I am moved by the rigor and effort of responses provided to me via the different members of this forum. However, I have been given notice by the moderators of this forum that I am now only allotted a maximum of three posts per day at 200 words maximum per post. Because of this provision, I will unfortunately not be able to respond at the rate which I have been.
To this end, I suggest an alternate proposal. A free debate between me and a committee of members of this forum. Here are some provisional rules which can be discussed between us until we find an agreement:
We will limit ourselves to a maximum of three posts per day of a mutually agreed word limit. Each day, the committee of atheists will either choose a member to represent them or collaborate on a separate thread to represent their side before they provide their post.
We will respect the provisions of good faith and not resort to insult, belittlement, or blatant misrepresentation.
We will reach a mutual definition of terms (God, gods, atheism, evidence, essential, etc…) before we debate the legitimacy of terms relative to reality.
Please provide your thoughts/concerns as to whether these terms are acceptable.
Back in the day, when Ex-Christian.net was operating a debate forum, there was a dedicated section called the Arena where two members could enter into a moderated debate. Other members could watch, but could not participate.
The main difference between this and bsengstock’s proposal is that it was the Moderators who set the terms and it was for the members to abide by them.
There is something very much like that on atheistdiscussion.org called “The Colosseum”, although it is seldom used. In fact that site isn’t super active in general anymore.
Below the “Colosseum” is something called “the Sewer” where they throw all the threads that turn to shit, lol.
Oh that there had been such a thing in Ex-Christian.net, mordant!
There was a long-standing member who I swear used to take a perverse delight in ****ing threads up. He was a good ole Texan Christian of the God, Guts & Guns variety. Need I say more?
The threads that he turned to shit were locked by the Mods and left where they were. But I think the Sewer would have been a good place for him.
Well, if he was such a good biblical Christian then perhaps he should have listened more to Jesus and less to Fox News, the NRA and Ben Shapiro? For instance…
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of god.”
“If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
“All who draw the sword will die by the sword”
Speaking only for myself, @bsengstock20, this seems to be an attempt to continue to construct your desired framing for conversation and would not result in anything different from what the threads have already produced. You aren’t going to agree to definitions different from your own or agree to relate those terms to your version of reality differently than you already do. So it amounts to an attempt to lead the discussion down a path I don’t consider either legitimate or fruitful.
There it is right there, he is passing off subjective beliefs, not just as rational argument, but insisting that anyone who points out they amount to question begging, must be irrational.
He never addressed his false equivalence that a deity(of his choice) = objective reality, semantics was all he had, he never addressed the fact that Gödel’s argument amounted to question begging, again semantics was all that was on offer.
If Gödel proved a deity existed why aren’t all the theistic religions globally championing this? Imagine just as one example the resources of the RCC, does he seriously expect us to believe they would leave such a proof alone, and champion faith, that’s an absurd idea.
There is an aspect to bsengstock20’s comments that interest me, but which he has kept closely guarded. Hopefully, if he returns with answers to our questions (as he told me hopes to) he might then shed some light on this.
What I would like to know is if belief in the existence of a god-like object is only possible through the use of a proof in modal logic or is it possible to believe in it by faith and without evidence?
If he confirms that it is possible by faith, then… why bother with modal logic at all?
Or if he says that modal logic is the only way, doesn’t that make this belief system extremely elitist?
But seeing as bsengstock20’s IN tray is already stacked up with our waiting questions, I’d like him to answer these after he’s dealt with the backlog.
As yet I have seen no sound logical proof of any deity, modal or otherwise, the one presented (Gödel’s) is deeply flawed, as it’s premises contain unevidenced subjective assumptions and of course these amount to little more than question begging.
As to the question, @bsengstock20 has stated that all empirical and therefore objective evidence is inferior, and while I don’t agree, it’s hard to see what he could now present, when a method he championed as not just superior but perfect has failed. So I suppose I would be curious as well.
One last observation this “godlike object” is a dishonest start in my opinion, as he clearly believes in a specific Christian deity, why not start with by accurately and honestly defining that deity, and then offer the best reason for its existence. So far we have it defined as God = objective reality, clearly a false equivalence and circular, and the best reason when pressed, was Gödel’s argument.
Well of course the bias of faith can believe anything, but to be clear Modal logic has failed here, and unless Gödel’s was not in fact the best, it’s done.
I have found one use of LLMs that is useful to me, namely translating sentences and ideas to imaginary languages (I used Grok). So here is the problem with Gödel’s god-proof explained through emoji, set up as an informal deduction chain with nomenclature I invented for the purpose.
Definitions of symbols used:
: assumptions
: reality
: logical deductions
: conclusion reflects reality
: not
@bsengstock20’s claim is that Gödel’s god-proof is this:
( = ) ⟶ () ⟶ ()
While in reality, it is this:
( ≠) ⟶ () ⟶ ()
or, alternatively:
() ⟶ () ⟶ ()
where means assumptions pulled out of the arse.
Several edits: Getting the emoji to display correctly was not trivial.
You say that bsengstock20 clearly believes in a specific Christian deity, Sheldon.
Could you please show me the evidence that you base that conclusion upon?
I’m not calling you out as being false here, its just that in my recollection he played his cards very close to his chest and didn’t give much away. Also, I’m party to information about him that you aren’t - having engaged in a private conversation with him. So I’d just like to be sure where we stand on the question, ok?
As far as I can see everything seems to hinge on what reality is. For something to properly reflect reality we would first have to know what reality is. But bsengstock20 diverges from us in that respect. We say that reality is known empirically. He says that reality is known modally. And so we have a Mexican stand off.
I remember he made the claim to be a Christian, I don’t recall which thread, so it would it would take an age to find the post.
I understand, he was vague about even that claim of course, and when pressed told me he was “building a case first” for a deity (for clarity he said God) the word deity is mine.
I can only offer my recollection from a post in one of the threads on here, sorry. He offered to converse in PM’s with me, he’s not the first, I think it is better is arguments and evidence are subjected to the scrutiny of public debate. Especially if they’re brought here, to an atheist public debate forum.
Yeah, that is @bsengstock20’s problem. How can you claim that an assumption reflects reality without checking? Short answer: you can’t. At least not without supplying some sort of reasoning behind it that is directly (or indirectly through other deductions) anchored in reality/empirical observations or measurements. It seems like he is under the delusion that you can just make an assumption and then reality will adjust to your desires. Sorry, but Nature and the Cosmos does not care about your feelings.
Not really. @bsengstock20 makes the claim that his/Gödel’s assumptions reflect reality. Thus, he has the burden of proof here. Instead, he shifts the burden of proof by demanding that his/Gödel’s assumptions must just be accepted by critics and/or proved wrong. In other words, they are just to be trusted without any further argument. And it is easy to see why, because all @bsengstock20 has is the delusion of Gödel’s assumptions/axioms reflecting reality, or of them being realisable in practice. If they are not, Gödel’s god-proof is only an interesting intellectual exercise for a toy universe. So his only way out is to just deny and ignore the problems with the “proof”.
On a side note, if Gödel’s axioms for his god-proof reflected reality, I’m quite sure that it would be a prominently displayed idea and theorem in university courses at both undergraduate and graduate levels in such diverse disciplines as mathematics, philosophy, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, theology, etc. But it is not. In all my years at university, from first year through finishing my Ph.D., I heard not a single mention of it. Not even from lecturers from the philosophy department teaching Philosophy of science for Ph.D. candidates. And it is not even mentioned in the book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter, which is in its entirety a celebration of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and its implications. One would think such a revolutionary proof would find its way to such a book. Instead: nothing. The first time I read about Gödels god-proof was actually on discussion forums, presented by fundamentalist religious people thinking they had a good case with that one.
Quoting myself on this one, in order to elaborate.
Here’s an example: Is light particle-like or wave-like?
Newton argued that light was particle-like, while Huygens argued that it was wave-like. Granted, Newton later changed his position to also considering light having wave-like properties. Next, interference experiments like those performed by Thomas Young confirmed wave-like behaviour, and Maxwell derived his famous differential equations for electromagnetic waves, also implying that light is electromagnetic radiation. Max Planck argued through heuristical arguments that light was transmitted in particles with discrete energy levels, with Albert Einstein following up with the photoelectric effect being a result of discrete energy levels of photons. In the 1920s, Arthur Compton demonstrated that light had momentum. And both the particle side and the wave side were backed up by empirical data.
So, without empirical data, how would one solve this? Light certainly cannot have two contradictory properties at the same time, so we just hammer each other in the head with arguments and modal logic until either the wave side or the particle side wins? In either case, they would both be wrong, no matter who “wins”. The only way to resolve it would be to consider empirical data, and adjust the theoretical arguments and conclusions accordingly. So we now have the weird quantum behaviour of particle-wave duality, with both sides being equally right and equally wrong, and a third position won.
The obvious conclusion here is: Shit in, shit out. Data is king.
But @bsengstock20 denies this.
I can say Sheldon and Walter I think you are referring to the conversation I had with “bseng” where I questioned his use of capitalised “God” when referring to his god thing and he told me it was a version of Yahweh. He also mentioned Jesus and the prophets as harbingers of his belief system such as it was.
At the moment I am deep into contemplation of the meaning of Merlot, sorry, xmas, and contemplating opening (for research purposes) a bottle of Cab Merlot from Margaret River, just as an experiment in pain relief you understand.
​You mean deliberately confusing. The rest of your “reasoning” has no bearing on my post. That there are many cults, sects and beliefs surrounding the christian god is a reality. What is at stake is exactly how you are defining your usage of the Proper Noun “God” If you are not using it as the n…
: assumptions
: reality
: logical deductions
: not
) ⟶ (