Rather than respond to posts, you engage in Argument By Question, Argument From False Authority, Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology), Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring), Fallacy Of Division, Ad Hominem (attack of persons as substitute for addressing issues), Introduction of the Irrelevant, and Error Of Fact (misquote of JAK). There are likely others which I have omitted.
The main reason you're mad is because you contradicted yourself, you claimed that Godel's argument was circular, then you claimed you never said that and found a way to sidestep the issue because I forgot to put a word in my quotation. I'll be waiting a long time I suppose, for you to look up his formally stated argument on wiki and show me the circularity.
Also, something to keep in mind. I'm no expert on logic, but of the two of us, I am the one who has worked through Godel's incompleteness theorom line by line, along with a few other famous pieces in mathematical logic by Peano, Cantor, Russell, Zermelo, and Kleene. I've also read a couple texts on formal logic, worked problem sets, and modal logic in particular has relevance to areas of interest I have entirely unrelated to religion. So while there are plenty who could kick my *ss in an argument on logic, I know enough to tell when someone has absolutely no clue whatsoever on the subject. And you would be one of those someones.
Tell me I'm wrong. I'll take your word for it. Was yesterday the first day you had ever looked up a definition for "modal logic?" Was today the first day you've ever read a synopsis of Godel's incompleteness theorom? Do you really think that you need to link to definitions of begging the question and so on, as if it would be some kind of revelation for me? The fact that you're completely 'winging' your discussion here is beyond painfully obvious.
At least Marg has read that book by Copi. I mean, God knows that if logic and reason are her passion, she should at least buy one book on formal logic in her life, say, Quine's, "Methods of Logic" and spend a couple months learning something about it. Then amid her repeated lectures to the rest of us on what logical thinking is, she won't all of a sudden get confused on the definition of a tautology. But, Marg has read that one book, and in her strange devotion to your ideas, is able to come up with interpretations of you that you don't deserve, as well she is able to offer some insights that show she kind of gets what's going on and with a little further study and a lot less dogmatism, would probably be decent at philosophy. But you? Dude, I don't even know what to think. All your posts related to logic on this thread have been complete and utter nonsense. Reading a webpage or two on the definitions of some logical fallacies is nowhere near enough to get you through discussions you're trying to have on logic.
A closed system of argument is an argument having no information flowing into or out of it which is not accounted for in the system.
Closed systems, are self-limiting as they provide for all that is in the system.
Do you have a website to document your definition? (as you tend to have lots of websites to link to)Gadianton asked:
Can you give an example of a formal proof done in a system that isn't closed?
This begs the question. The issue is the extent to which the process
of gathering and assembling information is open
to whatever is found in research. The issue is not about
“formal proof” exclusively or the construction of a syllogism or syllogistic implication.JAK
You really don't get what philosophers and logicians do or the reason why they do it. It's going to be hopeless to try and explain these things further.
Those fallacious constructions have obfuscated the claim by CC which was challenged.
. Your diversionary tactics have not successfully shifted the topic.
Neither you nor CC have produced one scintilla of evidence that Godel proved that
. Nor have you established that reason and evidence have relevancy to theology.
The fallacies of the straw man attack, ad hominem, and shift of topic/issue appear to be primary for you.