I thought that this was interesting. According to Godels ontological proof, the existence of god is possible. This leads me to wonder what God could possibly be, considering there is scientific evidence for his existence, albeit mathematical.
What are your thoughts?

Wikipedia overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

How it works: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/...es-it-work

News article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...28668.html

The proof is fatally flawed because it assumes the possible objective existence of positive and negative properties. Properties themselves exist, but they are neither objectively positive or negative. In short, there is no objective, natural ordering of any set of properties such that for any P(i) and P(j) in the set, under all possible worlds, P(i) is more positive than P(j), or vice versa. You can say nothing about the ordering of properties in all possible worlds, therefore it is impossible to postulate a being that is essentially positive (using the definition of "essence" given in the Wikipedia article).

Well here is my own rebuttal on the subject after reading some counter material, the source of the entire argument of the "proof" is a mere play on one's own logic and imagination. Kind of of like giving birth to god inside of your mind and then He leaps through a wormhole through the pupil of your "third eye".

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/...ode46.html

(January 8, 2014 at 6:14 pm)Belac Enrobso Wrote: What are your thoughts?

That you're a poopyhead. Uh... a banned poopyhead. Godel's proof is a formalization of Anselm's. If ya don't accept one, ya don't accept the other. Besides, "maximally great" assigns a value to infinity, which has no value.

We actually already had a thread over this in the Religion forum back when it was first unveiled. I think Rasetsu hit the undeniable flaw in that type of argument. And as far as I can remember, wasn't the conclusion that the argument as valid, not sound? I'm not sure whether it's even possible (currently) for programming logic (which is underpinned by mathematics) to evaluate an argument for conceptual and/or semantic soundness. Or maybe I'm just ignorant.

The multiverse therefore cake

(January 11, 2014 at 12:17 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: We actually already had a thread over this in the Religion forum back when it was first unveiled. I think Rasetsu hit the undeniable flaw in that type of argument. And as far as I can remember, wasn't the conclusion that the argument as valid, not sound? I'm not sure whether it's even possible (currently) for programming logic (which is underpinned by mathematics) to evaluate an argument for conceptual and/or semantic soundness. Or maybe I'm just ignorant.

Really? It's valid?

What's a positive property. None of the axioms below necessarily follow, and I cannot evaluate them until I know what a positive property is.

Wikipedia - Gödels ontological proof #Outline of Gödel's proof Wrote:To formalize the argument sketched above, the following definitions and axioms are needed:

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property

Here is my problem with such arguments for the existence of a god that supposedly created, and is in communion, with man.

If believers need to work THAT hard to prove the existence of a god, then there cannot be a god. Either a god is in communion with us at the most basic level of human understanding, or He favors only the super-intelligent.

The physical proof of the existence of a god should be easily detected without question.

A god wouldn't necessarily be obliged to reveal its existence to us.

(April 13, 2014 at 6:53 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: A god wouldn't necessarily be obliged to reveal its existence to us.

Then that god has no effect on us. Any effect would be detectable.

No effects? No god.