Was he just stupid?
The "proof" is meant to show how you can create a set of axioms that leads to anything being true.
imagine a hypothetical being, called the Buttraper, who has two properties; one is that he butt rapes (you), the person reading this post, and the second property is that he actually really exists for real no matter what and nothing can ever prevent him from existing.Because he's defined as "existing", that proves he exist, as per the definition. QED you are being butt raped right now
>OP is a down syndrome nigger
>>17081062No, he actually believed it proved gods existence. He also believed the glowfeds were out to kill him, so he literally starved himself to death. >>17081066Unironically more logical than goedels bullshit involving "modal" logic
Godel's ontological "proof"If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.Looks a little lame and basic. They should start by perceiving people like a hierarchy type of matter. And say it can't exist on it's own. Time and space in the 4th dimension would cause movements without it becoming a centre to itself.
Lets try to limit our assumptions as much as possible, working from the ground up. >We experience existence.>We call this experience "consciousness">It is self evident (You cannot argue against it without using it) >We can't use it to change reality directly>We don't seem to be the only conscious being >There seems to be a reality outside our consciousnessGiven this, why can you and I look at a rock and kick it? We both agree it's there and can describe it to one another. If we assume physical existence, then we would need to assume physical reality; But we can make exactly one less assumption by invoking something we already agree is self-evident. >Consciousness (self-evident) is the substance of existence >Since we are not all of existence, we are not all of consciousness. >The shared reality we experience is a consequence of existing in the more fundamental consciousness This implies a universal consciousness. A consciousness that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Most cultures would call this "God".
>>17081038No, he didn't assume god exists, he used a godlike definition and showed why it necessarily exists.>>17081066You don't understand why everywhere necessarily exists, but buttrape doesn't.>>17081077You aren't citing Godel, you are citing half of Anslem's proof without defining god as the greatest thing conceivable.>people like a hierarchy type of matterIt wasn't a proof that people/matter exist.>lame and basicYou didn't cite Godel's formal proof, you cited a colloquial version of Anslem's proof, Godel's formal proof goes more like:Axiom 1: If φ is a positive property, and if it is necessarily true (true in all possible worlds) that every object with property φ also has property ψ, then ψ is also a positive property.Axiom 2: The negation of a property φ is positive if, and only if, φ is not positive.Theorem 1: If a property φ is positive, then it is possible that there exists an object x that has this property (in at least one possible world, there exists an object x that has this property).Definition 1: An object x is God-like if, and only if, x has all positive properties.Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is itself a positive property.Theorem 2: It is possible that there exists a God-like object x (in at least one possible world, there exists a God-like object x).Definition 2: A property φ is an essential property of an object x if, x has property φ, and every property ψ of x necessarily (in all possible worlds) and generally (for all objects) follows from φ.Axiom 4: If a property φ is positive, then it is necessarily positive (positive in all possible worlds).Theorem 3: If x is God-like, then being God-like is an essential property of x.Definition 3: An object x "exists necessarily" if each of its essential properties φ applies, in each possible world, to some object y.Axiom 5: "Necessary existence" is a positive property.Theorem 4: It is necessarily true (true in all possible worlds) that a God-like object exists.
>>17081099>We call this experience "consciousness">Consciousness (self-evident) is the substance of existence Why did you bait and switch consciousness from experience to existence? Especially after establishing that it isn't actually directly existence since >We can't use it to change reality directly
>>17081169Thanks I read it. I agree he was getting there but more with mathematics. Time is larger than god and everyone moves on.
>>17081038Supposedly people are close to massless and grow weight with age. I think our universe crosses paths with those people, the properties around us are too real.
>>17081099Kek not even tommy nagel is this flippant and retarded and he believes bats are conscious. Beyond that not even his retarded sycophants are as retarded as you, and they argue rocks are conscious.
>>17081169Necessarily in modal logic does not mean necessarily in reality, mouthbreather. It means internally consistent, which is nothing new insofar that some religious cucks do have wholly self consistent frameworks. But they're also retarded and detached from reality.
>>17081297>some religious cucks do have wholly self consistent frameworks.[citation needed]
atheists here would probably just become enemies of God if they were convinced He existed beyond any doubt because they're not atheists because of logic (no one is), they're atheists because they hate having to follow divine lawsin ancient times when the supernatural was much more present in the day to day, these people would just be the idol worshippers of egypt who got destroyed or something like that
>>17081299They're the more extreme ones who behave entirely consistent with their faith.
>>17081038Which premise assumes God exists?
>>17081062It's even more retarded, it's literally a set of axioms with made up symbols and rules so you could literally make up any symbols and rules and define them however you like in your imaginary playpen to make anything real in your imaginary scenario.
>>17081372>my IQ is 80 but that doesn't mean anything because the test just a bunch of made up symbols and rules
>>17081394Rules and symbols that are mapped to real observations, yes, no assumptions about fairytale creatures.
>>17081399>Rules and symbols that are mapped to real observationsThis is true of Gödel's argument.
>>17081169>No, he didn't assume god exists, he used a godlike definition and showed why it necessarily exists.The "godlike definition" is literally "something that, if it exists in my head then it exists in reality."
>>17081402>The "godlike definition" is literally "something that, if it exists in my head then it exists in reality."Proof of this nonsensical claim?
>>17081404The extremely well known fact that Gödel's proof is just a formalization of Anselm's proof. That, and just reading the proof which of course christcucks can't do.
>>17081407>biobot hallucinations>no reasoning provided
>>17081401>let's just assume that god has properties>let's just assume that god has these properties that I imagine it has>therefore god has these properties that I imagine it has
>>17081414>let's hallucinate things no one said>let's believe wholeheartedly that i'm le smartYou sound mentally ill.
>>17081416Ever read gödel's text??
>>17081420Which one, retard? Quote the text you're referring to where he says the things you claim. Protip: you will devolve deeper into delusion.
>>17081421Do you even know what thread you're in?
>>17081423>backpedals to fully generic markov chain "retorts"Seething.
>ITT: atheists blatantly lying and misrepresentingAtheism really is just emotional daddy issues
>>17081410Theology is nothing but bigot hallucinations indeed.
>>17081432holy kek my sides
>>17081437I don't know what your mentally ill mumbling is about, I'm just asking you to quote where Gödel says what you're claiming and now you're stuck in a botlike look because you literally can't.
>>17081448loop*
>>17081407>Gödel's proof is just a formalization of Anselm's proof.Atheists lie like they breathe.Gödel’s argument formalizes and develops Leibniz’s argument, not Anselm’s.You’re an atheist retard who has no idea what you’re babbling about.
>>17081424>I can't read the op and don't know what you're talking about but let me drool some shit into the post field anyway
>>17081453/thread
>>17081285Who is Tommy Nagel and why should anyone care? >rocks are conscious No, they exist via consciousness. How can you tell if a rock exists without consciousness? Tell us. >>17081171What is existence without experience? Are you going to seriously argue things exist in themselves without consciousness? How could you possibly prove that.Meanwhile you don't need to prove consciousness exists, it just is.
>>17081664>cites tommy nagel>wonders why anyone should care about tommy nagelyou dumb, unerudite shit muncher. gtfo my board
>>17081687How did I cite someone I don't know and couldn't care less about?
>>17081688Idiot X posts idiotic interpretation of what he read.(You) read idiot posts by X. You gobble it up like a cheap whore.(You) do not even attempt to fact check it. You merely like what you read from a source without repute.(You) regurgitate the same opinion in an even stupider way than person X.(You) obviously do not care from where you get your information.Didn't know downies could operate this website. Every day I learn something new.
>>17081694And yet you can't refute the point. Good luck proving a rock exists without consciousness.
>>17081453>Gödel’s argument formalizes and develops Leibniz’s argument, not Anselm’s.Leibniz built on Anselm's argument, so further formalizing Leibniz is also further formalizing Anselm and Anselm is the one who said the quote attributed to Godel >>17081077.
>>17081402>The "godlike definition" is literally "something that, if it exists in my head then it exists in reality."No, the argument is that if there is something that exists everywhere, then you just have to find it in one place to confirm it really exist.
>>17081340You still haven't cited a framework of faith that is wholly self consistent, you just devolved into acknowledging that people often behave inconsistently without the need for their faith to be wholly self-consistent.
>>17081414>>let's just assume that god has propertiesNo, this doesn't even come first, you can't even keep the proof straight, you are referring to axiom 3 and its more like, holy books (which existed long before we did) attribute all encompassing benevolent properties to a high holy god, x.>let's just assume that god has these properties that I imagine it hasNo, its not based on his assumption or imagination, he is referring to established lore that far predates his birth when he assigns god all positive properties, but axiom 1 is more like let's quantify the properties of all possible worlds and define the positive ones and their derivative positive properties as φ(n) and ψ(n).>therefore god has these properties that I imagine it hasNo, let's find if those all encompassing properties of god are mutually consistent with the properties of all possible real worlds and since each possible world can have all of its positive properties, then the properties are internally and mutually consistent, so it must be possible for a being to have those properties and if it is possible in one world for a being to have all the positive properties, it is possible in all worlds for a being to have all possible positive properties of that world.
>>17081326>they're atheists because they hate having to follow divine lawsSo you are jealous that they are more godlike than you since god regularly breaks his own laws on a whim while you box yourself in just to obey rules that god himself shuns?
>>17081802>establishedLol
>>17081038>abstract being of philosophy mental masturbation is necessary >????>monkeys >more ???? >Therefore, YAHWH is Jesus died for my sins and walked on water and Allah is SATAN, REPENTlmao, religicucks are intellectual toddlers
>>17081857Yes the properties of a god being omni-powered were established before Godel was even born let alone able to imagine things on his own.
>>17081866>god being omni-powered were establishedchristcucks have an antagonistic relationship with reality.
>>17081867What are you trying to say? This proof has nothing to do with christ, it is about omnipotent platonic godlike beings that have been discussed for centuries before christian mythology, you seem terribly confused.
>>17081870>omnipotent>established
If the omni being creates something that exists separate from itself it is no longer omni.If it is incapable of creating something separate from itself it isn't truly omni.
>>17081876If God is uncreated and he creates something, that is a distinction separating it from God. The created and the uncreated.
>>17081872https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Philosophical_groundsYes, omnipotence is a philosophical concept that had been established and associated with godlike beings at least as far back as Plato, centuries before Jesus, let alone Godel.
>>17081802>established lore>>17081885>established concept Liar liar plants for hire. Notwithstanding the word "lore" betrays your own argument as it is used to refer to fictional worlds. Methinks the subconscious doth induced a Freudian slip =]
>>17081883Yeah? That was the first point but it doesn't stop the collapse of omni status since something separate now exists. If not then the creation must consists of the creator.
>>17081889I accept your concession, now that you know you can't actually refute that it was well *established* before Godel, you are moving the goalpost to a different word you don't quite understand.
>>17081883Nothing can be completely distinct from the base thing that composes/created it.
>>17081900>it was well established>itPronoun doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
>>17081890It does not necessarily follow that the nature of God changes through creation. We could also posit accordances in God which sustain creation lets say. Both of your implications haven't been demonstrated. Somewhat more literally, a retard in a universe created by an Omni utters your exact same argument. Is he mad that the omni does give a gaf about his fedora?
>>17081902Yes since it is the pronoun for omnipotence in this case, it does reference something with a lot of lifting power.
>>17081906The concept of, the (fictionalized) lore of, or some other religious-coded bullshit? What, specifically, do you claim is established? You've claimed all three directly. Now you're hiding behind pronouns.
>>17081916>What, specifically, do you claim is established?see>>17081802That a godlike being is a being with omni- properties. This was not imagined by Godel as claimed by >>17081414, this connection has been the established lore of godlike beings for centuries.
>>17081904If you are capable of anything and you are everything, then the act of creating something that isn't you, exactly means you are no longer everything. As omni you are capable of this, you are capable of making yourself not omni.If you create something not separate it will be part of you, by definition.So either everything is God or God sacrificed their omni status to create something separate.If God is not logical then any attempt at characterizing God is nonsense, including your favorite argument or old book.
>>17081923>Lore isn't imaginedCan't make this shit up lol
>>17081934>I like to quote things that nobody said.You did make that shit up.
>>17081928>not omni.No, that is a contradiction and outside of the scope of godel's proof since it is defined with all the positive properties along with the negation of negative properties, but you forgot to negate the negative to make it not not omni.
>>17081938>Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation).Was Gödel even sure what he was trying to say? The man was no doubt brilliant but this is just not something you can present as a strong argument. Since it would require universal morality to be true and that isn't obvious at all. You can't just offload the foundation of your argument to something completely unknown and undefined.
>>17081928While it is fair to say in some argumentation that logic is important, I am referring to some universe where an illogical omni might exist. You seem to think this is impossible or not worth consideration, but why?Why does an omni have to be logical? How do you ground logic that it would be superior to the omni of that universe? if an illogical universe creating omni is permitted, then how would you know you aren't in an illogical universe? What if logical argumentation is wrong?
>>17081448>>17081453https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof>The argument is in a line of development that goes back to Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109). St. Anselm's ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows: God, if He does exist, is that than which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.Maybe next time learn one fucking thing about a subject before trying to debate it?
>>17081976Did you actually read your own quote, you retarded monkey?
>>17081993Yes.
>>17081999So how did your deformed insect mind get from "X is in a line of development that goes back to Y" to "X is Y"?
>>17081962Well, this thread is about a logical argument for the existence of an omni being/God. We can also say logic doesn't apply to God but that makes it impossible to say anything meaningful about God outside basic observation from the world we inhabit, or natural science as we usually call it, which makes sense from our perspective.Attempting to apply logic to an omni being from different directions might lead to interesting philosophy or help reduce the power of institutional religion which is aligned with Gödel's ethos.His argument is basically:If you believe in universal morality/"positives" and you believe God is the set of all "positives", then you must belive God is real(I glossed over a lot here). But UM is as much of a belief as God is, respect to Gödel for attempting it since UM is more fathomable than God, but it's very much a belief and the proof only resolves if UM is true.
>the arguments in this threadHow quaint
>>17081962>Why does an omni have to be logical?Logical is the positive property and illogical is its negation, so he doesn't count illogical as a valid omni property, its valid omni property would would be the negation of illogical which is logical.You are basically asking why you have to keep adding things while counting to infinity instead of arbitrarily subtracting.
>>17082002Because it formalized the whole line of thinking, so the formalization of the argument applies to all the contributions to the argument through time and by formalizing the argument of someone who formalized someone else's argument, the last in line is still in the process of formalizing the argument that began at the beginning of the line.
>>17082002Because you don't make a brand new argument by plagiarizing an existing one. Adding unnecessary extra steps doesn't count.
>>17082590>mentally ill mumblingI accept your concession. You're too dumb for basic reading comprehension, let alone to assess the subject of this thread.
>>17081178>Time is larger than godAtheist delusion.
>>17081340It's not too difficult to invent a set of rules and axioms that are not self-contradictory despite having no relation to reality.
>>17081862Write an intelligible post, tranny.
>>17082248God is real, but monism is wrong.
>>17082591>You're too dumb for basic reading comprehensionhe says immediately before assuming OP sides with him.
>Your mother, if she exists, is that than which no heavier can be conceived.>Your mother exists in the understanding.>But that which exists in reality is heavier than that which exists in the understanding alone.>If your mother existed only in the understanding, we could conceive of something heavier: your mother existing in reality.>But this is a contradiction, for nothing heavier than your mother can be conceived.>Therefore, your mother exists in reality.
>>17082690>mentally ill monkey hallucinates
>>17082002homotopy type theory will do that to you!
>>17082674Monism is what you are left with when you are conservative with your axioms. If you don't want to be conservative with your axioms then you might as well just believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
>>17081962I would surprised if the omni is logical, I don't think anything in this universe or reality is "logical". It is what it is no matter what opinion we have of god or the universe. I don't understand the purpose of believing or caring about an omni god, why would a omni god need your recognition or anyones for that matter? The omni god lets whatever happens happen(including having newborn living beings die premature deaths or have random illnesses like cancer) and i'm supposed to believe or worship? What a waste of time, resource or energy for such a being who needs no caring.
>>17082662Then why does your bible talk about time (the beginning) before it talks about god and it binds all of gods actions by time such that his creations are bound by the time it takes to make them?
>>17082670[citation needed]If it so easy, why didn't you just name the religion that does it that way?
>the spambot is a christcuckAmazing.
>>17083025>Then why does your bible talk about time (the beginning) before it talks about godBecause it's talking about God's creation, of which time is one part of.>before it talks about god and it binds all of gods actions by time such that his creations are bound by the time it takes to make them?God is both transcendent (above) and immanent in the world.
>>17082915>conservative with your axioms.Monism is literally dogmatic since it purports motion and change is impossible.
>>17083273No, it says the universe is static and change is a matter of limited perspective. Going from 1 to 2 in the set of whole numbers does not change the fact the set in infinite.
>>17081099>we are not all of existenceI am all of existence. You are just part of my imagination.
>>17081169>if it is necessarily trueDid you catch that first word?
>>17082671It's simple. The gap from atheism to prime mover metaphysical idea is small compared to the gap from that metaphysical idea to any particular religion. What if that prime mover, if we grant it a thinking mind, just vanished after creation? What if there are millions of prime movers? What if the mover that started it all vanished and now a different mover with destructive leaning took over its place? This can explain billions of sentient suffering and black hole decay. What if some fringe amazon tribe has it on point and their diety is the one they saw while high on secret plant trip. So many what ifs here, that if you grant that there exist a "creator"Anslem or Godel's argument is an empty giftbox, it gives you absolutely nothing about anything. You're just speculating a mind's existence whose properties aren't even accessable to a feeble mind. If the god you've built up is all powerful then he's beyond the constraints of logical inferences.
>>17083884Low IQ post. If you accept that there was a creator, you can start inferring about the nature of this creator based on his supposed creations and spiritual experiences take on actual significance and become a source of insight.
>>17083884You can't have millions of prime movers,. Others in the past have made multi prime mover arguments as part of religious dogma or demonstration purposes - such as the Greeks pointing to planets as prime movers, which are not and cannot be.A myriad of prime movers would act purely by accordance of volition. By common will. This will cannot deviate without breaking the accordance. If this occurs:1. the collection of prime movers bends to the will of this outsider and they are not by definition.2. This outsider isn't a prime moverThe next case is handling the condition where volition does not break. 1. it doesn't break because it can't (not a prime mover category, it is contingent upon whatever this denier is)2. It doesn't break because of accordance. Many act as one never with distinction. We could fall back on identity of indiscernibles, But this feels a little bit like a cheat, what if there are some kind of unknown distinctions. And so the focus shifts to who is this prime mover?But this is a one dimensional treatment of God which has many aspects, of which, the monadology or other reckonings on divine substance are just a portion. This comes about with the other question in relation to God kicking off the universe and then disappearing. This is almost refuted on its face because the collapse of causality to first agency has quite literally redefined cause and effect as acts of agency. And the naive notions of causality that we started with is a mapping of projecting our own agency to apparently inert members. Of course, they have no means to act without agency. A thing is not separate from its act of production. God is the act. God is right there. Metaphorically anyways. Intervening layers could be attending to a kind of stewarding of not-prime movers in Glory. Circling back, if there are distinctions in prime movers, they must be across a fortuitous axis of commonality, accidental to themselves. This is a contradiction.
>>17083773Then make me disappear
>>17081066define me, the person reading this post is just a description not a definition.
>>17083254>Because it's talking about God's creation, of which time is one part of.No, god didn't start creating until after the beginning already existed, where are you hallucinating that that the bible says god created time instead of just god showing up at the empty formless beginning and creating the heavens and the earth?>God is both transcendent (above) and immanent in the world.Then he wouldn't be bound by time, it wouldn't have taken him x number of days to create, it could have been created in negative time if he was transcendent, but he wasn't he was bound by time during his creation process.
>>17083775Yes, do you understand that it is there so that he can later say if a God-like being is possible, then it is necessary?
>>17081372
>>17083886>If you accept that there was a creator, you can start inferring about the nature of this creatorNo, you would have to be greater than the creator with a more comprehensive perspective than the creator's to infer anything about it.>spiritual experiences take on actual significance and become a source of insight.Not if the creator is capable of deception or obfuscation which would be necessary positive properties of a being that has all positive properties according to Godel's proof.
>>17084698That is why Jesus Christ liberated mankind from ignorance with the fruit of knowledge.
>>17084701Then why are you still so ignorant?
>>17084702You are learning everything that is good and everything that is bad. You are experiencing the fruit of knowledge.
>>17084706If he freed mankind from ignorance, there should be no more need for learning since there is nothing more to learn about, learning is what an ignorant mankind must constantly do to cope with their infinite ignorance.
>>17081169>Theorem 1: If a property φ is positive, then it is possible that there exists an object x that has this property>Theorem 2: It is possible that there exists a God-like object x (in at least one possible world, there exists a God-like object x).Nah
>>17084710Which one are you complaining about exactly, that properties are assigned to objects or that godlike ones exist in the biblical world?
>>17084712i'd wager his main gripe is with 2
>>17081038yes
>>17081432>mentally ill religious cultist projecting his feelings of inferioritykek.you need a sky daddy to not be a looting stealing animal lmao.
>>17085234Brave of you to assume he isn't an animal.
We know logic is the least of the mathematical disciplines for those lacking genius in arithmetic computer programming geometry and even algebra
>>17081169>Axiom 4: If a property φ is positive, then it is necessarily positive (positive in all possible worlds).Seems shaky. "Knows to play 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 in the lottery" is positive but only if those are indeed the winning lottery numbers
>A second layer is that these particular axioms lead to unwelcome conclusions. This line of thought was argued by Jordan Howard Sobel,[12] showing that if the axioms are accepted, they lead to a "modal collapse" where every statement that is true is necessarily true, i.e. the sets of necessary, of contingent, and of possible truths all coincide (provided there are accessible worlds at all)how is this not a disproof of godel's axioms? If they were actually true then all modal logic just collapses?
>>17086118No if that is a valid play you can positively buy a ticket with those numbers, you are bait and switching the positivity of playing with the positivity of winning.
>>17086121>every statement that is true is necessarily trueNo, only every statement that positively applies to all possible objects, the ultimate supreme extremity of the statement is what leads to the necessary validation, not the mere presence of a statement.>i.e. the sets of necessary, of contingent, and of possible truths all coincide (provided there are accessible worlds at all)This would just mean that every truth that relates to any ultimate supreme extreme object is talking about the exact same object like how there are many different terms for infinity like boundless, limitless, etc that all boil down to the exact same thing as infinity.
>>17086118Please understand that modal logic is not actually logical. It doesn't play by the rules of true and false by explicit design.
>>17081066>buzzwordscan you prove his first property, bitch? maybe he is just a cat with a funny hittler mustache
>>17083949>You can't have millions of prime moversobviously not if you are using only one prime mover level logic. duh
>>17086159>No, only every statement that positively applies to all possible objectsNo, that's one of his axioms, but in the Sobel essay which you can find in zlib (haven't read through it yet) he shows how Q -> □Q can be deduced from the axioms for any property Q
>>17086158If "knows to play 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 in the lotter" isn't a positive property, then "doesn't know to play 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7" is positive by axiom 2, which is even weirder
>>17086358>If "knows to play 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 in the lotter" isn't a positive property,It is a positive property just not positive in a winning the entire lottery sense, only positive in a valid play for the lottery sense, "knows to play 1, A, skibidi, toilet, lottery, winning#" would not be a positive property in the valid play sense.
>>17081066Retarded take. Please kill yourself in real life.
>>17086358>6, 7
> Universe comes from nothing / was always hereImpossible!> God comes from nothing / was always hereWow, so true!Theists are retarded.
>>17081066>that he actually reallyNothing here really exists in an unqualified sense, save God. if you could logically give this hypothetical being ubiety at this exact instant in time and for it to continue for some time, then yes the first property would be true, and your buttocks would indeed be sore. But there is noway of connecting a logical statement to either time and space, given everything is spinning around everything in space, not to mention time. All you have done is invoked another demonic agency existing neither here nor there but somewhere- so I implore you to stop thinking such things, for all that is holy.The thing you are looking for is an ontological door which passes through hypotheticality into actuality, but there are an infinite amount of predicates to supply for this door, and the only way to enumerate them all is under a 'supreme being' predication. For anything insofar as it is real has an infinitude of predicates, as per my definition anyway.
>>17086790Or they are using nothing in different senses. And you are retarded.
>>17086926Which sense can sense nothing? What senses are they each talking about if they are each talking about different senses?
>>17086678But it's *also* a positive property in the winning the lottery sense.
>>17089874Not necessarily, only if it matches the official picks, but simply playing those numbers isn't automatically a positive win.
>>17089880Yes, exactly. The point is contesting the idea that whatever is positive is necessarily positive.
>>17089895To legitimately play the numbers in the lottery, you do need to choose a necessarily positive play, but the entire point of the lottery is that only a very very small percent of the positive plays will positively win and you are conflating the property of playability with winning.
>>17089897No I'm not, you are doing the conflating.Lottery is just one example. If it's going to be rainy tomorrow afternoon, "brings an umbrella to work" is a positive property. This is distinct from the property "knows that an umbrella is the smart thing to bring when it rains", which is also positive of course.
>>17089899>>17089897Oh, and of course, it is not at all modally necessary that lottery tickets are labelled with numbers instead of zoomer slang. In a world where "1, A, skibidi, toilet, lottery, winning#" is a typical lottery label, "knows to play 1, A, skibidi, toilet, lottery, winning#" would be positive
>>17089899>No I'm not, you are doing the conflating.What am I conflating with what? I am trying to separate positive play with positive win since you seem to be implying that any positive play should positively win, but the winning being would be the one with both positive properties, not just one. If you are still supporting the original premise: >>17086118 > "Knows to play 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 in the lottery" is positive but only if those are indeed the winning lottery numbersThen you are definitely conflating positive play with positive win, if you aren't supporting that premise then you have lost track of the conversation and I don't even really understand what you are trying to argue.
