What he just explained is the human perception of reality. In fact, the vampire could be Satan in the biblical sense. Or God could be something entirely different than the biblical view. What you and even this presenter failed to prove is "the modal is false". This is a modal to give a logical argument on the possibility of God. Using other axioms aren't proving that possibility is not a reality. You are just infinitely creating more possibilities.
That would force you to provide the burden of proof it is not a reality. Because if you could prove he doesn't exist, then of course you can debunk the modal.
Actually, the burden of proof is that the axioms are self evident. They're not. You proved that yourself. "And let's flip this and say "well if negatives exists" then negatives exist everywhere, which proves God doesn't exist."
Barfo, jlpk and pretty much everyone else in this forum know that "you claiming you win" is hardly fact.
Wrong, because the modal is applying the parameters of the biblical God; which has been described as positive.
Bullshit. Without proof, the assumption can't be one of existence or positiveness. The subjectivity comes from Göbel and your end, making personal assumptions. There is no subjectivity in adhering only what is known for a theorems inputs.
And the axiom being "self evident" is again trying to use the human perspective of their definition. Saying something is "self evident" is hardly a good argument. Until you can bring in a substantial argument that makes God possibility entirely absolute, there is nothing self evident about it
Wrong again Denny, as I've explained countless times, using singularity as an axiom. Your argument will only debunk singularity. Are you prepared to play that game?
I do admire how you post the same thing over and over again to bury your ass whooping. I've already answered this without you giving a proper response to refute my argument
I'm hurt... You can't use a proper argument so you decide to say "well I think so and because of that, it's golden!" You should really read some of your comments!
An axiom has to be so obvious that everyone agrees with it. Something like "if you add a positive number to a positive number, the result is a bigger positive number." Godel's axioms are wishful thinking, and hardly so obvious nobody would deny them. Further is right that the first three are utter bullshit. Let's try a different approach: Mags, tell us all whether the earth is 6000 years old.
You are trying to smoke screen the argument. Just as you tried saying this isn't math either. Whatever the case, you seem a bit confused and a little rattled. And I believe the earth is over 4 billion years old. Why you ask?
Is the earth 6000 years old or not? No smokescreen needed. Your failure to grasp logic lost your argument for you dozens of posts ago. Answer the question.
I just want the world to see how you reject the axiom at the heart of the argument the earth is 6000 years old. That axiom: the bible is the literal word of God.
And how does that have anything to do with the description of God in this axiom? Oh yes, you once again try to argue other points so you aren't faved with the one you lost at. So is the model wrong? You said it was a few pages ago
The same reason the proof that the earth is 6000 years old is bullshit is why Godel's is. Game over. You lose. Do yourself a favor and read up modal logic. This could have been an interesting discussion.
