5 ms·
I don't understand how your model hopes to capture any of the essential features of God as known to academic philosophers. You mention Godel incompleteness, but
by wbhart 15y ago
I don't understand how your model hopes to capture any of the essential features of God as known to academic philosophers. You mention Godel incompleteness, but this only applies to sets of axioms which can be generated algorithmically. Furthermore, pure logic reveals that a transcendental first cause must be eternal, changeless (without the universe), non-physical, most likely having a mind with free will, etc. Your model fails to capture any of these essential features. In fact, I agree with the poster who says that you should reason about God, rather than try to model Him. Naturally my reason leads me to different inescapable conclusions than his.
- icebraining 15y agomost likely having a mind with free will What does that even mean outside of the physical universe?
- wbhart 15y agoNothing, if you are not a philosophical dualist.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- demallien 15y ago* Naturally my reason leads me to different inescapable conclusions than his.* Which should be a big honking, flashing neon sign that you're both arguing without any facts to back you up, ie you're both just making stuff up. You might as well argue about whether Santa has white or black fur as the trim on his coat, for all of the utility that you will get out of such arguments.
- gnaritas 15y agoPure logic reveals no such thing.