Opinion?I'm not here to debate, I just want criticism.Any advice would be apricated, thanks in advance.**************************************************primitives here:PP(ϕ) = ϕ is purely positive = excellence without privationL(ϕ) = limitation = necessarily excludes some PPG(x) = God = has all PPs + exists necessarilyLanguage: S5 second-order modal logic, λ-abstraction, actualist quantificationAх. 1: ф (PP(ф) PP(ф))Df. 1: L(4) = ∃ψ (PP(4)x((x)+(x)))Αχ. 2: νφνψ (PP(ф)x((x) + ψ(x)) + PP(ψ))Th. 1: φψ ((PP(ф) ^ PP()) + (φ))Αχ. 3: νφνψ (PP(φ) ^ PP(ψ) + PP(λχ.φ(x) ^ ψ(x)))Df. 2: E!(x) = y (y = x)Df. 3: G(x) = vф (PP(ф) ф(x)) ^E!(x)Αχ. 4: PP(λχ.Ε!(x))Th. 2: 3x G(x)Ax. 5: ∀x (G(x) + y (y = x))Αχ. 6: νφ (PP() + ∀x ((x)+(x)))Th. 3: Ex G(x)Aх. 7: ѵхy (yф (ф(x) ф(y)) + x = y)Th. 4: lx G(x)C: 3!x G(x),God bless
>>18388585selfbump
>>18388585simply asserting a set of variables and applying them to Modal logic doesn't magically make your argument logical or sound, and it doesn't make you look particularly smart either
>>18388585Here an argument against God:Say X=nothingness Death + X = deathWhere's God?
>>18388778Tell me you don’t understand model logic without telling me you don’t understand model logic Lamo. If you have nothing to say don’t say it :pThis is a pretty good argument op, but seriously don’t expect anyone on /his/ to give you any actual criticism. Everyone here are pseudo intellectuals, the most they can do in religious discourse is give out, out of context bible versus and shitpost random hadithisOr like in this guys cases>>18388784Try and change the topic.>Say X=nothingness>Death + X = death>Where's God?Truly Riveting levels of discourse
>>18388585you can make a lot of arguments for GOD , I think the problem is more so the argument for jesus.although the arguments exist , but they are mostly just used in contextes were they aren't really necesary as everyone allready agrees.also current people tend to be stuck at the central ideas of god , but they never go past that to try to make an understanding of what divinity would be under this philosophical arguments.
>>18389199>Tell me you don’t understand model logic without telling me you don’t understand model logic Lamo.You clearly don't understand what modal logic is and probably one of those retards who think Godel mathematically proved god.
>>18388585What does "purely positive" mean. Also, which God?
>god has the biggest peepee because greek lettersyour pseud slop bores metry to do real scientific examination sometime (you can't)
>>18389848Why is this board so full of people who get upset at anything they don't immediately understand. You don't need to always respond with a stupid quip, sometimes you can let someone who knows come along and explain it. You don't even have to be a complete retard to not know about model logic, so it's not some attack on your intelligence.
>>18388585https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/16/Papers/137.pdfBenzmüller et al.
>>18389199>>18389912>model logicYou only know about the existence of modal logic through youtube videos and never looked up how it's spelled.
>>18389942Obviously nigga, it's mostly irrelevant outside of hyper specific and high level mathematics.
>>18389987So you're just full of shit lmao.
>>18388585Existence isn’t a property, as we have no example of "nothing".“Purely positive property” is unclear, you're just saying "if I think it's good then god has it".The reasoning could prove absurd things, such as the classic island/sandwich counters or eve unicorns.It relies heavily on a controversial modal logic rule. "If something is possibly necessary, then it is necessary." It's just as easy to do the reverse to disprove god. I can imagine a universe where god doesn't nessecarily exist, therefore it doesn't exist, type of argument but adapted to your obfuscating symbolic logic.The axioms themselves are debatable, as there's literally no reason to accept them.There's literally nothing that even justifies that existence is positive.As all ontological arguments, it just asserts things, and then pretends that assertions are reality. It's a very post-modern idea.
>>18389996I never made any claims about modal logic, I basically learned about it in this thread, only this post >>18389912 was me.
