"Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God

[Coffee Jesus]

It would not be detectable unless one could identify and isolate what water contained a magic molecule and what didn't.

okay... what gives? Do you think an "effect" must be detectable by definition or else it's not an effect?

[Chas]

It would not be detectable unless one could identify and isolate what water contained a magic molecule and what didn't.

okay... what gives? Do you think an "effect" must be detectable by definition or else it's not an effect?

Yes.

[Coffee Jesus]

define "exist".

[MindForgedManacle]

That's a little unfair Coffee. If anyone here could give a cogent, unassailable answer to that we'd have solved the central question of ontology. :p

[samsara15]

Anselm's Proof always seemed like sleight of hand to me. Godel's Proof was merely a more sophisticated version of the same idea, with the same type of flaws.

If you want to speculate about a mathematical universe and a God, try some books by Max Tegmark, who more or less claims the universe is mathematics.

[Heliocentrism]

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

It's hard to define a "godlike" property. Some gods had lion and lizard heads. Some gods resembled humans. Some gods were bulls. Is there one male god, or an assortment of male and female gods?

His logic doesn't weigh the claims of all religions.

[Madness20]

It's hard to define a "godlike" property. Some gods had lion and lizard heads. Some gods resembled humans. Some gods were bulls. Is there one male god, or an assortment of male and female gods?

His logic doesn't weigh the claims of all religions.

Well, godel does indeed define in his argumentation that god like is the set of all "positive propertys", but the thing is he never defined positive propertys objectivelly.

Anyway i think positive properties could be everything that isn't a negation of property and the argument would somehow make make a little more sense.

[CapnAwesome]

This is not my forte, but what it says to me is that in the past very smart people believed in God and yet found the idea of God to be not self-evident and not logical. That's why they have come up with some very complicated justifications for their own cultural engrained beliefs. That's why you've seen a huge decline in these types of complicated justifications post-Darwin, because it become okay and even the more intellectually acceptable position to simply be an Atheist or Agnostic. In other words, why did Einstein not make a mathematical proof for the existence of God but Godel did? It's because in Einstein's era it was fine for him to be an open Agnostic where in Godel's era it was not.

[rexbeccarox]

What's up with the necroposting?

[Cyberman]

You do realise that resurrections are how religions get started, don't you? Do we really need to inflict more trouble on the world?