User talk:David Gilliam
A new model of logic is in development
Update1: 11/2/2012: There seems to be some confusion regarding this model:
1) I will not be creating a whole new page on Iron Chariots for the model. It will be a page or section within my profile (ergo more likely a section) UNLESS the owners of Iron Chariots explicitly request a page just for the model. Otherwise it will remain on my profile. This is because I have the sole copyrights to the model and it must be on my page for this very reason.
2) The model is still in development and will not be posted anywhere until after it has passed peer review by logic professors from other universities. Not only is this to test the model to the fullest extent possible, but also because peer review is part of the model and therefore it was not peer reviewed, it would be self contradictory.
Update 2: 11/2/2012 Copyright and Licensing Terms:
If and when the model does pass two rounds of peer review I will release the model on my profile. The intellectual and copy rights are such that only I can authorize the publishing and posting of the model. This will be for two reasons:
1) To keep the model free: this will ensure that all persons can access the model free of charge and no person is charging for it (unless it is in a logic textbook that compares and describes other models and theories).
2) To ensure the accuracy and integrity of the model: This is to protect counterfeits and strawman versions from misleading the public and those who want to use the model and to ensure that all persons can access the full version of the model.
As long as the above terms are met, anyone can post the model free of charge for others to freely use. In addition everyone is free to review and critically examine the model (and I encourage this).
Temporary keeping the argument here until Matt Dillahunty approves it and so he can make any changes before it is published
Matt Dillahunty's Firefighter Objection (Modified)
This is a thought experiment by Mathew Dillahunty, with a twist, that questions the morality of a god who would punish people for not believing, and thus argues that even if god did punish people for not believing, this god would not be worthy of being worshiped.
To the left of your house is a house of devout Christians. To the right of your house is another house with a Christian living in it. Across the street from your house, your neighbor is having their uncle over for the first time. The uncle is not familiar at all with the neighborhood. The uncle, a firefighter for over 30 years, is a homosexual atheist who happens to be an apostate of every known religion and god, who has married another man, and who has “activities” with this other man every night. One night the Christian to the right of your home, who has a grudge with the other family of devout Christians, covers the familie's home in gasoline and sets it on fire. The firefighter uncle sees the fire and rushes into the house and begins evacuating the entire family. He gets all of the people out of the house but is unsure if anyone else is inside and so goes in to make sure everyone is out. As he does the house collapses and he dies. The Christian with the grudge is eventually arrested for and convicted of arson and attempted murder. While in prison the Christian genuinely and sincerely repents and accepts Jesus as his savior and God as his god and is forgiven. The atheist however, according the wager and despite living a life of helping and saving others – even putting his own life on the line to do so, is tortured forever in hell just because he did not believe. Is this just? Is this moral? An answer of “yes” to either question is absurd and therefore even if god does exist and punish believers a) god is not worthy of worship and b) this god is evil. One can go further and ask if god is supposed to be moral and just and yet does evil and is unjust, why call him god?