It is presuppositional. As in, you have to assume it exists.
ou would have to show that it is possible to exist in all other worlds or else you are supposing: 1) that there are other worlds/dimensions/plains/ 2) that some CAN exist in all worlds.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Woodcarver
Sure, but you must show that there is something that has only positive attributes, otherwise you are just assuming that there is something. It is presuppositional. As in, you have to assume it exists.
I don't think you are understanding the point I am making. Number concepts exists necessarily in all possible worlds. If something with all positive properties necessarily exists then it exists in all possible worlds. If it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world. That is deductive logic as well. You seem to be having an issue with Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property.