Remi | Philosophy Guy

The second impact: open.substack.com/pub/remilovesp…

@AnselmDescartes I'll write some thoughts in a bit

@Remithephilguy brother. Time to discuss

Proof of the Divine Intellect 1. Every consistent formal mathematical system that is sufficiently powerful to represent ordinary arithmetic contains truths that are unprovable via formal syntactic rules within that system or any chain of formal systems (Gödel's Incompleteness / Infinite Regress). 2. A proposition that is true but unprovable syntactically can only be known or established as true through direct semantic comprehension (seeing/intuition of meaning, rather than mechanical deduction). ​3. Direct semantic comprehension of abstract mathematical truths requires an intellect capable of apprehending those truths directly. ​ 4. Since consistent formal mathematical systems that are sufficiently powerful to represent ordinary arithmetic include infinite domains (such as higher-order set theory and infinite cardinals), grasping all unprovable truths across all finite and infinite systems requires an intellect with infinite, non-formal comprehending power. ​ 5. An intellect with infinite, non-formal comprehending power that grounds all abstract truth outside consistent formal mathematical system that are sufficiently powerful to represent ordinary arithmetic is, by definition, an Infinite Divine Mind. ​Conclusion: Therefore, an Infinite Divine Mind is required to apprehend and prove the absolute truth of all consistent formal mathematical system that are sufficiently powerful to represent ordinary arithmetic

@beerandtrump This has made me finally remember why I am barely on Twitter any more

There’s an entire genre of tweets that have become popular on this site that are some variation of “now that I have a child I’m ok with killing everything” and it’s incredibly bizarre.

@patternscreamr2 @hzrnvm To be honest, I am still skeptical about math being reducible to formal logic even on a neo-logicist picture

@hzrnvm a system of formal logic that we use to communicate quantitative data

what is math, to you?

Please read Rawls. The Veil of Ignorance is an ILLUSTRATION meant to reflect the fact that justice has to be reasoned about in abstraction from your particular conditions. It’s not a metaphysical thesis about persons being separable from their circumstances or whatever.

@woarna_is_right @MartinTweats Indeed there are only some theories in FOL which are both syntactically and semantically complete. Although I doubt the quoted commenter knows all that much about metalogic this is true. In any case there are several logics which are syntactically *and* semantically complete

@Remithephilguy @MartinTweats The modal logic stuff is weirder since it's essentially a first-order logic, but whether any system of modal logic is incomplete will depend on the particulars of the frame conditions.

@aquavitae96 @fiercepatricks Neither you or any other theist will ever provide any good argument against gay marriage or homosexuality. Sorry to say

@fiercepatricks Gay people can’t get married for the same reasons dogs can’t play the piano. youtube.com/watch?v=9yMaEd…

If gay people can't get married because it goes against your religion, then you can't have cookies because i'm on a diet.

Ibn Sina was actually a generational genius Metaphysician. Apparently, 10 centuries ago he proposed a principle on the interaction between quantification and possibility that was independently rederived by modal metaphysicians and logicians during the 20th century.

At a glance, this argument will need a lot of motivation since it rests on many premises that aren't self-evident and quite controversial, to list, why should we accept a distinction between "essence" and "existence" ( assuming there is an essense), I have various gripes with act-potency but the next natural question is why we should accept such a heavyweight metaphysics. In any case, going from “no infinite regress in per se causal series” to “a first uncaused cause that is the theistic God” relies on assumptions about causality and per se series that are-- in my perspective-- far from demonstrative once you press them logically I think it would be fair to start with those before we even begin to scrutinize the premises

HMU w your best responses to this, secularists.

@AleMartnezR1 @CatholicCo200 @philobrossuckdi @BrandonTheAdams @EllenFantasmic Will respond in a bit

@CatholicCo200 @Remithephilguy @philobrossuckdi @BrandonTheAdams @EllenFantasmic

@woarna_is_right Me

@leslieginlewes I don't see how someone's purposes in reading changes whether an author's work is boring

@Remithephilguy Probably because most people reading either philosopher are doing so for the purposes of edification rather than entertainment.

No one talks about how unbelievably boring reading Aristotle is as compared to reading Plato. It's day and night

@itsallstraw @AleMartnezR1 Fair enough

@Remithephilguy @AleMartnezR1 To be fair, when the great library at Alexandria burned down, Plato‘s published works were saved but his notes were lost, whereas Aristotle’s published work was lost whereas his notes were received. So it’s not a fair comparison.

@Ben_Jobe85 What's the YT? Perhaps it is not much with just myself but any support is good support

How does on actually get YT viewers? I see others gaining cross traffic... What is the secret?

> I also struggle to see naturalism in general as a coherent idea independently of physicalism - after all, if God/angels exist then in what sense are they "unnatural" unless we're defining natural to be the same as physical? And idealism opens the door to causal closure being broken, and I would think naturalism would require causal closure? Naturalism doesn't entail physicalism, some versions may be incredibly close to it though, naturalism is more inclusive. Naturalism itself leaves conceptual room for non-physical entities—as long as they’re still “natural” in some broader sense e.g. everything could be fundamentally mental so the natural world is fundamentally mental and then you would have to cut up some demarcation for what supernatural would be. As far as angels and God goes I think it would also depend on how the naturalist is characterizing supernatural (assuming it is in an informative way) I also don't think naturalism requires causal closure But the idealism part was moreso about what atheists could be simpliciter since the presupp is not just arguing against naturalists but non-theists broadly > I was specifically referring to our "truthsensing" faculty, which I liken to like one of our physical senses. In the same way that I can tell the leaf is green and the sky blue through immediate apprehension, I can immediately apprehend that 2 + 2 = 4 or that killing children for fun is morally wrong. Got it, I do think intuitions and other epistemic faculties are fine if epistemic circularity is valid or invalid, in the case of the latter I think the discussion would revolve around reliability and what justifies these epistemic faculties, it would be laborous to get into any one specific view but I think the library of views there is rich enough to substantially provide the atheists with options contrary to the presupp's claim that it is impossible Although, I will say-- which I am sure you would disagree with-- I think atheists and everyone else are better off becoming relativists about anything anyways but that is only a tangential point

“Fundamental moral principles are logically necessary truths… and do not depend on the will of God.” - Richard Swinburne If logic is grounded in God, you need to specify which logic. Some are mutually exclusive so they cannot all be grounded in God.

@PrayPuffPlay Well, I mean, this seems unrelated to the argument, no? Whatever world you were talking about I'd say

@Remithephilguy Which world? Any possible world or the actual world? And in which one of those does an omniscient and omnipotent being not automatically exist in and why?

Formal logics are human tools; God grounds the underlying metaphysical logical and modal structure of reality itself (coherent possibilities, non-contradiction, etc.). Different systems can be useful approximations without all being equally true. If God is the MGB, he sustains that which accurately describes reality.

@BrentHeren86685 @LatFilosof I don't think you answered any of his questions, how are you characterizing "Truth" here?

@LatFilosof If haven't figured it out by now let me help you...You don't know what truth is. Not relevance, perspective. Truth!