"Never the state's to grant" no rights are, that's basic natural law. "Some loyalties run deeper than the state's authority" what are you doing here? Saying religion matters more than law? This is basically theocracy.
I read the Wikipedia articles on Big Crunch and Heat Death and both seemed to allow or insinuate a new Big Bang. Does the consensus support this, and what of the other theorized Ultimate Fates?
More to the point, I've read that Godel's Proof was Computationally Verified. I only have an undergrad semester in logic under my belt so I know the difference between valid logic and sound logic, but Godel worked in modal logic, so I was wondering if that complicated anything.
In short, what does "Computationally Verified" mean in the context of Godel's Ontological Proof? Does this prove theism? Is it merely that Godel has valid logic but not much else? Or some third/fourth/fifth thing based on a formula I couldn't even begin to wrap my head around?
More to the point, I've read that Godel's Proof was Computationally Verified. I only have an undergrad semester in logic under my belt so I know the difference between valid logic and sound logic, but Godel worked in modal logic, so I was wondering if that complicated anything.
In short, what does "Computationally Verified" mean in the context of Godel's Ontological Proof? Does this prove theism? Is it merely that Godel has valid logic but not much else? Or some third/fourth/fifth thing based on a formula I couldn't even begin to wrap my head around?
I just remembered somethingI learned from Catechism which Catholic Sunday School but on a Wednesday (oddly enough this isn't what gave me scrupulousity but yet another boring thing my larents shoved me into, I got scrupulousity through my own inquiry) where a, I can't say if she was a nun or some other volunteer, regardless she was a teacher who said something about cameras being a human invention that took inspiration from "God's invention" the eyeball. That's kind of sad to think, that we wouldn't have made cameras if "God" didn't give us eyeballs. Humanity found ways of measuring infrared and ultraviolet light, radiation, bunch of invisible stuff.
Alternatively it could've been "cameras had an inventor so eyeballs need an inventor" which is sad in its own way of being the perennial undercutting of evolution by most theists, who have wisened up away from flat out denying evolution to "okay, we concede that the biologists might be right about their field, but look at the brain though, no way that evolved right?"
Just kind of feeble overall.
For one thing, theists try to weasel out of the omnipotence paradox by finding a loophole in the definition of "thing" so when "God can do anything" it's limited by a "thing" needing to be logically coherent, so "squared circle" isn't a thing, and neither do paradoxes count. This is odd because the Supreme Being™ is reliant on the property of the physical world, math (logic is very much based on math, and I lean towards math being discovered rather than invented, as well as logic organizing circuit boards). In short, a transcendental deity is bound by its own creation.
Additionally, what authority does an omnipotent deity have over the physical world? humanity can only observe and distort nature, what does a deity do but be more "effective" at this than people? The theist would say the creator has authority over its creation but if the deity is bound by logic could it simply not be tarnishing the ideal state of affairs for its own vision? Should Lot's wife not be a woman rather than a pillar of salt, ontologically speaking? Is that not her true born form, distorted solely out of wrath that she looked back at her home once?
It's fishy is what I'm getting at. It's an extension of Christians' (and US Conservative's political rendition) invocation of "morals" as a bigger guide than physicalism, and then their morals don't even hold to actual scrutiny on a philosophical level.