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.
