How would you deal that there really is no justice, judgement, or punishment that will be enacted upon malevolent people who are out of your reach?

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

Do you see the word empirical in that quote? Again you have the maximum latitude here. Present the best reason you think you have that any deity exists.

And I have pointed to and provided you with modal and deductive proofs time and time again. And yet, either due to ignorance, incapacity, or obstinance, you refuse to engage with them.

@Sheldon

On the contrary, I have addressed them, they make a priori assumptions that I see no justification for beyond simple bias. Gödel’s ontological proof for example, the conclusion follows only if one accepts its initial a priori assumptions (axioms) as true premises, I have seen no compelling reason why anyone would do this, beyond a bias, as they want to believe a deity exists.

Ok. So which of the axioms do you disagree with?

@Sheldon

Except you know you believe a deity exists and it is not hypothetical, and it’s just a subjective opinion that the claims are necessary truths, or that the properties assigned are in anyway essential.

Yes, but I cannot assume my belief in deities to be rational unless tied to a modal proof which would justify the provisional position that I hold if I did all my empirical homework correctly in respect to the deity that I believe in. In like manner, you cannot assume your disbelief in deities to be rational unless tied to a modal proof which would justify the provisional position that you hold if you did your empirical homework correctly.

@Sheldon

Yet you wouldn’t buy a car or boards a plane that used subjective beliefs to design them, and when you’re sick you go to medical science for answers, if your smart.

Yes. But that’s not what’s happening here. You wouldn’t buy a car or board a plane that was missing an essential structural component or trust a professed medical doctor who didn’t have the essential education and license necessary to qualify him if you had good sense. Likewise, you shouldn’t believe a provisional claim about an essential contingency if such claim cannot be tied to a modal proof that is logically consistent and mathematically sound.

@Sheldon

It doesn’t matter, the arguments for a deity all involve subjective bias, the conclusions are true only of one accepts the initial premises as true, and without evidence I see no reason beyond bias for doing this.

No. If provisional claim about an essential contingency can be tied to a modal proof that is logically consistent and mathematically sound, we have an ontological and epistemological duty to accept it as rational agents. To do otherwise is to be irrational.

@Sheldon

Why would I accept the claim it is necessary or essential, give a reason beyond bias.

If tied to an essential contingency can be tied to a modal proof that is logically consistent and mathematically sound, you must in order to claim that you are rational concerning the subject.

@Sheldon

No it wasn’t an epistemological claim, it is merely obvious that people can believe what they want to believe, and often will.

Perhaps you misunderstand. Your statement confuses freedom with epistemic permissibility. Psychologically, a person can believe whatever they want: the mind can form unjustified beliefs. But epistemologically, freedom isn’t the issue; justification is. What one is free to believe says nothing about what one ought to believe. This is similar to: “You’re free to guess any answer on an exam.”

@Sheldon

It is a subjective choice to set any standard for credulity, but that standard need not be subjective, how much bias one indulges would determine this.

No, not entirely. At the object-level, not all standards are viable. Once you choose an epistemic standard, your ability to track truth constrains what counts as a “reasonable” standard. This is where subjectivity dissolves.

@Sheldon

months

Months? Where in the world did you get that?

@Sheldon

Are you seriously asking that I define your belief for you, come on. You brought it here, the burden of proof is entirely yours, that crack about the intellectual high ground and grandstanding is pretty hilarious.

No. I’m seriously asking you to define exactly what you’re objecting to as an atheist. (1) What do you think God is? (2) Why do you object the existence of God relative to the definition you provided?

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

And I have pointed to and provided you with modal and deductive proofs time and time again.

I assumed when you said you were “building a framework” you thought you had more, but all you have is an argument whose conclusion can only be true based on biased and subjective assumptions about a deity.

@bsengstock20

And yet, either due to ignorance, incapacity, or obstinance, you refuse to engage with them.

Yeah that’s a lie, you completely ignore response to Gödel’s ontological argument, and I am now going to put you on warning, that if you persist with the childish taunt I am more than happy to send a few back your way,

@bsengstock20

Ok. So which of the axioms do you disagree with?

• If the property of being “god-like” is positive, then it is a necessary property.

You can’t define something into existence, it’s wishful thinking, a form of question begging. Just because the proof is logically consistent, doesn’t mean its philosophical soundness is isn’t questionable, the axioms and definitions Gödel used as his starting point are where it fails.

@bsengstock20

you cannot assume your disbelief in deities to be rational unless tied to a modal proof

Nonsense, disbelief doesn’t require any argument, we are all born atheists. If I make a claim or present an argument, that violates a principle of logic, then that is down to me, not atheism, since atheism is not a claim or a belief.

@bsengstock20

tied to a modal proof that is logically consistent and mathematically sound.

Tied? Those assumptions are no more than question begging.

@bsengstock20

we have an ontological and epistemological duty to accept it as rational agents.

An ontological and epistemological duty to accept the wishful thinking and question begging of an apologist, please.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

It doesn’t matter, the arguments for a deity all involve subjective bias, the conclusions are true only of one accepts the initial premises as true, and without evidence I see no reason beyond bias for doing this.

No. If provisional claim about an essential contingency can be tied to a modal proof that is logically consistent and mathematically sound, we have an ontological and epistemological duty to accept it as rational agents. To do otherwise is to be irrational.

So yes, it’s only a compelling argument if one accepts the a priori assumption as true, that is simple bias, in the absence of any accompanying evidence.

Anyway it was a long painful ride for very little in the end, the bag is empty, the emperor has no clothes, the beans are not magical.

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

I assumed when you said you were “building a framework” you thought you had more, but all you have is an argument whose conclusion can only be true based on biased and subjective assumptions about a deity.

Sheldon, the only assumptions that I am currently presenting about God (not deity) is that:

1. God is omnipresent (as an essential quality).

2. God is omniscience (as an essential quality).

Arguably, these are one in the same. We also have a working model for such a being that is logically consistent and mathematically sound: Laplace’s demon (God model: not deity model).

@Sheldon

• If the property of being “god-like” is positive, then it is a necessary property.

You can’t define something into existence, it’s wishful thinking, a form of question begging. Just because the proof is logically consistent, doesn’t mean its philosophical soundness isn’t questionable, the axioms and definitions Gödel used as his starting point are where it fails.

Ok. Now we’re getting somewhere.

This isn’t an attempt to define something into existence. Notice the word “if”. This is a predicate assumption.

The argument presupposes a modal logic setting with:

P(X) = “X is a positive property” (a property that is intrinsically good, perfective, or contributes to maximal greatness).

G(x) = “x is god‑like,” meaning x has all positive properties.

Gödel and other modal ontological arguments work with the assumption that positivity is an objective modal property—not subjective, but one that does not vary across possible worlds.

Thus:

If a property is positive, it is not merely contingently positive; its positivity is essential.

If you deny that, you would have to say something like:

“Maximal rationality is positive in some universes but not others,” which is incoherent under the classical philosophical definition of “positive.

@Sheldon

Nonsense, disbelief doesn’t require any argument, we are all born atheists.

That’s incorrect. We are arguably born as non-cognitive non-theists. There is a big difference.

Atheists: Cognitive stance: Atheism is a cognitive claim about belief: it’s about what you believe regarding gods.

Non-Cognitive Non-Theists: “God exists” is not a cognitive meaningful proposition in the sense that (1) such a term cannot be rationally expressed and/or (2) “God exists” is not a cognitive meaningful proposition because we do not possess the rational capacity to cognitively approach the subject.

If you make a claim or present an argument that violates a principle of rationale relative to your worldview, then that is down to you, since atheism is a claim or a belief. What can be asserted without reason can be dismissed without reason.

@Sheldon

Tied? Those assumptions are no more than question begging.

As relative to the predicate. Please… The initial proof is not an argument for a deity. The initial proof is a proof for God (a pure panendeist omnipresent omniscience observer). God does not equal deity.

@Sheldon

So yes, it’s only a compelling argument if one accepts the a priori assumption as true, that is simple bias, in the absence of any accompanying evidence.

The predicate assumption is that positivity is an objective modal property—not subjective, but one that does not vary across possible worlds. That’s it. I can reword the assumption if you’re stuck on the word “God”.

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

the only assumptions that I am currently presenting about God (not deity) is that:

1. God is omnipresent (as an essential quality).
2. God is omniscience (as an essential quality).

Exactly my point.

@bsengstock20

This isn’t an attempt to define something into existence.

I disagree.

@bsengstock20

If you deny that, you would have to say something like:

I don’t need to deny anything, i just don’t believe unevidenced assumptions, not just for deities of course.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

Nonsense, disbelief doesn’t require any argument, we are all born atheists.

That’s incorrect. We are arguably born as non-cognitive non-theists. There is a big difference.

Straw man, I never said all atheists were the same, I said we’re all born atheists.

@bsengstock20

Atheism is a cognitive claim about belief

atheism

noun

1. disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

@bsengstock20

since atheism is a claim or a belief.

It’s neither, it’s a lack or absence of belief, how we get there doesn’t change the definition. All babies are atheists, though they can’t make the claim.

@bsengstock20

The initial proof is a proof for God

Based on unevidenced assumptions that amount to question begging.

@bsengstock20

I can reword the assumption if you’re stuck on the word “God”.

It’s question begging, and attempt to define a deity into existence.

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

Exactly my point.

Provisional assumptions necessary for discourse about the subject. Do you disagree with either of these provisional assumptions?

@Sheldon

I disagree.

Well, you can disagree all you want. But that doesn’t make you right. Notice the word “if”. This is a predicate assumption.

@Sheldon

atheism

noun

1. disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Yeah. Do you know what a cognitive claim is?

@Sheldon

All babies are atheists, though they can’t make the claim.

No. All babies are Non-Cognitive Non-Theists (arguably).

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

Do you disagree with either of these provisional assumptions?

@Sheldon

I disagree

@bsengstock20

Well, you can disagree all you want.

Thanks, but I don’t require your permission.

@bsengstock20

Do you know what a cognitive claim is?

Yes, do newborn babies make them?

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

All babies are atheists, though they can’t make the claim.

No. All babies are Non-Cognitive Non-Theists (arguably).

Semantics, they lack belief in any deity or deities, they are by definition atheists. The distinction your making isn’t relevant to that fact. Atheism is not a claim, or a belief.

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

Thanks, but I don’t require your permission.

Yeah. But you don’t get to call yourself rational.

@Sheldon

Yes, do newborn babies make them?

All babies are Non-Cognitive Non-Theists. Babies do not make cognitive claims concerning God

@Sheldon

Semantics, they lack belief in any deity or deities, they are by definition atheists. The distinction your making isn’t relevant to that fact. Atheism is not a claim, or a belief.

No, not semantics. The distinction is essential to understanding.

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

Thanks, but I don’t require your permission.

Yeah. But you don’t get to call yourself rational.

Are you going to ban from your club? Where rationality involves unevidenced deities, magic, and absurd fantasies.

Dear oh dear…

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

Yes, do newborn babies make them?

All babies are Non-Cognitive Non-Theists. Babies do not make cognitive claims concerning God

And are also atheist quod erat demonstrandum, atheism is not a claim, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

Semantics, they lack belief in any deity or deities, they are by definition atheists. The distinction your making isn’t relevant to that fact. Atheism is not a claim, or a belief.

No, not semantics. The distinction is essential to understanding.

To mendacious obfuscation more like.

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

Are you going to ban from your club? Where rationality involves unevidenced deities, magic, and absurd fantasies.

No. I do not claim unevidenced deities, magic, and absurd fantasies. I simply claim God as an omniscience and omnipresent observer.

@Sheldon

And are also atheist quod erat demonstrandum, atheism is not a claim, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

Demonstrate.

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

I do not claim unevidenced deities, magic, and absurd fantasies.

Well either I hallucinated last night, or you did pretty much that.

@bsengstock20

I simply claim God as an omniscience and omnipresent observer.

Without any supporting evidence, based on an argument that requires biases a priori assumptions.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

And are also atheist quod erat demonstrandum, atheism is not a claim, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

Demonstrate.

You missed the d off then end there.