Posts: 1152
Threads: 42
Joined: July 8, 2013
Reputation:
23
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 14, 2014 at 12:16 pm
(April 13, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: (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
I was referring to validity as in the conclusion follows from the premises. That is to say, there are no structural, formal fallacies. And as I said, that says nothing about if it is true. After all, the following is a logically valid argument:
1) All men are bald.
2) MFM is a man.
3) Therefore MFM is bald.
...And yet I have hair. That was my point about Gödels argument: that even if it's valid, soundness can still be called into question, as with the first premise of the above argument.
Posts: 123
Threads: 6
Joined: August 26, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 14, 2014 at 4:09 pm
(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 cannot hold us accountable for not believing in Him without any proof whatsoever.
There is an ALLLL-knowing, ALLLL-powerful, inVISible being who is everywhere, who created the WHOLE universe, who lives in another dimension called heaven, who is perfect in every way, who was never born and will never die, and who watches you every minute of every day (even when you're squeezing one out on the toilet). There are also unicorns, leprechauns, Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny, and a giant purple people eater.
JUST BELIEVE IT!
Posts: 577
Threads: 18
Joined: April 11, 2014
Reputation:
8
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 15, 2014 at 12:35 am
(This post was last modified: April 15, 2014 at 12:38 am by Coffee Jesus.)
(April 14, 2014 at 12:16 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: (April 13, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: 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.
I was referring to validity as in the conclusion follows from the premises. That is to say, there are no structural, formal fallacies. And as I said, that says nothing about if it is true. After all, the following is a logically valid argument:
1) All men are bald.
2) MFM is a man.
3) Therefore MFM is bald.
...And yet I have hair. That was my point about Gödels argument: that even if it's valid, soundness can still be called into question, as with the first premise of the above argument.
Yes, yes... What is a "positive property"?
(April 14, 2014 at 4:09 pm)Jiggerj Wrote: Then that god cannot hold us accountable for not believing in Him without any proof whatsoever.
He shouldn't, but I don't know that he couldn't.
(April 14, 2014 at 9:10 am)Chas Wrote: (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.
How do you know we haven't detected any of its effects?
Detecting correlations is easy. Explaining them is the difficult part. Such difficulty is greater with more complex systems.
Posts: 2177
Threads: 45
Joined: June 5, 2013
Reputation:
39
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 15, 2014 at 1:10 am
(January 8, 2014 at 6:14 pm)Belac Enrobso Wrote: 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
What God could possibly be?
Interesting question.
What God cannot be is the Judeo/Christian God from the definitions provided.
Judeo/Christian God suffers from wrath, jealousy, vanity and pride.
So:
"God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist."
It is easy to conceive of greater than, or better than God.
Or:
"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: A property is positive if and only if 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"
Definition 1 goes out of the window.
So does 3.
And Axioms 2,3 when applied to God.
Axiom 5 has never been verified but it is not related to my argument above. Why is necessary existence a more positive property than being entirely fictional?
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
Posts: 577
Threads: 18
Joined: April 11, 2014
Reputation:
8
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 15, 2014 at 8:58 pm
(April 15, 2014 at 12:35 am)Coffee Jesus Wrote: He shouldn't, but I don't know that he couldn't.
Replace "he" with "it". I usually only use "he" for Yahweh, but I'm pretty sure Yahweh is fictional.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 16, 2014 at 1:45 pm
(April 15, 2014 at 12:35 am)Coffee Jesus Wrote: (April 14, 2014 at 9:10 am)Chas Wrote: Then that god has no effect on us. Any effect would be detectable.
No effects? No god.
How do you know we haven't detected any of its effects?
Detecting correlations is easy. Explaining them is the difficult part. Such difficulty is greater with more complex systems.
Please give me evidence of the effects. I'll wait ...
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 577
Threads: 18
Joined: April 11, 2014
Reputation:
8
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 16, 2014 at 1:59 pm
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2014 at 2:04 pm by Coffee Jesus.)
(April 16, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Chas Wrote: (April 15, 2014 at 12:35 am)Coffee Jesus Wrote: How do you know we haven't detected any of its effects?
Detecting correlations is easy. Explaining them is the difficult part. Such difficulty is greater with more complex systems.
Please give me evidence of the effects. I'll wait ...
You just shifted the burden. You were claiming there aren't any gods, and I didn't accept your conclusion.
We have virtually no reasons to think there is any god. That there definitely isn't any god only follows if your definition is very stringent.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 16, 2014 at 4:21 pm
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2014 at 4:23 pm by Chas.)
(April 16, 2014 at 1:59 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: (April 16, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Chas Wrote: Please give me evidence of the effects. I'll wait ...
You just shifted the burden. You were claiming there aren't any gods, and I didn't accept your conclusion.
We have virtually no reasons to think there is any god. That there definitely isn't any god only follows if your definition is very stringent.
There was no shift there. I said we observe no effects. If you disagree, show the effects.
This is no different than "I observe no evidence of unicorns. If you think there are unicorns, show me some evidence."
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 577
Threads: 18
Joined: April 11, 2014
Reputation:
8
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 16, 2014 at 4:50 pm
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2014 at 4:51 pm by Coffee Jesus.)
You said
(April 14, 2014 at 9:10 am)Chas Wrote: Then that god has no effect on us. Any effect would be detectable.
No effects? No god. Suppose that one in one-octillion water molecules will carry a magical aura that can cure illnesses. The occasional sick person drinks one of these magical molecules and then recovers.
Medical scientists, being reasonable people, attribute this to what they already know exists—water—concluding that water speeds up recovery. Does that mean the magical aura has no effects, or that it doesn't exist?
Posts: 1246
Threads: 14
Joined: January 5, 2014
Reputation:
9
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 16, 2014 at 4:52 pm
(April 16, 2014 at 4:50 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: You said
(April 14, 2014 at 9:10 am)Chas Wrote: Then that god has no effect on us. Any effect would be detectable.
No effects? No god. Suppose that one in one-octillion water molecules will carry a magical aura that can cure illnesses. The occasional sick person drinks one of these magical molecules and then recovers.
Medical scientists, being reasonable people, attribute this to what they already know exists—water—concluding that water speeds up recovery. Does that mean the magical aura has no effects, or that it doesn't exist?
Wait.. whos on first?
|
