How do you show some conclusion of an argument cannot be derived in a complete system? Does one have to make the truth table to show that it is not valid and therefore, by definition it should be impossible for that conclusion to be derived?

Is it wrong to want power, just for the sake of power?

What is the relationship between mathematics and logic?

I have recently stumbled upon a short book written by the Catholic theologian named Peter Kreeft. He deductively argued for Jesus’ divinity through an approach he summarized as “Aut deus aut homo malus.” (Either God or a Bad Man.) Basically, his argument works only on the assumption made by most historians. Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed. So, assuming this is true he says Jesus must’ve been one of three things. One possibility is that he was a liar. He said he was divine even though he knew it was not true. Another possibility is that he was insane. He believed he was divine even though he wasn’t. The final possibility is that he was telling the truth and he was correct. He was divine. He goes through and points out that Jesus shows no symptoms of insanity. He had no motive for lying. In fact, he was executed because of his claims. That gives him a motive to deny his divinity, which he apparently was given a chance to do by according to the Jewish and Roman sources on the...

Why in the western hemisphere are most text books only engaged with western thought, and very few with a mixture of both western and eastern? I am taking a class now that only focus is to prescribe to the western view, this is all the course reading consist of. For me this causes a great gulf, because of the dominance of European thought. Not even Confucious is mentioned on any of the reading, this really is paradoxical.....

I'm religious, but I'm also gay. My church teaches that homosexual relationships are immoral. They say that this is what God has told us and they back it up with scriptures and revelation from God given to my current church leaders. I have a hard time accepting that homosexuality is immoral. I don't see why people should be denied consenting, intimate, long-term relationships. So, here's the question that I need to find a solution to: Should I deny believing what I think is right to comply with what my church leaders say God thinks is moral?

If there is no proof that god exists, is there any evidence that he does and what form would this evidence take to be worthy of philosophical examination?

I'm a first year student of philosophy at UCLA, and I am interested primarily in philosophy of religion. I've just taken an introductory logic course which covered symbolization, sentential logic, and quantification. There are numerous other logic courses offered through the department, including metalogic, modal logic, etc, and I was wondering if AskPhilosophers could recommend a logic course to take? More specifically, I want to take a logic course that is related or will aid me in my studies in philosophy of religion. Maybe modal logic, since it deals with necessity and possibility? Thanks.

Is it fair to compare a belief in God(s) to a belief in fairies?

Does it makes sense to pray if God's existence hasn't been rationally proven independently of faith? Does the meaning of the practice of praying depend on philosophical proofs of God's existence?