I agree with that I think, thanks

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Does anyone really have a difference in definitions of love and life? Flourishing I'll give you is a more abstract concept that is more easily muddled by our earthly desires. But life and love? You really think there are a near infinite interpretations of those two definitions? Not the application of them, but the definition.

---

Of course we have different definitions. These are the basis for half of the social issue disagreements we have here.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think true Biblical love is a much more complex characteristic of God than we give it credit for. It is not just a human emotion that we feel or something we experience in this life. So yes, I think from a Biblical perspective, the definition of love is all over the spectrum. Maybe that wasn't the question however.

---

The point I'm trying to make is that God has given man the ability to receive knowledge about God. This is partially the orthodox definition of the nous. All of mankind has the same nature, and that shows up in generally a universal understanding of basic concepts like love and life. I reject the idea that some cultures completely lack even a fundamental understanding of what love is. Its that baked into man's nature.

---

And what happens when the knowledge God gives me disagrees with the knowledge God gives you? Surely we can agree that that deciphering the meaning of the nature of God through either inductive reasoning and natural observation or through divine revelation is . . . . lets go with 'complicated'.

People have different levels of empathy, temperaments, motivations, desires, and cognitive styles. You can make broad brush statements about human nature, but compare your human nature with Tend Bundy's. You two have different instincts, different capacities for reason or emotion, different levels of empathy, different moral intuition. This is an extreme example, but the point is that these qualities of man's nature appear at different levels of baked-ness from person to person. Maybe even measurably so.

Unsure how I came across this thread, but thank you to everyone for the discussion on here. God Bless.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i think the variance is not on understanding what love, life, and flourishing are. the difference comes down to whether people should encourage love, life, and flourishing, and often who is even a person that they deserve those things.

---

In a sense, everyone who wishes to understand the meaning of love, life, and flourishing has a sample size of one (themselves) to pull from. How careful should we be about saying everyone else's understanding is the same?

In simple terms, the above feels like a claim that everyone knows what is right, but some just choose to do wrong. While that certainly applies in many cases, it feels dismissive of anyone with sincere belief in a variation of love and life and flourishing.

---

Does anyone really have a difference in definitions of love and life? Flourishing I'll give you is a more abstract concept that is more easily muddled by our earthly desires. But life and love? You really think there are a near infinite interpretations of those two definitions? Not the application of them, but the definition.

---

I think true Biblical love is a much more complex characteristic of God than we give it credit for. It is not just a human emotion that we feel or something we experience in this life. So yes, I think from a Biblical perspective, the definition of love is all over the spectrum. Maybe that wasn't the question however.

---

Disagree. I think we make it more complex by putting our theological bias on it.

God's love is for every person, animal, creature He created. And it is greater than anything we can imagine.

Children get it. And it is simple.

The fruits of the Spirit are peace, patience, joy, love, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control. So easy a child can understand it.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think true Biblical love is a much more complex characteristic of God than we give it credit for. It is not just a human emotion that we feel or something we experience in this life. So yes, I think from a Biblical perspective, the definition of love is all over the spectrum. Maybe that wasn't the question however.

---

The point I'm trying to make is that God has given man the ability to receive knowledge about God. This is partially the orthodox definition of the nous. All of mankind has the same nature, and that shows up in generally a universal understanding of basic concepts like love and life. I reject the idea that some cultures completely lack even a fundamental understanding of what love is. Its that baked into man's nature.

---

And what happens when the knowledge God gives me disagrees with the knowledge God gives you? Surely we can agree that that deciphering the meaning of the nature of God through either inductive reasoning and natural observation or through divine revelation is . . . . lets go with 'complicated'.

People have different levels of empathy, temperaments, motivations, desires, and cognitive styles. You can make broad brush statements about human nature, but compare your human nature with Tend Bundy's. You two have different instincts, different capacities for reason or emotion, different levels of empathy, different moral intuition. This is an extreme example, but the point is that these qualities of man's nature appear at different levels of baked-ness from person to person. Maybe even measurably so.

---

You're talking about episteme, specifically knowledge as a quanta that you are able to consume. My post is about something innate. Its the nature of man. Mankind only has one nature. Yes you can zoom in on one of the worst serial killers who clearly lacked any capacity for empathy or you can take the the post in its original intent to be describing whole cultures and the commonality between all of humanity.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think true Biblical love is a much more complex characteristic of God than we give it credit for. It is not just a human emotion that we feel or something we experience in this life. So yes, I think from a Biblical perspective, the definition of love is all over the spectrum. Maybe that wasn't the question however.

---

The point I'm trying to make is that God has given man the ability to receive knowledge about God. This is partially the orthodox definition of the nous. All of mankind has the same nature, and that shows up in generally a universal understanding of basic concepts like love and life. I reject the idea that some cultures completely lack even a fundamental understanding of what love is. Its that baked into man's nature.

---

And what happens when the knowledge God gives me disagrees with the knowledge God gives you? Surely we can agree that that deciphering the meaning of the nature of God through either inductive reasoning and natural observation or through divine revelation is . . . . lets go with 'complicated'.

People have different levels of empathy, temperaments, motivations, desires, and cognitive styles. You can make broad brush statements about human nature, but compare your human nature with Tend Bundy's. You two have different instincts, different capacities for reason or emotion, different levels of empathy, different moral intuition. This is an extreme example, but the point is that these qualities of man's nature appear at different levels of baked-ness from person to person. Maybe even measurably so.

---

You're talking about episteme, specifically knowledge as a quanta that you are able to consume. My post is about something innate. Its the nature of man. Mankind only has one nature. Yes you can zoom in on one of the worst serial killers who clearly lacked any capacity for empathy or you can take the the post in its original intent to be describing whole cultures and the commonality between all of humanity.

---

The first part of my response was just a response to our abilities to receive knowledge about God.

When you discuss the nature of man, what factors do you consider to be relevant within that definition? I had listed items such as empathy and temperament and motivation and cognitive style as examples of things that I think could fall within that category, but perhaps there are other factors we should think about?

I don't object to general descriptions of commonality of human nature across humanity. If the factors listed above are relevant to the discussion, then would it be correct to say that human nature has variation?

The reason that I disagree with where I think you are going is this: Human civilization has risen all over the planet. And every time a civilization is successful in doing so, it does so with the aid of basic rules and values and morals. And while those values and morals have a lot in common, the differences are not insignificant. Civilizations with precisely Christian only values and morals do not arise all over the world spontaneously. These values and morals are taught. And they spread through the aid of politics and education and missionaries and sometimes through war. They do not spread via the spontaneous creation of Christian principles developed through pure human moral intuition. Humans have a range of 'human nature' and the value systems created by different civilizations and cultures tend to fall within that range of human nature. If all mankind had one nature, wouldn't we expect to see a far more narrow range? Or maybe it is it possible that I am exaggerating the range?

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i think the variance is not on understanding what love, life, and flourishing are. the difference comes down to whether people should encourage love, life, and flourishing, and often who is even a person that they deserve those things.

---

In a sense, everyone who wishes to understand the meaning of love, life, and flourishing has a sample size of one (themselves) to pull from. How careful should we be about saying everyone else's understanding is the same?

In simple terms, the above feels like a claim that everyone knows what is right, but some just choose to do wrong. While that certainly applies in many cases, it feels dismissive of anyone with sincere belief in a variation of love and life and flourishing.

---

Does anyone really have a difference in definitions of love and life? Flourishing I'll give you is a more abstract concept that is more easily muddled by our earthly desires. But life and love? You really think there are a near infinite interpretations of those two definitions? Not the application of them, but the definition.

---

I think true Biblical love is a much more complex characteristic of God than we give it credit for. It is not just a human emotion that we feel or something we experience in this life. So yes, I think from a Biblical perspective, the definition of love is all over the spectrum. Maybe that wasn't the question however.

---

Disagree. I think we make it more complex by putting our theological bias on it.

God's love is for every person, animal, creature He created. And it is greater than anything we can imagine.

Children get it. And it is simple.

The fruits of the Spirit are peace, patience, joy, love, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control. So easy a child can understand it.

---

I don't think children "understand" the love of God.

Children just have a fully trusting disposition, which is what we are called to embrace, being like children in that regard.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i think the variance is not on understanding what love, life, and flourishing are. the difference comes down to whether people should encourage love, life, and flourishing, and often who is even a person that they deserve those things.

---

In a sense, everyone who wishes to understand the meaning of love, life, and flourishing has a sample size of one (themselves) to pull from. How careful should we be about saying everyone else's understanding is the same?

In simple terms, the above feels like a claim that everyone knows what is right, but some just choose to do wrong. While that certainly applies in many cases, it feels dismissive of anyone with sincere belief in a variation of love and life and flourishing.

---

Does anyone really have a difference in definitions of love and life? Flourishing I'll give you is a more abstract concept that is more easily muddled by our earthly desires. But life and love? You really think there are a near infinite interpretations of those two definitions? Not the application of them, but the definition.

---

I think true Biblical love is a much more complex characteristic of God than we give it credit for. It is not just a human emotion that we feel or something we experience in this life. So yes, I think from a Biblical perspective, the definition of love is all over the spectrum. Maybe that wasn't the question however.

---

Disagree. I think we make it more complex by putting our theological bias on it.

God's love is for every person, animal, creature He created. And it is greater than anything we can imagine.

Children get it. And it is simple.

The fruits of the Spirit are peace, patience, joy, love, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control. So easy a child can understand it.

---

I don't think children "understand" the love of God.

Children just have a fully trusting disposition, which is what we are called to embrace, being like children in that regard.

---

Fair enough. I have a child like faith and just trust and know God is love.

I think we make it more complicated than it is because of theology. When you go in with a theological bias and lens that is what happens in my opinion.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i think the variance is not on understanding what love, life, and flourishing are. the difference comes down to whether people should encourage love, life, and flourishing, and often who is even a person that they deserve those things.

---

In a sense, everyone who wishes to understand the meaning of love, life, and flourishing has a sample size of one (themselves) to pull from. How careful should we be about saying everyone else's understanding is the same?

In simple terms, the above feels like a claim that everyone knows what is right, but some just choose to do wrong. While that certainly applies in many cases, it feels dismissive of anyone with sincere belief in a variation of love and life and flourishing.

---

Does anyone really have a difference in definitions of love and life? Flourishing I'll give you is a more abstract concept that is more easily muddled by our earthly desires. But life and love? You really think there are a near infinite interpretations of those two definitions? Not the application of them, but the definition.

---

I think true Biblical love is a much more complex characteristic of God than we give it credit for. It is not just a human emotion that we feel or something we experience in this life. So yes, I think from a Biblical perspective, the definition of love is all over the spectrum. Maybe that wasn't the question however.

---

Disagree. I think we make it more complex by putting our theological bias on it.

God's love is for every person, animal, creature He created. And it is greater than anything we can imagine.

Children get it. And it is simple.

The fruits of the Spirit are peace, patience, joy, love, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control. So easy a child can understand it.

---

I don't think children "understand" the love of God.

Children just have a fully trusting disposition, which is what we are called to embrace, being like children in that regard.

---

Can you say that in a way that isn't steeped in "um, akshully" materialism?

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i think the variance is not on understanding what love, life, and flourishing are. the difference comes down to whether people should encourage love, life, and flourishing, and often who is even a person that they deserve those things.

---

In a sense, everyone who wishes to understand the meaning of love, life, and flourishing has a sample size of one (themselves) to pull from. How careful should we be about saying everyone else's understanding is the same?

In simple terms, the above feels like a claim that everyone knows what is right, but some just choose to do wrong. While that certainly applies in many cases, it feels dismissive of anyone with sincere belief in a variation of love and life and flourishing.

---

Does anyone really have a difference in definitions of love and life? Flourishing I'll give you is a more abstract concept that is more easily muddled by our earthly desires. But life and love? You really think there are a near infinite interpretations of those two definitions? Not the application of them, but the definition.

---

I think true Biblical love is a much more complex characteristic of God than we give it credit for. It is not just a human emotion that we feel or something we experience in this life. So yes, I think from a Biblical perspective, the definition of love is all over the spectrum. Maybe that wasn't the question however.

---

Disagree. I think we make it more complex by putting our theological bias on it.

God's love is for every person, animal, creature He created. And it is greater than anything we can imagine.

Children get it. And it is simple.

The fruits of the Spirit are peace, patience, joy, love, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control. So easy a child can understand it.

---

I don't think children "understand" the love of God.

Children just have a fully trusting disposition, which is what we are called to embrace, being like children in that regard.

---

Can you say that in a way that isn't steeped in "um, akshully" materialism?

---

Just another trait of us evil calvinists.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i think the variance is not on understanding what love, life, and flourishing are. the difference comes down to whether people should encourage love, life, and flourishing, and often who is even a person that they deserve those things.

---

In a sense, everyone who wishes to understand the meaning of love, life, and flourishing has a sample size of one (themselves) to pull from. How careful should we be about saying everyone else's understanding is the same?

In simple terms, the above feels like a claim that everyone knows what is right, but some just choose to do wrong. While that certainly applies in many cases, it feels dismissive of anyone with sincere belief in a variation of love and life and flourishing.

---

Does anyone really have a difference in definitions of love and life? Flourishing I'll give you is a more abstract concept that is more easily muddled by our earthly desires. But life and love? You really think there are a near infinite interpretations of those two definitions? Not the application of them, but the definition.

---

I think true Biblical love is a much more complex characteristic of God than we give it credit for. It is not just a human emotion that we feel or something we experience in this life. So yes, I think from a Biblical perspective, the definition of love is all over the spectrum. Maybe that wasn't the question however.

---

Disagree. I think we make it more complex by putting our theological bias on it.

God's love is for every person, animal, creature He created. And it is greater than anything we can imagine.

Children get it. And it is simple.

The fruits of the Spirit are peace, patience, joy, love, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control. So easy a child can understand it.

---

I don't think children "understand" the love of God.

Children just have a fully trusting disposition, which is what we are called to embrace, being like children in that regard.

---

Can you say that in a way that isn't steeped in "um, akshully" materialism?

---

Just another trait of us evil calvinists.

---

Not the ringing endorsement Calvin himself would hope for. Surely children are more than pink matter firing electrons coalescing in behavioral patterns we classify as 'trusting dispositions'. Surely there's a spiritual posture there too?

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i think the variance is not on understanding what love, life, and flourishing are. the difference comes down to whether people should encourage love, life, and flourishing, and often who is even a person that they deserve those things.

---

In a sense, everyone who wishes to understand the meaning of love, life, and flourishing has a sample size of one (themselves) to pull from. How careful should we be about saying everyone else's understanding is the same?

In simple terms, the above feels like a claim that everyone knows what is right, but some just choose to do wrong. While that certainly applies in many cases, it feels dismissive of anyone with sincere belief in a variation of love and life and flourishing.

---

Does anyone really have a difference in definitions of love and life? Flourishing I'll give you is a more abstract concept that is more easily muddled by our earthly desires. But life and love? You really think there are a near infinite interpretations of those two definitions? Not the application of them, but the definition.

---

I think true Biblical love is a much more complex characteristic of God than we give it credit for. It is not just a human emotion that we feel or something we experience in this life. So yes, I think from a Biblical perspective, the definition of love is all over the spectrum. Maybe that wasn't the question however.

---

Disagree. I think we make it more complex by putting our theological bias on it.

God's love is for every person, animal, creature He created. And it is greater than anything we can imagine.

Children get it. And it is simple.

The fruits of the Spirit are peace, patience, joy, love, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control. So easy a child can understand it.

---

I don't think children "understand" the love of God.

Children just have a fully trusting disposition, which is what we are called to embrace, being like children in that regard.

---

Fair enough. I have a child like faith and just trust and know God is love.

I think we make it more complicated than it is because of theology. When you go in with a theological bias and lens that is what happens in my opinion.

---

Derm can we substitute "infantile" for child-like?

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i think the variance is not on understanding what love, life, and flourishing are. the difference comes down to whether people should encourage love, life, and flourishing, and often who is even a person that they deserve those things.

---

In a sense, everyone who wishes to understand the meaning of love, life, and flourishing has a sample size of one (themselves) to pull from. How careful should we be about saying everyone else's understanding is the same?

In simple terms, the above feels like a claim that everyone knows what is right, but some just choose to do wrong. While that certainly applies in many cases, it feels dismissive of anyone with sincere belief in a variation of love and life and flourishing.

---

Does anyone really have a difference in definitions of love and life? Flourishing I'll give you is a more abstract concept that is more easily muddled by our earthly desires. But life and love? You really think there are a near infinite interpretations of those two definitions? Not the application of them, but the definition.

---

I think true Biblical love is a much more complex characteristic of God than we give it credit for. It is not just a human emotion that we feel or something we experience in this life. So yes, I think from a Biblical perspective, the definition of love is all over the spectrum. Maybe that wasn't the question however.

---

Disagree. I think we make it more complex by putting our theological bias on it.

God's love is for every person, animal, creature He created. And it is greater than anything we can imagine.

Children get it. And it is simple.

The fruits of the Spirit are peace, patience, joy, love, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control. So easy a child can understand it.

---

I don't think children "understand" the love of God.

Children just have a fully trusting disposition, which is what we are called to embrace, being like children in that regard.

---

Can you say that in a way that isn't steeped in "um, akshully" materialism?

---

Just another trait of us evil calvinists.

---

Not the ringing endorsement Calvin himself would hope for. Surely children are more than pink matter firing electrons coalescing in behavioral patterns we classify as 'trusting dispositions'. Surely there's a spiritual posture there too?

---

To Derm's point, children don't get caught up in the theological gymnastics but with that also goes the idea they "fully understand" (which we all never do). There can be great value to mining the depths of scripture and learning about our God in a deeper way. Children obviously have some understanding, but it will be pretty rudimentary. As long as we aren't misappropriating certain characteristics, I have no issue with keeping things simple for the most part.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

i think the variance is not on understanding what love, life, and flourishing are. the difference comes down to whether people should encourage love, life, and flourishing, and often who is even a person that they deserve those things.

---

In a sense, everyone who wishes to understand the meaning of love, life, and flourishing has a sample size of one (themselves) to pull from. How careful should we be about saying everyone else's understanding is the same?

In simple terms, the above feels like a claim that everyone knows what is right, but some just choose to do wrong. While that certainly applies in many cases, it feels dismissive of anyone with sincere belief in a variation of love and life and flourishing.

---

Does anyone really have a difference in definitions of love and life? Flourishing I'll give you is a more abstract concept that is more easily muddled by our earthly desires. But life and love? You really think there are a near infinite interpretations of those two definitions? Not the application of them, but the definition.

---

I think true Biblical love is a much more complex characteristic of God than we give it credit for. It is not just a human emotion that we feel or something we experience in this life. So yes, I think from a Biblical perspective, the definition of love is all over the spectrum. Maybe that wasn't the question however.

---

Disagree. I think we make it more complex by putting our theological bias on it.

God's love is for every person, animal, creature He created. And it is greater than anything we can imagine.

Children get it. And it is simple.

The fruits of the Spirit are peace, patience, joy, love, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control. So easy a child can understand it.

---

I don't think children "understand" the love of God.

Children just have a fully trusting disposition, which is what we are called to embrace, being like children in that regard.

---

Fair enough. I have a child like faith and just trust and know God is love.

I think we make it more complicated than it is because of theology. When you go in with a theological bias and lens that is what happens in my opinion.

---

Derm can we substitute "infantile" for child-like?

---

I am proud to be an infantile imbecile.

Long delay, I've been on vacation and the beach is more fun than texags.

Quote:

---

your objection is similar to proposing zeno's paradox and then saying no no we can't solve that using calculus, we weren't talking about math. you want a system formal enough to say things like "law of noncontradiction" and force a binary, but not so formal that it becomes answerable. which is to say, an argument merely of convenience.

---

No it truly isn't. These are tools, nothing more. It's like complaining that you can't hit a 300 yard drive with a putter, just because they are both used for golf doesn't demand the use of a particular tool. The argument of convenience is your own by trying to force the limitations of godel's incompleteness theorem where it is not appropriate and isn't sensible. To follow your line of thought is to conclude that all logical or axiomatic reasoning is fundamentally limited by the incompleteness theory. This is simply a categorical error. As I'll reference below.

Most of your errors are summed up nicely in this work:

Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse by Torkel Franzen

For simplicities sake anything that I respond to in italics is a direct quote from this work

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Gödel's theorems show limits of formal systems doing math, not of reasoning itself. Euthyphro's logic is philosophical reasoning, not a formal system vulnerable to Gödel's limits.

---

lol no, this is one of the silliest things youve ever said. philosophical reasoning fundamentally relies on logic to structure arguments and assure coherence, and to derive conclusions systematically. Godel's theorems show the limits to axiomatic reasoning and that can apply to any philosophical system with sufficient expressiveness. dismissing this ignores how logic underpins the statements you want to use

---

Not only is it not silly, it's the simple truth. I'll quote others on the matter:

"The incompleteness theorems do not apply to informal mathematical reasoning or logic in general, but only to formal systems which satisfy certain syntactic conditions"- Philosopher Stewart Shaprio, Foundations without Foundationalism.

Gödel's theorems do not apply to "any philosophical system with sufficient expressiveness " That's just not what it says at all. I gave the conditions of when it applies in my earlier post. They are precise.

In Section 2.2 it was commented that the common popular formulation of the incompleteness theorem as applying to any formal system of "sucient complexity" is misleading at best, since there are very complex systems to which the theorem does not apply and very simple ones to which it does apply. Most often in such misleading formulations of the incompleteness theorem, "complexity" is perhaps used in an informal sense. In such a case it suces to look at a system like Robinson arithmetic (dened in the Appendix) to see that very simple systems can encompass the "certain amount of arithmetic" needed for the incompleteness theorem to apply. In the other direction, it is a simple matter to formulate complete and consistent theories of impenetrable complexity. So if we use "complexity" in an informal sense, there is no correlation between complexity and incompleteness.

Logical structure is no problem at all. In fact, as I said above, Gödel actual demonstrates the soundness of the rules of logic in his completeness theorem:

Soundness and Completeness of the Rules of Logic

The formal rules of logical reasoning used in a rst-order theory have the property of being sound with respect to the notion of logical consequence. What this means is that anything that can be proved from a set of axioms using these rules of reasoning is also a logical consequence of the axioms in the sense dened. The soundness theorem for rst-order logic establishes that this is the case. What the completeness theorem shows is that the converse holds: if A is in fact a logical consequence of a set of axioms, then there is a proof of A using those axioms and the logical rules of reasoning.

And even if we introduce a subject like science or physics, which is inherently mathematical and loaded with axioms. It's still beyond the scope of the incompleteness theorem to apply the results to anything besides numbers themselves:

It seems reasonable to assume that a formalization of theoretical physics, if such a theory can be produced, would be subject to the incompleteness theorem by incorporating an arithmetical component. However, as emphasized in Section 2.3, Godel's theorem only tells us that there is an incompleteness in the arithmetical component of the theory. The basic equations of physics, whatever they may be, cannot indeed decide every arithmetical statement, but whether or not they are complete considered as a description of the physical world, and what completeness might mean in such a case, is not something that the incompleteness theorem tells us anything about.1
.....
Here the connection with the actual content of the incompleteness theorem is tenuous in the extreme: "Since scientic theories are built upon mathematical system, incompleteness must be inherited in all our scientic knowledge as well." This doesn't follow, since nothing in the incompleteness theorem excludes the possibility of our producing a complete theory of stars, ghosts, and cats all rolled into one, as long as what we say about stars, ghosts, and cats cannot be interpreted as statements about the natural numbers. That science cannot be expected to disclose to us everything about beauty and ugliness, intuition and inspiration, and so on, is a rea- sonable view which neither needs nor is supported by Godel's theorem.

Quote:

---

now, within that framework we can take the first incompleteness theorem. P: this statement is not provable in MSE. If P is true, it is not provable (as it claims). If P is false, it is provable, which is a contradiction since a false statement being provable is an inconsistency. if we assume consistency, P is true but not provable.

---

7.3 Incompleteness and Nonstandard Models
An incorrect formulation of the rst incompleteness theorem that is sometimes encountered is illustrated by the following:

"In any consistent theory T of a certain degree of complexity there will be a statement expressible in the language of T that is true in all models of T and yet not provable in T ."

As we know from the completeness theorem, this statement is incorrect when we are talking about rst-order theories like PA and ZFC. If a sentence A in the language of PA is true in every model of PA, it is provable in PA. By the incompleteness theorem, the completeness theorem for rst- order logic, and the consistency of PA, the theory obtained by adding to PA an arithmetization A of "PA is inconsistent" as a new axiom has a model. That is, there is a mathematical structure consisting of some set Nj together with operations sj, +j, and j on the set Nj such that all of the axioms of PA are true if we take s, +, and to denote those operations on Nj, and furthermore A is also true. Since A is not true on its ordinary interpretation, that is, with the quantiers taken to range over the natural numbers and + and denoting ordinary addition and multiplication, it follows that the model of PA given by Nj, sj, +j, and j is essentially dierent from the standard model.

Quote:

---

applying this to Euthyphro's dilemma, we would posit "good" as a fundamental axiom within MSE, unprovable within the system but nevertheless true - which is NEITHER of the options presented (divine command, or independent standard).

So again, if we're going to play around with logic, unless you can find a problem with the logic above, "good" can logically be an unprovable axiom which resolves the dilemma by making good intrinsic, not derived from either divine command OR the independent standard. and similarly, if morality is not a formal system then the dilemma is similarly false, because "good" can emerge non-axiomatically from context or intuition.

---

Again, this is a basic categorical error and an error of understanding what exactly is unprovable as demonstrated by Gödel. Gödels incompleteness theorems apply specifically to formal mathematical systems used to encode arithmetic, not to philosophical dilemmas. This should be readily obvious as each philosophical dilemma you can find on the internet doesn't have the exact same section showing how they are incomplete and don't work. Even accepting an incompleteness argument here (we shouldn't) you have only demonstrated an unprovable axiom as related an incompleteness in the arithmetical component of the theory.


Invoking Gödel to dismiss the binary of the Euthyphro dilemma is equivalent to invoking it to challenge the binary of being biologically alive or dead, it sounds deep but misfires technically and conceptually. And in this particular instance leads to an obviously false result.

Accepting your proof which commits a number of categorical errors is no more compelling than trying to apply the Pythagorean theorem to love triangles.