Quote (Hajun123 @ May 12 2026 04:03pm)

Logic doesn't presuppose any metaphysics by itself, nor it needs to. This has the advantage of abstraction and applications to formal mathematics.

You're incorrect about Godel's theorem. He proved the ff:

1) Completeness theorem first first order logic (his phd thesis)

2) Incompleteness theorem (this refers to a formal system with a volume of arithmetic i.e. representability of recursive functions)

I'm talking about #1 so you already conflated these two. As i've said on my previous posts I hate dealing with ignorant people talking about fields they dont study themselves well. I am more than aware of these presuppositions, but I'd really rather deal with someone who understand basic results in formal logic like Plantinga.

Since you've mentioned Kant, what kant meant by 'transcendental logic' vs 'general logic'? His transcendental isn't your 'transcendental' in the dictionary meaning of it. Same with his notion of intuition (badly translated "anshauung")

Of coursegodel's theorem does not explain the ontological status of the laws of logic. It's not even about ontology. You haven't read his 1931 paper don't you? In modern math this is just a fixed point theorem in a Topos (see Category Theory)

Quote (addone @ May 12 2026 06:45pm)

It wasn't
Its logistically impossible to fit all pairs of animals on a ship, people, the food and resources required for over a year.

In terms of volume, the Ark had approximately 1.5 million cubic feet of space, which is comparable to the storage capacity of 450 to 570 modern semi-trailers or 569 railroad cars. Its floor space across three decks exceeded 100,000 square feet, roughly the size of 21 college basketball courts.

https://imgur.com/qLVsqpi.jpeg

https://imgur.com/brAoEJX.jpeg

A modern zoo cannot accommodate that many. Its like trying to fit 2 football teams and their coaching staff into a single mini.
Also how did the penguins travel to middle east in order to get on the ark?

Quote (Hajun123 @ May 12 2026 02:59pm)

He is wrong with the idea of peer review, especially for the formal sciences. Most people are conformists regardless of whether they are formally educated or not so he's got 0 point there. The majority of original thinkers in science, mathematics, and philosophy came directly out of academic systems while still producing independent and revolutionary ideas. One thing is common with all of them: deep mastery of the already existing field. There is no revolutionary idea in physics without first knowing what has already been discussed. A troglodyte can't get out of his cave and recreate General Relativity and differential geometry rigorously out of thin air. Kant didn't write his epistemology out of nothing. He knows the existing problems of rationalism and empiricism (the dominant systems of his time). Expertise begins with learning what is already known before attempting to transcend it.

Again, scientists themselves usually do not treat peer review as absolute gospel. It is a filtering mechanism. Writing about physics or mathematics without the necessary background in mathematics and logic is like serving Gordon Ramsay a plate of lava and insisting he taste it seriously. Scientific results being proven wrong is normal. Falsifiability is the current answer to demarcation. Nat. science is not meant to be valid 'a priori' in the epistemological sense, unlike mathematics.

Again it's a simple question, how much do you understand a well-established scientific result, say, general relativity? It is simply dishonest to claim scientists don't know what they're doing if you can't even explain the basics of relativity or at least the math behind it. What is the fundamental theorem of Riemmanian Geometry?


//RNA WORLD HYPOTHESIS was the 'atheists answer to abiogenesis.//

There is no inherent contradiction within the concept of an atheist disregarding abiogenesis.

Your reasoning is honestly riddled with elementary mistakes. I'm not even an atheist myself but sure you guys make us look bad.

Quote (majorblood @ May 13 2026 07:54am)

logic absolutely necessarily presupposes metaphysics, this is an incoherent statement to make unless you are claiming logic itself is not real or doesn't exist. this abstraction you mention itself is a metaphysical claim, if you make claims about the existence of symbols it is a metaphysical claim, if the claim is logic is just a rule of the mind its is making a metaphysical claim of the minds existence. this anti-realist position is nonsensical especially since you admit to believing in God who is the ultimate metaphysical uncreated reality (but have not qualified who this God is in your worldview).

if your understanding of logic is purely formal, why does it correctly predict the behavior of the physical universe and how does it account for God?


I would like to hear your justification that logic does not presuppose metaphysics, or at the very least isn't synergistic with it.

i'm pointing out that godel does not provide ontology which is what my original question is asking, you are pointing at if we assume the axioms of the system it is consistent but my question is a higher order metalogical one. godel's theorem does not explain the ontological status of the laws nor do they justify their authority, which is why your attempted answer to my question is irrelevant. I used your reference to show how it's useless to the question of the possibility of the preconditions of logic itself.

you have still not proven the validity of the initial axioms. I am not saying assume axioms and then show the system is consistent within the set of axioms, I am asking for justification for the axioms themselves.

the issue with kant is he grounds such transcendental categories within the mind itself, so his "general logic" is just an arbitrary set of rules we happen to have in our minds. how do we know this interacts with the many? how do we know knowledge of the universal is possible if it is grounded in the finite? how do we bridge the gap?

Quote (TiStuff @ May 13 2026 09:22am)

your reasoning? your better at math falsifies my claims about 'atheists?

Quote (Hajun123 @ May 12 2026 07:06pm)

This is the problem with not being acquainted with modern theory of models and category theory. I've noticed this a lot with philosophers who think they can talk about topics they don't even know deeply enough. Any reading of graduate level mathematical logic textbook will clear this confusion (you even confused which godel theorem you are referring two since there's a lot of them and they talk about different things). You've said godel's theorem does not explain the ontological status of the laws nor do they justify their authority. OBVIOUSLY, they are not meant to do that so this is absolutely irrelevant and shows noting but misunderstanding or ignorance of basic first order logic metatheorems. Be honest, have you ever finished a grad level logic textbook covering all the metatheorems such as Lowenheim Skolem, Compactness, Forcing etc.?

Modern logic is developed syntactically (so it doesn't presuppose anything about ontology). I've only mention Godel completeness theorem specifically because it shows why such a syntactic view of logic is useful. So you're misunderstanding why I've pointed this out. This is a metatheorem in logic that is not even about ontology.

Logic by itself does not claim these symbols exist or doesn't exists in reality. Some logicians (Godel in particular) do believe that mathematical objects including metatheorems are 'out there' in a platonistic sense but you do not add these assumptions in the study of logic itself. I could say that we believe these concepts exists out there and is of course grounded by God i.e. 'ens realissimum' (the most real being) but again, these assumptions are not intrinsic to logic as a study.

// I am asking for justification for the axioms themselves.//
By itself the 'logical axioms' (Hilbert-style presentation) does not give any additional information. A logical system is completely determined by its set of nonlogical axioms so it is moot to ask the justification of these axioms since they are purely syntactical. They are 'what they are'. If you want to say they are metaphysically existent or nonexistent, the onus would be on you.

While I'm not defending Kant, I'm testing your understanding of him. "General logic' for Kant is a determinant for negative metaphysics, aconditio sine qua non. It is not the same as his transcendental logic but whatever.

Quote (majorblood @ May 13 2026 01:07pm)

i'm not interested in a debate of biographical details and credentialism, the question was to justify the possibility of the preconditions of logic.

I think we agree mostly, except on the point where you think logic itself is possible without God. You know it must be grounded in Him ultimately, but you attempt to fragment Him from a modern secular view of logic that cannot justify its own axioms. You don't have to believe it to be true to make "use" of logic, but you know the myth of the given shows that there is no "theory-neutral" worldview.

if God is the grounding of all possibility, He is the ultimate grounding of logic itself including the possibility of this syntactical view.

you brought up godel who is irrelevant to my original question, this is what I am repeating godel does not address ontology so it is irrelevant to the metalogical question of the ontological status of logic itself. I'm not asking if logic is useful(to say it is "useful" presupposes meaning and telos and many other categories you cannot justify within the system itself), I want to know how you justify the possibility of universal, immaterial, invariant logic within your own worldview which you said is God. Who is this God? Is He the Father?

to say the "axioms are moot" is a concession of being arbitrary, your axioms have no normative authority and are a meaningless string of symbols. If this is the case, the possibility of knowledge is impossible. Is this your position? I doubt it because you said you believe God exists.

this platonic view you allude to does not answer the problem of the one and the many, does your worldview? how do you bridge the gap of the platonic realm and our possibility of knowledge? Some "versions" of God have more explanatory power than others. e.g. if your God is something similar platonism, how do we have intimate access to it without a mediator (the Logos)?

Quote (addone @ May 13 2026 06:58am)

No, there is no scientific or historical evidence that humans ever lived for hundreds of years. Skeletal remains and fossil records consistently show that average lifespans in antiquity were approximately 30 to 40 years, with most commonly dying before age 50.
This is the most tinfoil AI slop I've seen this week. Lifespan doesn't go from 950 years down to 50 overnight from a flood.

How did kangaroo migrate from middle east to Australia in your so called story? So unless you are willing to concede it is an allegorical/metaphorical story you need to produce receipts for all the things like, archeological, geological, biological, historical, logistical etc.

Just knowing basics of animals husbandry would make it impossible for all animals to be crammed into a boat like sardines and expecting them to survive for over a year.



The presuppositional apologetic strikes again with circular reasoning and fideism.

Quote (Hajun123 @ May 13 2026 06:03pm)

Im pretty sure we are referring to 'logic' in 2 different ways. When one seeks to ground logic ontologically or epistemologically, investigate the possibility or impossibility of such, or investigate even the possibility of correspondence of logic to reality (other than the obvious not so well-argued position that it is a negative condition for correspondence truth), this investigation belongs to 'philosophical logic'.

I do not hold such platonic views either. I do not personally go in detail with ontology since you can get to different conclusions with different fundamental presuppositions or 'nonlogical axioms' as starting point. You must be bored of atheists and nonstop logical positivist views and I may definitely agree with you in some matters of ontology but i dont think diablo2 forum is a good place.

That being said the axioms used in math and 'formal/modern logic' are not arbitrarily chosen. Without care of choice of axioms, certain consequences are possible. For instance, one can prove excluded middle as a theorem in a set theory w/ intuitionistic logic if we add axiom of choice. Everyone understands that infinite regress is unavoidable without accepting a set of axioms from which something follows. The results of metamathematics abstracts from this choice of axioms. For instance GCT applies to any 1st-order system regardless of 'nonlogical' (i.e. axioms outside the usual logical axioms) axiom choices. People may argue what the fundamental presuppositions are wrt reality but I do not want to take theonus probandion that since it requires an apriori valid proof that isn't analytic.

Do excuse some of my grumpiness since TiStuff has been trolling me for quite a while

Quote (CPK001 @ May 13 2026 07:46pm)

950 to 50 overnight? You better start reading the Bible. Maybe your question will be answered in part 2.

Quote (Hajun123 @ May 12 2026 07:25pm)

You're not 'your'

I'm not usually the grammar police but you've been consistent at not being able to grasp the triviality of what is being pointed at you so it's waste of time. I've pointed the obvious: evolution and abiogenesis are not intrinsic to the concept of atheism. There is no intrinsic contradiction if an atheist buys them or not.. This isn't difficult to grasp.