"Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God

[MindForgedManacle]

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.

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.