The Euthyphro Has Finally Been Destroyed. Now What?

[Paulomycin]

Prove this right now, and I will no longer be a skeptic.

LMAO. I've hard THAT before!

All the classical logical arguments for God are math-based, thus constituting proof. All of them; including Gödel's proof of God, which is utilized in other IT applications and experiments, i.e. "it works b*tches!" Proof is exclusive to math. Academic doubt is subjective; not objective refutation.

P → Q, P infers Q

or

p→q
p
∴ q

p = universal logic
q = universal logician

Modus ponens is a basic first-order inference in propositional calculus (logic).

* Of the universe.

^ See, it's extraordinary evidence due to its extraordinary parsimony. Extraordinary evidence that's also compatible with Occam's Razor.

^ Never objectively refuted.

Axioms of logic cannot be dismissed. I put an axiom inside a modus ponens.

Meaning you only have two options.

1. Accept it for the proof it is.

2. Reject logic.

That's how the logic trap works.

 

[Paulomycin]

Prove this right now, and I will no longer be a skeptic.

Evidence is separate and distinct from proof.

The evidence = the simulation argument. < Paulomycin > 2021-02-12 18:50

^ All religions are back on the table, including mine, of course.

Therefore, atheism is falsified, and it becomes a purely theological discussion.

Now quick, pretend this discussion never happened! lol.

 

[Paulomycin]

Um, it says 'beat' in the Bible. I did not make this up

And you're refusing to specify the severity of said beatings. You really think I'm that stupid, don't you?

 

[Paulomycin]

But here's the kicker...

God sanctions slavery. You can add all the qualifiers you'd like (i.e.):

Including Christians as "slaves of Christ." Surprised you didn't include that.

 

[cvanwey]

LMAO. I've hard THAT before!

All the classical logical arguments for God are math-based, thus constituting proof. All of them; including Gödel's proof of God, which is utilized in other IT applications and experiments, i.e. "it works b*tches!" Proof is exclusive to math. Academic doubt is subjective; not objective refutation.

P → Q, P infers Q

or

p→q
p
∴ q

p = universal logic
q = universal logician

Modus ponens is a basic first-order inference in propositional calculus (logic).

* Of the universe.

^ See, it's extraordinary evidence due to its extraordinary parsimony. Extraordinary evidence that's also compatible with Occam's Razor.

forums - craigslist

^ Never objectively refuted.

Axioms of logic cannot be dismissed. I put < Paulomycin > 2019-06-05 05:51

an axiom inside a modus ponens.

Meaning you only have two options.

1. Accept it for the proof it is.

2. Reject logic.

That's how the logic trap works.

When will them, or you, be accepting the Nobel prize for proof that an 'objective moral law giver' exists?

And let me guess? You can prove it's YHWH to boot?

 

[cvanwey]

And you're refusing to specify the severity of said beatings. You really think I'm that stupid, don't you?

No. I already answered this quite extensively.

If a person gets whipped 312 times, and dies on day 4, is he punished?

 

[Paulomycin]

I don't think so. If I was leeching off of your "moral compass", I might think beating slaves is perfectly fine; (under the approved conditions of course)

I already explained why antebellum slavery had to be abolished. I'd even agree with the approach William Wilberforce took in the UK.

But my "moral compass" only exists from the Bible. I used to be an existentialist atheist, and didn't believe in morality at all. That's the Achilles' heel of the pop-atheist mentality. They overstepped their own bounds when they asserted, "You can be good without God."

Really? Then Hitchens' razor would certainly apply for that claim too.

 

[cvanwey]

Including Christians as "slaves of Christ." Surprised you didn't include that.

That is a play on words, obviously. I thought you know that Unless Jesus beats you too?

 

[Paulomycin]

When will them, or you, be accepting the Nobel prize for proof that an 'objective moral law giver' exists?

All of this was already done and done generations before Alfred Nobel was ever born! They awarded Thomas Aquinas with a lifetime title that no one else could ever have ever again in the history of the church.

And they've never been objectively refuted. They've only grown.

And let me guess? You can prove it's YHWH to boot?

Once an omnipotent deism is established, atheism is falsified. The rest is purely theological argument.

 

[Paulomycin]

No. I already answered this quite extensively.

If a person gets whipped 312 times, and dies on day 4, is he punished?

^ Implying that a master can deliberately engineer such an occurrence.

 

[cvanwey]

I already explained why antebellum slavery had to be abolished. I'd even agree with the approach William Wilberforce took in the UK.

But my "moral compass" only exists from the Bible. I used to be an existentialist atheist, and didn't believe in morality at all. That's the Achilles' heel of the pop-atheist mentality. They overstepped their own bounds when they asserted, "You can be good without God."

Really? Then Hitchens' razor would certainly apply for that claim too.

Jesus does not announce the abolition for the topic of slavery. He could have, but He did not. Hence, the 'slavery' covenant is still alive and kicking. You must now reconcile that the OT Verses still stand.

And though you want to assert that I'm cheery picking, I ask again.

If a Greek Thor believing slave was whipped 312 times, and then died on day 4, would his master be punished (under Biblical law)?

 

[Paulomycin]

That is a play on words, obviously. I thought you know that Unless Jesus beats you too?

It's not a play on words at all. And Jesus can discipline with me any way He chooses. But He is a very merciful and gracious Master. Far more merciful and gracious than I deserve.

 

[cvanwey]

^ Implying that a master can deliberately engineer such an occurrence.

If a person gets whipped 312 times, and dies on day 4, is he punished?

 

[cvanwey]

It's not a play on words at all. And Jesus can discipline with me any way He chooses. But He is a very merciful and gracious Master. Far more merciful and gracious than I deserve.

Then if He does not beat you, then you are likely not a "slave"; as the Bible defines as a master owning his property.

 

[Paulomycin]

Jesus does not announce the abolition for the topic of slavery.

I didn't claim He did.

He could have, but He did not. Hence, the 'slavery' covenant is still alive and kicking. You must now reconcile that the OT Verses still stand.

In light of the NT verses I already cited that you're furiously pretending never happened.

If a Greek Thor believing slave was whipped 312 times, and then died on day 4, would his master be punished (under Biblical law)?

You failed to answer why any sane master would do such a thing to their own investment, or how they could engineer the outcome thus.

You just can't stop failing.

 

[Paulomycin]

If a person gets whipped 312 times, and dies on day 4, is he punished?

You failed to answer why any sane master would do such a thing to their own investment, or how they could engineer the outcome thus.

You just can't stop failing.

 

[Paulomycin]

Then if He does not beat you, then you are likely not a "slave"; as the Bible defines as a master owning his property.

You assumed "beating" is mandatory. No. It's optional.

 

[cvanwey]

All of this was already done and done generations before Alfred Nobel was ever born! They awarded Thomas Aquinas with a lifetime title that no one else could ever have ever again in the history of the church.

And they've never been objectively refuted. They've only grown.

According to who, the church?

Once an omnipotent deism is established, atheism is falsified. The rest is purely theological argument.

Great, I'm a deist now. If I believe in YHWH, does this mean I should agree with Him?

 

[cvanwey]

You failed to answer why any sane master would do such a thing to their own investment, or how they could engineer the outcome thus.

You just can't stop failing.

You really will not answer this simple question, will you??? Let me soften it just a click...

And BTW, they may not mean to kill them. But sometimes they die.

If a slave master beats their slave, and they die on day 4 from this beating, are they punished????

 

[Paulomycin]

According to who, the church?

According to logicians. I'm a huge fan of the 2nd Quinque viæ.

The irony is that the proof has been around for so long, that society simply tried to ignore it. . .or sweep it under the rug. But it didn't completely disappear. We're simply subjects of our secular public schooling. That doesn't mean it never existed! lol.

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, where did Hume or Kant ever refute any of the classical logical arguments for God's existence? <-- Don't forget that logic is math-based, therefore it constitutes proof.

Only direct citations with book names and quotes, please.

(and this isn't just limited to Hume or Kant. Any other philosopher OR SCIENTIST from the 18th, 19th, or 20th century is acceptable too.)

^ This includes Bertrand Russell. Don't think I'm trying to limit you to one or two individuals.

Great, I'm a deist now.

Congrats! Wow, that was so easy! lol.

If I believe in YHWH, does this mean I should agree with Him?

I don't really believe you're even a Deist.