Completeness theorem, and why senses are incomplete, thus observation evidence is invalid! (Why God is as real as observation evidence)

Started by SatanLucy

Replies
88
Posts
89
Page
1 / 3

Conversation

#1 •••
🔗 Link

Completeness theorem when applied to arguments talks specifically of these things:

  1. First-order logic (Such as "A = A" and "A = / = Not A", and False: A = Not A)
  2. Definitions
  3. Deduction logic
  4. Necessary true (A = B)
  5. Logically limited options (A or Not A)
  6. Necessary false (A = / = B)
  7. true and false being mutually exclusive (A and Not A cannot both be true and cannot both be false)


First-order logic must be accepted to be able to do reasoning. Some definitions likewise must be accepted or it is not possible to do any reasoning. Deduction logic is the result of first order logic and definitions. "Necessary true" is what must be true by deduction logic and first order logic and definitions. Logically limited options (A or Not A) means other options arent logically possible because there is no 3rd option with A or Not A. "Necessary false" is what must be false because it violates deduction logic and first order logic and definitions. true and false being mutually exclusive is result of first order logic where it is not possible to conclude differently without stating "A = Not A".


Now, how does observation evidence fail by completeness theorem?


Because observation evidence makes a claim which it cannot prove by deductive logic.


Observed = Exists


Observed = true


Something is observed = true


One way in which observation evidence attempted to prove itself is by defining "Exists" as "observed" and defining "true" as "observed", or in a better case, adding "observed" as one of definitions of "true" and "exists".


So in this case, observed would be by definition something which exists.


Obvious problem, however, is that such solution attempts to define something as existing. If such solution were accepted as valid, then I could likewise say "God is defined as supernatural being which exists", or "definition of "Exists" includes "God"".


So logical proof for observation evidence is about as strong as evidence for God. In other words, either God and observations exist, or neither exist.


So person who believes in what they can observe would also logically have to believe in God, because it is not possible to define one as existing and the other not, without creating arbitrary difference which fails by lack of justification.

Edit comment

#2 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

A GOD has never been observed.


Though by your logical standards, if it is possible to observe a banana then a pink fluffykins must also exist. Or neither exists.


One can substitute the words GOD or pink fluffykins with any other nonsense one cares to make up.


Like Snortyflortblort.

Edit post

#3 •••
🔗 Link
@SergeantLynch

Read his post. “it is not possible to define one as existing and the other not, without creating arbitrary difference which fails by lack of justification.”

Edit post

#4 •••
🔗 Link
@SergeantLynch
Though by your logical standards, if it is possible to observe a banana then a pink fluffykins must also exist. Or neither exists.


If things exist, then there is also a thing which determines what exists and what doesnt. Such thing is God - Ruler of existence.


If there is no thing which determines what exists and what doesnt, then either everything exists or nothing does.


But truly, one cannot prove the "observed = exists" claim.

Edit post

#5 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

Sadly for atheists, this theory is bulletproof. Atheist believes his eyes show him what exists, but that could very well be illusion. If atheist can believe in things without proof, what objection does he have when accusing believer of same?

Edit post

#6 •••
🔗 Link

The idea of a "god" is absolutely absurd to anyone with even basic skills of observation. Just think for a moment...you really believe in a magical being who lives in the sky? he's going to keep track of how good you are and put you in "heaven" after you die? Are you an idiot?

People believe in this garbage and keep foisting it on humanity for their own selfish reasons. There are no upsides to god-belief and never will be.

Edit post

#7 •••
🔗 Link
@FLRW
you really believe in a magical being who lives in the sky?


Yes.


he's going to keep track of how good you are and put you in "heaven" after you die?


Yes.


Are you an idiot?


I hope so.



People believe in this garbage and keep foisting it on humanity for their own selfish reasons.


I am not selfish, I am religious.



There are no upsides to god-belief and never will be


It feels nice to have magic sky daddy care for you.


Edit post

#8 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

Ok, ok, you are a good person and you deserve an opiate.

Edit post

#9 •••
🔗 Link
@FLRW

I am a good Meowist!!

Edit post

#10 •••
🔗 Link

All Heil the great lord Meowbah! In the name of Meowbah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful: All Praise is due to Meowbah, Lord of the Universe The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Owner of the Day of Purr-ification. You alone do we worship, and You alone we turn to for help Guide us to the straight path; The path of those on whom You have bestowed your grace, not the path of those who have earned Your anger, nor of those who went astray. Ameow!

Edit post

#11 •••
🔗 Link

Here is a fun question for atheists:


Do you lack belief in the non-existence of God?

Edit post

#12 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

Atheists require evidence to believe in a deity because they generally hold a position that a lack of sufficient evidence makes belief unwarranted. They view atheism as a position based on an evidence-based approach, similar to how they approach other claims, and believe the burden of proof lies with those who claim a god exists. Many atheists state that evidence should be the same type that is used for other claims: testable, reproducible, and falsifiable, with the understanding that personal testimony or feelings are not sufficient proof for everyone. 





Edit post

#13 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

Such a thing might be a Dave.


As far as we are able to know, and within the context of our onboard intellectual apparatus, we observe an external reality...That's as good as it gets.


GOD, Dave and/or Pinkfluffykins are relative internal creations.


Similarly gobbledygook.


Therefore observance is what it is and gobbledygook is also what it is.


And we are still no further forwards, towards proving the existence of an external creator.

Edit post

#14 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

I read and then reply.


Gobbledygook is what it is.

Edit post

#15 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

Do we have evidence that atheists exist?

Edit post

#16 •••
🔗 Link
@SergeantLynch
As far as we are able to know, and within the context of our onboard intellectual apparatus, we observe an external reality.


Sounds like unprovable claim.

Edit post

#17 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

Yes, there is evidence that atheists exist, as shown by global surveys and studies that report significant percentages of self-identified atheists in populations worldwide. Furthermore, the lack of compelling evidence for the existence of gods and arguments based on naturalism also support the existence of atheism. 





Edit post

#18 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby
Yes, there is evidence that atheists exist, as shown by global surveys and studies that report significant percentages of self-identified atheists in populations worldwide


thats not proof of atheism. thats just proof people who say they are atheists exist.

Edit post

#19 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

You only know if a person is an atheist if he says he is. Otherwise you are just guessing.

Edit post

#20 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby
You only know if a person is an atheist if he says he is


I say I am God. So if you believe everything people say, you must believe this too.

Edit post

#21 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

To say you are God after saying you pray to Satan daily makes you a liar.

Edit post

#22 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

So people can lie about being atheist too.

Edit post

#23 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy
Sounds like an unprovable claim.


I was proffering an opinion based upon personal experience...Which is also an unprovable claim.


Everything you suggest is also unprovable claims.


Within the context of intellectual data management, everything is an unprovable claim.


Perhaps we rely upon some sort of collaborative similarities for reassurance.


Perhaps the idea of Planet Earth and a Universe is some sort of material aberration.


Perhaps this, perhaps that and maybe perhaps the other.


Blah blah blah blah blah.

Edit post

#24 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

Why would people lie about being an atheist and condemn themselves to eternity.

Edit post

#25 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby
Why would people lie about being an atheist and condemn themselves to eternity.


Maybe they think God will reward them if they lie about being atheists.

Edit post

#26 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

God condemning atheists for eternity is not some kind of reward. It’s eternal damnation.

Edit post

#27 •••
🔗 Link

Atheists trick themselves into believing there is no God to avoid punishment.

Edit post

#28 •••
🔗 Link
@SomeDebatePerson

Infants are tricked into believing there is a GOD.


Or should I say brainwashed.


Whatever.


Nonetheless, the onboard computer is programmed relative to circumstance, and we have absolutely no say in the matter.



Edit post

#29 •••
🔗 Link
@SomeDebatePerson

If atheist believe in punishment they must believe in a God.

Edit post

#30 •••
🔗 Link
@SergeantLynch

What if it’s just natural to believe in God?


Also, the reason why many people grow up and stop believing in God is because they want to do all these things that God condemns.

Edit post