| pizzahut451 said:
|
I present you with proposition P
P: at the age of 2 months, every male hummingbird spontaneoulsy morphs into a female gecko, in a burst of gamma rays and with a sound of deep cymbal, AND propostion P is true
You see the problem? I baked the fact that P is true into the definition of P, and P is internally consistent. But of course that doesn't really imply that P is true in an external sense when we put it in the context of real world hummingbirds, geckos and gamma ray bursts.
If someone questions you the fact that a creator of everything is uncreated, apparently violating our real world hypothesis that everything is at the same time cause of further effects and effects of some cause, pointing to the fact that you imagined (defined) it that way internally is bad scientific reasoning, circular in claiming that your definitions are somehow true predicates.
Ref: Google for ontological arguments of Anselm of Aosta vs Kant. Also look for the history from Russel's antinomy and set theory to Goedel's work if you are of mathematical persuasion.







