10 ms·
It is a strawman. And typically, this strawman wears a fedora. It's the classic "haha see I used your beliefs against you can you tell how superior I am?" argum
by zer8k 3y ago
It is a strawman. And typically, this strawman wears a fedora. It's the classic "haha see I used your beliefs against you can you tell how superior I am?" argument you see from pseudo-intellectuals. In fact the argument presented by the previous poster is basically a textbook copy of the tired Euthyphro Dilemma.
Godel's incompleteness theorem might be a better approach to applying logic to faith. You can't prove the existence of God because we have no system above God from which to prove him with. You would think a famous logician like Bertrand Russell would understand this. Though, he did waste a large portion of his career trying to solve the crisis of foundation in mathematics. One would think this experience alone would provide some enlightenment on what faith actually is. Perhaps even geniuses aren't infallible.
- Tainnor 3y agoYou don't understand Gödel's incompleteness theorems (there are two of them). They don't say what you think they do.
- User23 3y agoGödel also formally proved the existence of God. As in it can be checked by computerized theorem provers.[1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_ontological_proof https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_ontological_proof
- beede 3y agoWell, he proved a theorem. He chose to define a “godlike object” and showed in every carefully-defined “world” such an object exists. Saying that this “proves the existence of god” is … a bit of an overreach, don’t you think?
- User23 3y agoNo, I don’t. Also that’s how we prove literally anything. There is always a model, because we don’t have direct access to reality. So if your bar is that high you’re going to have to call climate change and relativity a bit of an overreach too.
- Tainnor 3y agoGödel's proof is an example of deductive reasoning. It falls apart if you don't accept its axioms. The case for climate change, or for relativity, is made inductively, by empirical observation. The two cases are not remotely comparable.
- User23 3y agoFunny you should say that on account of it’s well known that deduction is never wrong and induction sometimes is.
- Tainnor 3y agoA proper deductive argument that contains no errors will be valid, but it won't necessarily be sound if the premises are incorrect. In that sense deduction can most certainly be "wrong".