Metalogical reasoning for the Divine

[selfreasoning4all]

Hence I will not bother with the rest of your post.

well, you seem smart, I would like to hear your thoughts from a logical perspective;

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...6479#post86479

[selfreasoning4all]

Therefore, everything is a generalization!

the only thing that might contradict this is the empty set, or zero.

but we can understand the empty set as the composite of equalized existential negation or x - x = 0

[selfreasoning4all]

the only thing that might contradict this is the empty set, or zero.

but we can understand the empty set as the composite of equalized existential negation or x - x = 0

actually, it would be; {x ¬x} = {}

[The Pixie]

Generalizations posit the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements.

Generalisations are abstract concepts. They exist because we think they do (I would guess as part of our language ability).

Therefore every composite is a generalization.

Show step by step how you arrived at this conclusion from the premise.

[selfreasoning4all]

actually, it would be; {x ¬x} = {}

{x & ¬x} = {}

[selfreasoning4all]

{x & ¬x} = {}

|- ∃{};{∃x & ∃¬x} = {}

[37818]

|- ∃{};{∃x & ∃¬x} = {}

In English please write out how that is to be read. Thanks.

[shunyadragon]

which is a truth, which is absurd (reductio ad absurdum), therefore there is truth

Actually, 'there is NO TRUTH' is not a statement of truth, it is an presupposition for a meta logical argument, likewise 'there IS truth' would be a presupposition.

In line with this meta logical argument, I use the presupposition that there IS truth, but this truth could be natural (i.e. the ultimate Natural Law that determines the nature of our physical existence) or it could be a 'Source' some call God(s). The other assumption is that our physical existence is possibly eternal and infinite.

[37818]

Actually, 'there is NO TRUTH' is not a statement of truth, it is an presupposition for a meta logical argument, likewise 'there IS truth' would be a presupposition.

The "argument" "there is NO TRUTH" is self defeating, an absurdity. Like saying there is no existence. Or "this sentence is not a sentence."

[shunyadragon]

The "argument" "there is NO TRUTH" is self defeating, an absurdity. Like saying there is no existence. Or "this sentence is not a sentence."

It was never proposed as an argument in and of itself. It was proposed by normative as a presupposition for another argument.
I am citing the original use of the phrase in this thread, which has not been used in the context that it was a 'sentence.' In the context of how normative used it, it was simply a presupposition, there is NO truth, for a meta logical argument, as was the presupposition in the original thread argument, which there IS truth, or for your convenience: There is absolute Truth.

It is neither self defeating nor an absurdity in this context. For your convenience let's word it as a presupposition: There is no such thing as absolute truth. A presupposition can be expressed as a 'belief' and not claimed as a statement of fact nor truth.


It represents a presupposition that the nature of our existence, whether spiritual nor physical reducable to an absolute truth.

[37818]

It was never proposed as an argument in and of itself. It was proposed by normative as a presupposition for another argument.
I am citing the original use of the phrase in this thread, which has not been used in the context that it was a 'sentence.' In the context of how normative used it, it was simply a presupposition, there is NO truth, for a meta logical argument, as was the presupposition in the original thread argument, which there IS truth, or for your convenience: There is absolute Truth.

It is neither self defeating nor an absurdity in this context. For your convenience let's word it as a presupposition: There is no such thing as absolute truth. A presupposition can be expressed as a 'belief' and not claimed as a statement of fact nor truth.


It represents a presupposition that the nature of our existence, whether spiritual nor physical reducable to an absolute truth.

Yes. Nevertheless, there is absolute truth. And some presuppositions are true and others are false. All the while the person or persons holding them do so thinking them to be true.

[shunyadragon]

Yes. Nevertheless, there is absolute truth.

This is as above a presupposition, and factually unknown. From the metalogical perspective, IF absolute truth exists, it could possibly be Divine (i.e. theism) or it could possibly be Natural Law from the perspective of philosophical naturalism.

And some presuppositions are true and others are false.

True

All the while the person or persons holding them do so thinking them to be true.

Thinking them true does not make it so.

[37818]

This is as above a presupposition, and factually unknown. From the metalogical perspective, IF absolute truth exists, it could possibly be Divine (i.e. theism) or it could possibly be Natural Law from the perspective of philosophical naturalism.

Well, either the absolute truth of an argument is true or it is in its whole, false. Any argument against absolute truth is inherently false.

Thinking them true does not make it so.

Agreed.