5 ms·

The logic itself might be sound, but it doesn't matter if the assumptions are false, or possibly self contradictory. A false statement implies any other stateme

The logic itself might be sound, but it doesn't matter if the assumptions are false, or possibly self contradictory. A false statement implies any other statement.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago
Try refuting the assumptions without falling into self contradiction. You are just asserting that the assumptions are false. The assumptions are not beyond debate, but at that same time, they are not trivially false like you claim.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  It's claimants duty to provide reason for his assumptions. I don't have the time to produce a formal proof right now, but ideas for directions: 1. It's a 'good' property to stop any 'bad' properties from existing (otherwise they're not really 'bad'). A godlike thing exists, and contains all good properties, thus nothing with 'bad' properties can exist. This is either a contradiction with reality if you take reasonable definitions for 'good' and 'bad', or proof that the 'good' and 'bad' in the proof are meaningless, should be replaced by 'X' and 'Y', and then neither of other assumptions is valid (could be X(essential) as well as Y(essential)) 2. A property that is very good might force a property that is slightly bad on its own, and still be good in total. I'd guess this can't be formalized, since good and bad are so fuzzy in the entire proof.
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    >> It's claimants duty to provide reason for his assumptions. Read the literature. Godel and many others have provided volumes supporting it. You wouldn't walk into a physics department and claim that "black holes" are ridiculous right? Your nonchalant dismissal of the assumptions is sort of like a creationist claiming evolution is false because monkeys exist. 1. You have totally misunderstood the proof. 2. Homework: ponder why relativism is self-contradictory :).

5 ms·

The logic itself might be sound, but it doesn't matter if the assumptions are false, or possibly self contradictory. A false statement implies any other stateme

by Anderkent 13y ago

The logic itself might be sound, but it doesn't matter if the assumptions are false, or possibly self contradictory. A false statement implies any other statement.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago
Try refuting the assumptions without falling into self contradiction. You are just asserting that the assumptions are false. The assumptions are not beyond debate, but at that same time, they are not trivially false like you claim.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  It's claimants duty to provide reason for his assumptions. I don't have the time to produce a formal proof right now, but ideas for directions: 1. It's a 'good' property to stop any 'bad' properties from existing (otherwise they're not really 'bad'). A godlike thing exists, and contains all good properties, thus nothing with 'bad' properties can exist. This is either a contradiction with reality if you take reasonable definitions for 'good' and 'bad', or proof that the 'good' and 'bad' in the proof are meaningless, should be replaced by 'X' and 'Y', and then neither of other assumptions is valid (could be X(essential) as well as Y(essential)) 2. A property that is very good might force a property that is slightly bad on its own, and still be good in total. I'd guess this can't be formalized, since good and bad are so fuzzy in the entire proof.
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    >> It's claimants duty to provide reason for his assumptions. Read the literature. Godel and many others have provided volumes supporting it. You wouldn't walk into a physics department and claim that "black holes" are ridiculous right? Your nonchalant dismissal of the assumptions is sort of like a creationist claiming evolution is false because monkeys exist. 1. You have totally misunderstood the proof. 2. Homework: ponder why relativism is self-contradictory :).