/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15132998
Stay back midwit and kill yourself never again touch the subject of logic

>>15132998
God’em.

ghislaine MACKS-well
jeffery EFFSTEENS
bernie MADE-OFF

>>15133146
God has a good sense of humour ngl

>>15133150
i would say 90% of synchronicity events are literally just jokes

>>15132998
I had the same thought just yesterday

>>15132998
>>15133177
It's pronounced GOOdel you dumb american retards

>>15133210
I'm gonna goo into your mouth

>>15133059
G'em

>>15132998
ö is not o at all. ö sounds like the e in 'her', except it's formed with the lips, not with the back of the tongue.

>>15132998
It's pronounced grrrr dell.

>>15132998
I once knew someone very intelligent and we were discussing Gödel's theorems one day, and he would pronounce his name without the umlaut, like "Go-dle". As an autist, who also speaks German, naturally I corrected him on this, thinking that an intelligent man such as himself would appreciate knowing how to actually pronounce this important person's name, but he would keep mispronouncing it. "Go-dle". Fuckin' drove me nuts. I have the same reflexive disgust when I hear someone pronounce Euler as "You-ler". Perhaps Americans need to be gassed.

OP is probably starting to seethe by now because he wanted to trigger a dispute about Gödel's fucked up "proof" and feel like a master troll because he just dropped the claim as something uncontroversial, but since he is an american and has no idea how ridiculous americans look when thinking ö is just the nazi form of o ( as in mötley crüe and mötörhead, absolute lol), he fucked it up and is now ignored except for his ignorance, which is not.

>>15133529
>I once knew someone very intelligent
funny, that. I never did.

>>15133536
If that's you Nic, then I'm sorry, but you're getting the gas.

>>15133549
>yfw it's a priori true that everyone except your wife is trying to poison you

>>15133549
>yfw it's a priori true that everyone except your wife is trying to poison you

>>15133549
>either a property or its negation is positive, but not both
right there you can stop reading because it's just word salad

>>15133608
Why? What's wrong with it?

>>15133549
Is being able to create the universe, annihilate yourself, and let the universe run on its own accord a positive property? If not, why not?

>>15133637
>is [randaom schizobabble] a positive property
I don't know. Why is it relevant?

>>15132998
Gödel.
An ö is not an o and they are also not pronounced alike.

>>15133641
What do you define as a positive property? Be precise.

>>15133643
The proof in anon's picture implicitly defines the conditions for it so maybe you should try to read it.

>>15133641
because if that's a positive property, god existed but no longer does, you dumb nigger
have you even read chad godel's proof?

>>15133555
C-checked

>>15133650
If your incoherent schizobabble implies that God doesn't exist, then obviously your incoherent schizobabble is not a positive property, but regardless "being able to" do something doesn't imply that you have to do it, so it fails on every level.

>>15133649
I accept your defeat. Let me know when you're able to tell me what a positive property is.

>>15133657
I acknowledge your inability to read and your impotent rage.

>>15133210
>>15132998
This, also God is pronounced as JOD.

>>15133659
See >>15133657.

>>15133662
I don't need to tell you anything. If you want to know what it is, read the proof itself and Gödel's own comments. The fact that you admit to not knowing what he meant removes you from the discussion right off the bat and there is nothing more I need to do.

>>15133655
>I'll just arbitrarily declare what I consider to be positive properties, and you can't do the same
dumb nigger

>>15133666
See >>15133657.

>>15133666

>>15133667
>>15133668
>>15133678
>mentally ill seethe

>>15133210
No it's not. It's /gøːdl/. English doesn't have the ø sound though.

>>15133679
https://test.mensa.no/

>>15133679
See >>15133657.

>>15132998
>proves God exists
He didn't, and theological "proofs" have always been quite heretical. God's test on man is faith. If God wanted to reveal himself so easily to man, he could appear any moment and do so, but that's too easy. God wants "conviction of things unseen." Ignore all these fucking Prots and Caths. Turn to the Orthodox Fathers.

>>15133643
>What do you define as a positive property?
see Axiom 1 of >>15133549

>>15133699
Not true. There are contingency arguments that get you there just fine. The fact that the universe began should have been a good clue to you. The Things that began demand a cause or explanation. The cause can't be something physical, as this means the universe would have had to exist before it's own beginning in order to create itself. See pic. This is why coper try to come up with different goofy eternal universe theories. None of them are logical though. How does causation work in an eternal universe? ect

>>15133699
I will add here that you religion is irrelevant to the idea of if whether or not the physical reality can logically create (boot itself up) and sustain itself, which of course it can't, see pic, specifically
>And while the second option, that It does indeed come from Bit, sounds good, it is impossible for a physical world to compute itself. So logic reduces the three options above to two: either the physical world exists by itself alone and just happens to be very mathematically calculable, or it is in fact calculated and thus virtual.
There is no middle ground.
The the virtual world can't output itself. Sounds like orthodoxy doesn't have faith in us using god's own logic.

>>15133699
whoops here
>>15133759
the pic related is in this post

>>15133736
not him, but
A1: Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both
there must be some reason why you guys are refusing to define what a positive property is.
probably you guys are godless fedoras just trying to make proponents of this argument look retarded. or maybe you just don't understand the argument.

>>15133762
>there must be some reason why you guys are refusing to define what a positive property is.
There must be some reason why you spout schizobabble first, and then demand others to put in the effort of correcting your utter lack of understanding when you're called out. If you don't know what is meant b "positive property", why are you attacking the argument in the first place?

>>15133762
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/69336/what-did-g%C3%B6del-mean-by-positive-property-in-his-ontological-argument
>"Positive" is what Leibniz and other proponents of the ontological argument called qualities that make something "better" than it is without them
God who creates a universe such that he doesn't have to stick around to manage it = better. Cope and seethe.

>>15133775
ah, heh, I can see why they were terrified of defining it

>>15133776
Because "better" is entirely subjective. We can accept Godel's proof and use it with our own "better" properties.
Reddit /r/atheism wins again.

>>15133775
>>15133776
>i breathe through my mouth

>>15133778
>"better" is entirely subjective
That's specifically ruled out by the axioms. You clearly breathe through your mouth.

>>15133778
>Because "better" is entirely subjective.
indeed

>>15133783
That's specifically not ruled out by the axioms. You clearly breathe through your mouth.

>>15133788
Did you even read it? lol. Are you even sentient?

>>15133792
Did you even read it? lol. Are you even sentient?

>>15133794
A4 specifically rules out properties that are only "subjectively better" from being positive properties. Case closed. You may demonstrate more of your mental illness in your next post.

>>15133800
A God who sticks around is just as contingent (non-necessary) as a God who doesn't stick around. Cope and seethe.

>>15132998
>Who wrote this shit?
God does. Really makes you think, doesn't it?

>>15133812
>A God who sticks around is just as contingent (non-necessary) as a God who doesn't stick around
Prove it.

>>15133812
yep, it's not necessary that an omnipotent god stay around to manage the universe he creates, so the property of staying around to manage the universe is neither a necessary property (asserting as such would contradict omnipotence) nor a necessarily positive property (because I say so), and therefore by the contrapositive of A4, not a positive property.

>>15133549
No reason to accept D1, A3, A4 and A5.
A3 is so laughably bad you might as well just say god exists and skip the mental gymnastics.
Godel didn't think that argument proves god and even christian theologians didn't think ontological arguments are sound.

>>15133549
This whole logic is flawed from the very start because he assumes "positive" and "negative" things actually exist, when in reality, they don't. It's all a figment of the human imagination.

>>15133818
Okay, I'm happy to suspend judgment and accept that neither property has been demonstrated as necessary. I will therefore place the Godel proof into a state of limbo. Let me know if you wish to prove a modal distinction between
A: God who sticks around to manage the universe
and
B: God who doesn't stick around to manage the universe

>>15133826
>neither property has been demonstrated as necessary.
So? Prove that "sticking around" is a property at all.

>>15133608
it's just excluded middle.
X is the property of faggotness.
OP is either a faggot or not a faggot. he can't be both simultaneously

>>15133828
A: God who sticks around to manage the universe
B: God who doesn't stick around to manage the universe
If you choose A as your positive property, I'll choose B as mine. If you insist that A is necessary (or necessarily positive, for that matter) but B is not, I'll need to see a proof of that, or I'll be making fun of you at my Reddit meet-up this Saturday.

>>15133840
We were talking about properties. Prove that "sticking around" is a property.

>>15133841
Being a stick-arounder is a property as much as being a pump-and-dumper is a property.

>>15133848
>Being a stick-arounder is a property
Prove it. Notice how you're stuck in a loop simply chanting your talking point over and over instead of making a logical argument?

>>15133855
I mean, I do assume that you understand English and aren't playing dumb. Otherwise, I'll need to know what your understanding of "property" is.

>>15133861
So you can't explain why you think it's a property?

>>15133863
Not to retards, no.

>>15133868
Okay, explain it to the other geniuses in the crowd. Why do you think it's a property? How come you just keep chimping out and chanting?

>>15133872
You are entirely right. Property has not been defined in the argument. I'll await a definition of property before I accept the argument.

>>15133881
>You are entirely right
Ok. Then your "argument" is null and void.

> I'll await a definition of property
Have fun with that. Just refrain from sharting out dumb arguments in the meanwhile.

>>15133883
I accept your inability to define 'property'.

>>15133884
You think I care? I don't believe in any god, fedora nigger. I just enjoy watching you shit the bed every time someone posts that meme.

>>15133888
I'm not a fedora. I'm a theist.

>>15133890
Seethe harder, fedora nigger.

>>15133891
You're a self-admitted fedora. I'm unironically a theist.

>>15133894
Go wipe the foam off the corners of your mouth and try not to fail so hard next time.

>>15133896
As you say, you don't believe in any god. I knew perfectly well that you were a fedora trying to make theists look retarded, and so did other posters (e.g., >>15133762). You failed.

>>15133914
>trying to make theists look retarded
You made yourself look retarded. All I had to do was to ask you to explain your claims. lol

>>15133914
called it
you got the fedora chinlet so desperate that he had to play obtuse lmao
>muhhh I don't know what a property is... >muhhh define property
>muhhh ohhh, define trait then
>muhhhhhhh word definitions are so circular... oh im sooo smart
this is the power of the fedora...hes butthurt that you didn't bite

>>15133863
>t. dumb nigger fedora chinlet

>>15133927
I see right through you, fedora nigger. Your desperation is amusing.

>>15133888
Orthobros don't accept these theological "proofs." You atheists don't accept them either.
Wow, you "won."
Imagine being this retarded. You confess you accomplished the grand goal of defending a proof you don't believe is sound... from the assault of someone... who doesn't believe it's sound.
Amazing!

>>15133939
See >>15133888
>I just enjoy watching you shit the bed every time someone posts that meme.
Hope that clears things up for you.

>>15133944
You can't even do that properly. If your goal is to annoy people, you don't give them a win by admitting that they're right about you being an atheist LARPing as a theist. In fact, you should've pretended to be a Prot.

>>15133950
You "won" so hard that you're stuck in a loop samefagging and trying to save face. lol

>>15133955
Yes, I'm everyone on this board except you. Come visit me tomorrow.

>>15133957
I know it's you because "that guy" (obviously you) stopped obsessively replying and trying to save face as soon as you showed up. Dumb fedora nigger.

>>15133961
>as soon as you showed up.
Nooooooppe >>15133699
If you want people to keep shitposting with you instead of running off, maybe don't bring things to a close by saying what you're doing.

>>15133968
I am now hiding this thread but you will address me again because you're an inferior nigger with zero impulsve control. I'll be living rent-free in your head for weeks.

>>15133969
Okay, I won't disappoint you. Here's my reply.
Have a good one, anon. I mean that sincerely.

>>15133549
Oh, so it's just the ontological argument except described in terms of formal logic.

>>15134009
It's an ontological argument with greater modal clarity. I don't think it's successful, but it's significantly more interesting than the Anselm/Descartes ontological arguments.

>>15133549
>A2 A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive
Being a straight white man in today's world is a positive property. Being a straight white man in today's world necessarily implies being alive. However, being alive isn't a positive property for some classes of humans.