Posts: 351
Threads: 24
Joined: March 23, 2014
Reputation:
10
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 16, 2014 at 4:55 pm
(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*
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 16, 2014 at 5:29 pm
"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)
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 17, 2014 at 11:18 am
(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.
Posts: 577
Threads: 18
Joined: April 11, 2014
Reputation:
8
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 17, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Posts: 577
Threads: 18
Joined: April 11, 2014
Reputation:
8
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2014 at 6:34 pm by Coffee Jesus.)
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 18, 2014 at 12:37 pm
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 18, 2014 at 12:49 pm
(This post was last modified: April 18, 2014 at 12:51 pm by Coffee Jesus.)
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.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 18, 2014 at 4:44 pm
(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.
Posts: 577
Threads: 18
Joined: April 11, 2014
Reputation:
8
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 18, 2014 at 5:05 pm
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."
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God
April 18, 2014 at 11:44 pm
(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.
|
