Or my belief system, or whatever it is…
Here is what you seem to hate so much:
[1] Goodness is the most valuable aesthetic
[2] Love is the facilitation of goodness
[3] God is love
Whenever and wherever I have stated my belief, you have felt compelled to disparage it. You have attacked the logic. You have demanded definitions. You have demanded definitions of the terms in the definitions. And you have demanded definitions of the terms in the definitions of the terms in the definitions.
I’ve shown you scholarly references from universities that indicate what is common knowledge and common sense; namely, that definitions are circular in nature because they are comprised of terms that themselves have definitions. And I’ve shown you scholarly references that all deductive systems begin with undefined terms.
In my case, I do not define “goodness”. That’s because that’s where I start — with “goodness”". Here is one of the many links I have provided for you. It’s probably the simplest and easiest to understand:
Why am I such a nutball for believing the meaning of “goodness” to be very common and self-evident? Granted, a person intent on obfuscation can screw with the word and pretend it means anything under the sun. But all that means is that the obfuscator is a dickhead. The term is still nearly universally understood by normal, ordinary, and reasonable people.
And if you are obsessed with riding my belief system about an undefined “goodness”, why is it you do not ride the system of arithmetic about an undefined “successor”. Why do you not ride geometry about an undefined “point”? Why do you not ride logic about the undefined concepts of “true” and “false”?
Why me? Why do you single out my deductively derived belief system as uniquely qualified for derision?
“Goodness”, in my belief system, is what is called a primitive. That is, it is a term upon which definitions and axioms are built. In every deductive system there are primitives. The reason for this is that without primitives, definitions would go in circles forever because there are a finite number of words and eventually, one or more of them would have to be reused.
Goodness is the whole foundation upon which everything else is built. Without goodness, there would be no God. There would be no love. There would be no sin. As you know, I define sin as the obstruction of goodness.
The first conclusion that I draw, after the statement of my axioms is this: Goodness is the aesthetic most valued by God. It seems to me to be a reasonable inference from the premises as they are stated. But you have called me a moron for stating the conclusion.
Now, Peanno concluded, after his premises, that 1 + 1 = 2. And yet, I have not seen you going around the boards — even hijacking General Questions threads — in order to ridicule Peanno and demand that he define the term “successor” that he used in his Induction Axiom.
As shown here (and a bazillion other places), Peanno introduced his arithmetical system beginning with certain undefined terms, including “successor”. He then proceeded to state his famous five axioms, four of which use the undefined term “successor”. But I have not seen you crying out that Peanno is a dishonest idiot who does not have even a basic understanding of logic.
Is it that you like him, but don’t like me? Or you respect him, but don’t respect me?
See, that’s a line of argument that I could understand, and that, in light of the reams of documentation I have supplied you, would make sense: you just don’t like me, or you just don’t respect me; therefore, you don’t like or don’t respect my belief system.
But his business of attacking my belief system because it is logically flawed makes no sense. It uses perfectly normal and acceptable principles of deductive systems — the same perfectly normal and acceptable principles used by competent people everywhere who devise deductive systems.
But you say that my belief system is stupid and dishonestly derived. And you insist that you are some sort of expert in logic. That’s all. That’s the totality of your argument: “It’s wrong. Trust me.”
The time has come for you to back up your complaints with cites. You have never — never — provided a cite to show that there exists a deductive system with no undefined terms. (Don’t even think of suggesting the MIU system: all its terms are undefined.)
You have attempted to hold me to a made-up standard that flies in the face of Hilbert’s own standards. In case you didn’t know, Hilbert developed the modern deductive method.
You’ve jumped. You’ve dodged. You’ve flailed. You’ve screamed. You’ve insulted. You’ve abused. But you have yet to prove a damn thing.
What exactly is your problem?
