It looks like this simple question, with an equally simple answer, is destined to remain unaddressed.
Sheldon,
Now that you raise subject of bsengstock20 answering our questions here I must reveal that he and I have been conversing privately for a while. That conversation came to an end four days ago. His parting words were that he hopes to answer our questions.
Thank you,
Walter.
1 Like
In other words: “Oh, I hadn’t thought of that!”, whereby the entire framework disappeared in a puff of logic.
2 Likes
Yeah we get that a lot here. Not to worry, the answer is a pretty obvious one.
I am really struggling to believe he could champion Gödel’s argument so bullishly, and yet be entirely unaware that it was a) never published by him or during his lifetime, and b) has been widely criticised as using unevidenced assumptions in his premises, that amount to question begging.
1 Like
No, not really. If anything he focused too much on logic, to the exclusion much else.
1 Like
Yet failed to address honestly his fallacious false equivalence that God = objective reality. All I got was semantics and hand waving.
1 Like
Well, be that as it may Sheldon.
When I researched Gödel’s argument I found the field divided between the camps that accepted it and those that did not. But we’ve been here before. Ultimately it’s not the consensus of opinion about something that confirms its correctness. It’s whether or not whatever that things says is confirmed by any predictions it makes or any confirming evidence.
But bsengstock20 was not able to accept this.
He maintained that modal logic, being superior to anything empirical, cannot be confirmed or rebutted by it. The lesser cannot test the veracity of the greater.
Needless to say, I have grave doubts about this. If modal logic can only be tested and checked by itself, how do we humans, who inhabit the realm of provisional and contingent knowledge of the empirical, test and check modal logic by anything other than itself?
I see a circular argument of modal logic which cannot be broken into or out of by the empirical. And yet bsengstock20 acknowledged to me that we humans do inhabit the provisional and contingent realm of the empirical. Which leads me to believe that belief in the workings of the modal must be done by faith. After all, how does one get from the lesser realm we inhabit to the greater one we do not, except by faith? The logic of modalism can point the way but ultimately, because there is nothing in our lesser realm to rely upon, a leap of faith is called for.
Which seems to me to be a parallel to the way religion works. Humans have no way of testing or checking the workings of a supernatural god and are therefore obliged to believe in his words by faith. There is nothing they can fall back upon in this lesser world (other than modal logic) to give them any guidance about the greater world they cannot see and do not inhabit.
It also seems like a parallel to the dilemma faced by theoretical physicists who write papers about the conditions in the other, completely separate universes predicted by Inflation theory. Nothing they write can be confirmed by any data or evidence. And since science relies upon data and evidence, their papers amount to little more than informed speculation.
Thank you,
Walter.
1 Like
Yes. And when confronted with aspects of the problem that are outside pure logical derivations and implications, such as the lacking/failing/fallacious assumptions/axioms that connect the logical framework with reality, his reactions had all the symptoms of him realising that he failed to account for them, yet stubbornly refused to address these problems and just recycled his old assertions.
In my private conversations I tried to address the problem of the way bsengstock20 interacted with us, here in the open forum. But if I reveal how that went that would be breaking the confidentiality of the private messaging system.
Thank you,
Walter.
Just thinking a little more about what you say, Get_off_my_lawn…
I can’t be sure, but it might be that bsengstock20 gets around the problem you describe in these ways.
If he maintains that the empirical cannot test the modal, then isn’t that a rejection of the need for the modal to be connected to the empirical realm where humans live? Therefore, he would reject your call for it to be so.
If he maintains that the modal is greater than the empirical, then he can also claim that the empirical is not reality, but the modal is. Thus obviating any need to enslave the greater to the lesser. If so, then in this worldview, it is our lesser realm that relies on the greater one of modality to make it ‘real’. And so, once again, he would reject your call to connect what he says about modal logic to reality. For him, the modal IS reality.
Which might explain why he cannot communicate properly with us. His worldview is so different from ours that there are insufficient points of contact for meaningful communication. Not unlike the supernatural worldview of a Bible-believing Christian. We would ask them for evidence to support their beliefs, but since their belief system makes no use of evidence (as per Hebrews 11) they cannot oblige us.
But, of course, these are just speculations on my part. Which bsengstock20 can explain, clarify or correct, whenever he choosesto return here.
Thank you,
Walter.
I believe that is his contention. He has repeatedly said that “data is NOT king” in response to get_off_my_lawn and repeatedly cites the notion that modal logical establishes god as a “necessary” entity and IIRC he has even said that modal logic is self-justifying and so needs no empirical corroboration (though I may be confusing that with the contention of someone else citing modal logic).
There are many examples of philosophically, logically or mathematically “correct” and even elegant “proofs” that nevertheless don’t hold up here in pesky ol’ reality, so I have any appeal to modal logic filed for now at least under “potential mental masturbation going on here”. I do not say that modal logic has no value, it surely does. But like quantum theory it is heavily misused by theists in an attempt to legitimize unfalsifiable assertions that their belief system relies upon.
Agreed, but he has failed to honestly address those criticisms, all I got was bombastic reptation of subjective assertions.
This is fine, but the high handed way he falsely accused anyone who rejected that argument of being irrational, and then using a false equivalence himself, but instead of addressing it hiding behind semantics, was pretty dishonest.
Even if one accepted this, it was a poor argument, and he failed to address this or why, and of course he was invited to create a plane without using any empirical or objective scientific evidence, again his response amounted to little more than repetition and handwaving.
A pretty good test is to replace the deity in the argument with something you don’t believe exists, if the argument loses nothing then that is surely a sign the argument is poor. We could arbitrarily define anything the way Gödel does, and his argument would lose nothing.
I don’t think this is an accident of course, many mainstream religions recognised the need to maintain an air of mystery around their claims, when offering them to the hoi polloi.
The problem with your question (while completely valid) is that it assumes that there IS evidence. but most religions rely on faith, not evidence. if there was evidence, we wouldnt be having these debates. the person doesnt need to convince you; they just need to convince themselves. and once theyve done that, its almost impossible to change their mind, no matter how logical your response is. it is frustrating, i know, but it is a question ive asked many times myself
1 Like
I think Sheldon meant for this question to challenge those who CLAIM to have evidence apart from faith. As you point out, of course, they don’t.
1 Like
oh yes. of course. apologies.
Exactly correct, we had a spate of apologists making just such claims.
i would have loved to been there for that
As you work your way back through older posts, you’ll at least experience the historic record.
Welcome to the forum, by the way 
1 Like
Thank you. ive been looking for an atheist forum, but in modern society, even with the rise of atheism, it is difficult to find said goal
Do you assert that my beliefs about my voices are not objective?
I’ve googled the “facts” you refer to. Nothing in their regarding how they can distinguish between hallucinations and the voices of higher beings.
What objective evidence?
And what finally convinced you that the above mentioned hallucinations were in fact hallucinations?
And yet your definition of objective mentions “free from personal feelings … when representing facts.” It is a fact that coherent voices speak to me on an ongoing basis. That fact is not obscured by my personal feelings.
For example?
Well, you get to have your cake and eat it too, since a so called hallucination can be utterly vivid and convincing and, by your standards, be dismissed as “not real”. Which is why I asked you what “convinces you” that there is a real person typing out these words. If your criteria for determining “me” as real is indistinguishable from “hallucinations” then your point is moot.
Or maybe the voices are more real, coherent and tangible , thus giving them ontological accreditation.
lol. Quite true to form. Use your imagination, Shelly. It’s a hypothetical question. It need not be possible for you to give an answer
If you’re implying that “my” sense of humour is the source of the voice’s sense of humour, I should tell your that “their” sense of humour is on another level.
You haven’t offered a mechanism. Nor have medical professionals.
As you were, good man. I must also return to duties.