It's not that I'm unhappy with your answer; its just that it's not an answer at all!!
Quote:
Your "proof" is based on god being an object, but that is a way to strong conclusion to draw from the axiom "god exists".
I don't know what you are driving at, but I have offered no "proof", merely an axiomatic beginning for people to start their proofs.
Furthermore, if something exists, then yes, it is an object. It is exactly this foundation that I want people to build upon "Assume god exists and thus is an object; can you prove that only one god-object exists?"
Quote:
A reasonable interpretation of your axiom is that there is a predicate R(x) = "x has the property good" and that there exists at least one x for which R(x)
Reasonable only to you. I have made no moral statements in this thread. Therefore, whether x= good or evil is irrelevant.
Unless this is a syntax error and you meant "x has the property god"…
Quote:
(x)(y)(R(x) & R(y) --> x=y
This is nonsense; worse, nonsense wrapped in logical symbols. Assuming that R(x) is the property of "good" and R(y) is the property of another "good" (assuming no syntax error and that you mean that different gods do different goods), then how do you propose that the boolean AND combination leads to both goods being the same (x=y) and what does this have to do with god.
Assuming a syntax error, then it’s the same: how does a Boolean AND lead to x=y? You are doing the same thing you did in your first proof and offering no concrete evidence that x=y.
Tell you what, how about we stick to my original post and rely on scientific proof based on that axiom from now on, shall we?
