Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: October 19, 2019, 3:55 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
#21
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
(January 8, 2014 at 6:28 pm)rasetsu Wrote:


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).


Yeah? Well your technique is flawed!!!
*ninja move*






























































































































































































































































































































































































































































Reply
#22
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
(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



"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci

"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Reply
#23
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
(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?

That is one weird, flawed argument. If one in one octillion water molecules is 'magic', then it is not not common

There are approximately 3.34E25 molecules of water per liter, so one would need to drink, on average, nearly 3000 liters of water to get a magic molecule. The correlation would not be made.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Reply
#24
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
(April 17, 2014 at 11:18 am)Chas Wrote:
(April 16, 2014 at 4:50 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: You said
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?

That is one weird, flawed argument. If one in one octillion water molecules is 'magic', then it is not not common

There are approximately 3.34E25 molecules of water per liter, so one would need to drink, on average, nearly 3000 liters of water to get a magic molecule. The correlation would not be made.
The American octillion is less than the European octillion.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octill...ge_numbers
Reply
#25
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
Each sick person is going to drink about 1-2 liters of water per day, so the effect would still be detected at 1 magic molecule per 3000 liters.

It actually comes out to 1 every 32.6 million liters (when you accidentally use the solid density of water, lol)
Here's the math using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water

Molar Mass = 18.01528 g/mol
Density = 917 kg/m3, solid = .917 g/m3
Moles per Cubic Meter = 0.917 g ÷ 18.01528 g/mol = 0.0509 moles
Moles per Liter = .0509 ÷ 1000 = 0.0000509

Avogadro's constant / one American octillion = magic molecules per mole
(6.022*10^23) ÷ (1*10^27) = 6.022*10^-4

number of liters = that times moles per liter over 1.
1 ÷ ((6.022*10^-4) * 0.0000509) = 3.262431986449163*10^7 or 32,624,320


But stop evading the question! If the effect were detected but misattributed, the magic molecules would still exist.
Reply
#26
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
(April 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Each sick person is going to drink about 1-2 liters of water per day, so the effect would still be detected at 1 magic molecule per 3000 liters.

It actually comes out to 1 every 32.6 million liters (when you accidentally use the solid density of water, lol)
Here's the math using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water

Molar Mass = 18.01528 g/mol
Density = 917 kg/m3, solid = .917 g/m3
Moles per Cubic Meter = 0.917 g ÷ 18.01528 g/mol = 0.0509 moles
Moles per Liter = .0509 ÷ 1000 = 0.0000509

Avogadro's constant / one American octillion = magic molecules per mole
(6.022*10^23) ÷ (1*10^27) = 6.022*10^-4

number of liters = that times moles per liter over 1.
1 ÷ ((6.022*10^-4) * 0.0000509) = 3.262431986449163*10^7 or 32,624,320


But stop evading the question! If the effect were detected but misattributed, the magic molecules would still exist.

It would never fucking be detected.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Reply
#27
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
Aha! So you admit that an effect can be undetectable!

(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.
Reply
#28
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
(April 18, 2014 at 12:49 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Aha! So you admit that an effect can be undetectable!

(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.

I said no such thing. How do you get that?
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Reply
#29
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
Either way, your reasoning has holes in it. Just because an effect is detectable, that doesn't mean we will detect it. As the magic molecule effect would technically be detectable even though you suspect that "it would never fucking be detected."
Reply
#30
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
(April 18, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Either way, your reasoning has holes in it. Just because an effect is detectable, that doesn't mean we will detect it. As the magic molecule effect would technically be detectable even though you suspect that "it would never fucking be detected."


There would never be a reason to suspect its existence.

It would not be detectable unless one could identify and isolate what water contained a magic molecule and what didn't.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proof by Rearrangement of the Pythagorean Theorem FlatAssembler 10 414 November 22, 2018 at 7:13 pm
Last Post: Reltzik
  The Mathematical Proof Thread Kernel Sohcahtoa 67 7874 July 6, 2018 at 8:37 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  Million Dollar Prize for Math proof of NP problems emilynghiem 6 2442 February 22, 2015 at 12:47 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  Maths proves 1=0.999.. thus ends in self contradiction shakuntala 11 3794 December 21, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Last Post: Humanoid Escapee
  Mathematical proof.. lifesagift 20 4847 September 26, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Last Post: lifesagift
Information My proof for de morgans law LogicMaster 17 3865 May 29, 2014 at 7:55 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  Mathematician Claims Proof of Connection between Prime Numbers KichigaiNeko 10 5614 September 26, 2012 at 3:18 am
Last Post: Categories+Sheaves
  Need a proof (real analysis) CliveStaples 8 4771 August 2, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Last Post: CliveStaples
  Mathematical proof of the existence of God JudgeDracoAmunRa 20 10660 March 30, 2012 at 11:43 am
Last Post: JudgeDracoAmunRa



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)