/lit/ - Literature

Same tbh

>>6943866
>literature

>>6943897
Philosophy is also discussed here. Anyway, you are free to leave this thread.

The existence of mai waifu has not been proved wrong. It has not been proved, which in no way means that their inexistence is right. Formal logic do not allow you to deduce anything from an unclear proposition and if P can't be proved or has not been proved yet, no indications are given on ¬P validity. You cannot justify claiming I will die a virgin, this is a belief as irrational as any set of arbitrary future waifus.

>>6943866
The existence of God has been *literally* proved. It has been proved, which in no way means that his inexistence is right. Formal logic states that actuality has potentiality. You cannot justify athiesm or fideism, this is a belief as irrational as any set of arbitrary heathen rules.

>>6943910
What do you mean by “God has been proved”? However, atheism is indeed an irrational point of view, I could even claim it is wrong.

>>6943928

Godel proved that a certain formula of modal logic is a consequence of the axioms of S5. He called that formula God, because he thought that's what God meant.

>>6943928
AQUINAS
QUINAS
UINAS
INAS
NAS
AS
S

>>6943952
This is not formal logic.
>>6943948
Gödel claimed he proved it but I am still waiting for it.

>>6943952

Did you know he *literally* proved God?

Using formal logic, I've proven the impossibility of the non-existence of non subjective non morals.

I just assume the non subjectivity of non morality, its possible non destinctive non impossibility, divide by 3 and then by necessity, it has been proven

>>6943866
What if no objective morality is an impossibility because that would be an objective morality in itself? Is it a universal stance on truthfulness of ethics, that there is no truth? This just leaves objective morality, like objective truth or objective ideas (no objective truth or idea is an objective truth or idea), though the details of that morality may be complicated beyond comprehension.

>>6943965
Mate I made that fucking meme ofcourse I do

>>6943928
God has not been proven, cannot.
It is a near certainty there isn't one, especially as many have imagined.
Atheism set at 100% isn't provable, but it isn't wrong. Absolute agnosticism at 50/50 is just kind of silly imo.

>>6943952
LINCOLN LOGS
LINCOLN LOG
LINCOLN LO
LINCOLN L
LINCOLN
LINCOL
LINCO
LINC
LIN
LI
L

>>6943963

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof#Outline_of_G.C3.B6del.27s_proof

The proof is correct and unassailable. The only question is whether having "as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive" makes you God. And whether or not you think the axioms are justified, I suppose.

>>6943985
No. You're think of a system defined by two axioms “the system is perfect and thus contains every proposition” and “every proposition is subjective”, called pure subjectivism, which is absurd because the first axiom can't be objective and thus prove the existence of at least one objective proposition. However we're talking about morals, and “no objective morals exist” isn't an “objective morality”, just a proposition he never implied subjective itself.

>>6943987
I didn't say atheism was “wrong” in that sense. Atheism is neither true nor wrong logically speaking, I was saying “wrong” in a more colloquial way, meaning that unlike religions, atheism can't disregard logic and pretend to feed himself with faith. Its grounds are rationalist and thus it takes on some hypocrisy.

>>6943997
The concept of “godlikeness” used has few in common with what “God” evokes in this thread. This is not really relevant.

>>6944039
>No. You're think of a system defined by two axioms “the system is perfect and thus contains every proposition” and “every proposition is subjective”
How is partial subjectivity possible? To admit the existence of some truth seems to admit all truth by saying that subjectivity is merely delusion and deviation from that truth. By admitting that 1+1=2 you are eliminating all other possibilities, though 1+1=2 can be restructured an infinite number of ways.

>>6944078
Well, stating “there are no objective propositions” is false given the aforementioned axiom, however “there are some subjective propositions” or “there are solely subjective propositions minus two or three”, despite being likely wrong, can't be proven or dismissed. This is why reducing the set of subjectivity (e.g. “art is subjective”, “morals are subjective”, ...) back up the coherence of the system without being irrational.

>>6944091
Isn't saying that everything is subjective besides two or three things just another way of saying that two or three things are true? Which is another way of saying that one thing is true, that there is truth.

>>6944173
Sure. However, when some 20 years old illiterate hipster tell you that there is no objectively good literature, his intention is not being right but not being susceptible to be proven wrong.

>>6944183
If there is an objective truth why would it not follow that good literature is what comes closest to that truth? Otherwise it's misleading, unless the purpose of literature is to confuse people. Arguably that truth is so far off that nothing comes close enough to it to be good, only better or worse.

>>6943866
This is why philosophers are so full of shit. Specific objective "morals" cannot "exist" in any meaningful way, as they're just agreed-upon (or not) patterns of human behaviour that differ in every society, every culture, every year. The term "objective" is completely meaningless here: morality can never be objective, because there is no way to fix a precise definition on what is true morality that even two people would agree on. We agree on morals only in the broadest, sloppiest terms. As for your last sentence, that's even dumber: do whom would one have to "justify" amoralism? Why would its rationality or lack thereof have any bearing on its existence or this undefined justification? And I'll assume you somehow missed the irony of ending your note by almost contradicting the first sentence. If ethic rules are arbitrary (which is not necessarily true of anything, let alone amoralism), then where does an objective standard for morals derive? Trying to apply formal logic to this kind of mess is silly.

>>6943866
logic is a pile of shit
prove me wrong

>>6943987
>but it isn't wrong

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

>I don't know for certain that there is no God
>Atheism has high probability (=/= probability of 1) of being right
>Hence, Atheism can't be wrong

>>6943866
You seem to be naive enough to believe that contemporary ethicists actually prove things like the the things you mention, one of them being "There are objective morals". It is an EXTREMELY--to put it mildly--VAGUE claim. It is also not in the realm of the a priori sciences, so you can forget about the notion of "proof" here. If you actually read the literature you would find that there are ARGUMENTS, and NOT proofs (although they may or may not be formalized relative to your system of choice if what you want is to check its validity, FOR "There are objective morals" (whatever that means). Ethical matters are deeply rooted in empirical matters, so logic alone won't cut it.

>>6943963
>Gödel claimed he proved it but I am still waiting for it.
>

>>6944310
I do think such an unmeasurable yet actual objective truth exists but I can't prove it nor disprove that this always true proposition has nothing to do with literature or art.

>>6944913
Why does “there is no wat to fix a precise definition on what is true morality” infer “morality can never be objective”? This is not a rigorous deduction. I don't contradict myself, I never stated morals are objective, and I don't even think so, I was just pointing out amoralism is as irrational too. Amoralism, at least in the way it was discussed in the last thread, is defined by the objective absence of morals. Such an assertion is made out of nowhere and lacks rationality.

>>6944992
I don't seek any proofs for this statement. You misread me too.

>>6944913
god please read meta-ethics before you spout this facile shit