Atheism from awareness of difference

colby: Would you like to see a 160 IQ level insight?
03:31 paradiso
1) You are aware there are competing top-level explanatory frameworks, e.g. theism and quantum mechanics
colby
so how did munchausen prove is own theorem
colby
his
romanbro has left IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
paradiso
2) Some pairs of top-level explanatory frameworks are mutually incompatible
colby
i mean given that you cant prove anything, then how do you prove that you cant prove anything
colby
so its a self-defeating proposition
paradiso
3) It is possible that truth is congruent with a known top-level framework, but only when it is selected naively, i.e. not through an assessment of probability between competing top-level explanatory frameworks. For example, you have to be a theist AND you have to arrive at it through a restricted set of cognitive approaches
paradiso
colby: Baron Manchausen is a fictional character who pulled himself up by his own bootstraps.
paradiso
Epistemology is the field of knowledge that uses knowledge to assert knowledge about knowledge
paradiso
(He may have pull himself up by his own hair, as opposed to his bootstraps)
paradiso
4) You are already using non-naive cognitive approaches at this point in the argument, due to (1)
paradiso
5) If (3) is true, you'll have to either forget this argument -- if possible -- or think as if you're unaware of it, which may be impossible in both cases
colby
i dont understand how baron would question that 1+1=2
paradiso
2 is defined to be 1 + 1.
paradiso
One is the empty set nested in a set.
colby
but how does he make me question that truth
paradiso
A recursive application of that operation generates the natural numbers.
paradiso
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-theoretic_definition_of_natural_numbers#Definition_as_von_Neumann_ordinals
paradiso
That contains the definition of '2'.
paradiso
6) If (5) is true, then you are already in the world where you're using non-naive cognitive operations, such as placing probability distributions over competing top-level explanatory frameworks
paradiso
7) If you recognize, (6) is now your top-level framework and NOT any of the initial top-level frameworks you were aware of. That is, you have identified the True top-level framework of existence for a conscious being, given (1).
colby
stop
colby
lets do this my way
colby
just by counting
paradiso
8) This argument indicates the True, subsuming top-level framework is explicitly atheistic.
colby
how does he deny the truth of quantity
paradiso
9) Therefore, theistic presuppositionalism is invalid
paradiso
Do you appreciate this argument?
paradiso
It's one of the most profound things I've ever come to realize.
paradiso
There is a possible counterargument I'm aware of, though.
paradiso
Perhaps the meta-top-level framework I just described can be recursively subsumed.
paradiso
And so there's just a nested chain of infinite frameworks, all putting probability distributions over each other.
paradiso
I think, but I'm not sure, however, that this operation is idempotent.
paradiso
That is R(top-level framework) = meta-top-level framework, however R(meta-top-level framework) = meta-top-level framework.
03:42 colby
do you like making people feel intellectually inferior?
paradiso
That is, this meta-top-level framework, so constructed, is a stationary point of this operator.