19 Jul 16
In the 1940s, physicist Kurt Godel tried to prove the existence of God with the mathematical proof above. It is based on this argument by Saint Anselm of Canterbury:
1. There is a great being called God, and nothing greater than God can be imagined.
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. With all other things being equal, a being that exists in both the mind and reality is better than a being that only exists in the mind.
4. Therefore, if God only exists in the mind, then it’s possible that we can imagine a being more powerful than God.
5. However, that contradicts argument one because nothing greater than God can be imagined.
6. Therefore, God exists.
Using modal logic and parallel universes, Godel argued that an all-powerful being exists if he exists in at least one parallel universe. As there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possibilities, one universe has a being so powerful that it would be considered an omnipotent God. Therefore, God exists.
In 2013, two mathematicians processed Godel’s equations on a MacBook and found them to be correct. However, the theorem doesn’t prove that God exists, simply that it’s possible that an all-powerful being could exist according to modal logic.
19 Jul 16
Originally posted by whodeyHow many hundreds of threads and topics and discussions have I tried to redirect to be about things like Hillary Clinton, progressives/Nazis and black people in America? For me it's just this one. So I'm not sure that your pot and kettle reference works.
Pot meet kettle.
Do you yourself believe that you can make a universally applicable and intellectually valid logical argument that God - as you perceive Him - exists?
19 Jul 16
Originally posted by whodeyA problem with Godel's ontological proof is that he defines an essential predicate A for any given object x. Suppose x is an object with predicate A, then x has property B if and only if possession of property A entails possession of property B. In other words one of his axioms is that one can deduce all the properties of an object just by knowing the one special one. There is no evidence that this is true. In fact I can think of a counterexample:
In the 1940s, physicist Kurt Godel tried to prove the existence of God with the mathematical proof above. It is based on this argument by Saint Anselm of Canterbury:
1. There is a great being called God, and nothing greater than God can be imagined.
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. With all other things being equal, a being that exists in bot ...[text shortened]... ists, simply that it’s possible that an all-powerful being could exist according to modal logic.
Consider an electron. This is an object and has a collection of known properties intrinsic to it: charge, mass, spin, and some other quantum numbers. All electrons are identical, but can have different wavefunctions (information about position and so forth, in other words extrinsic properties). Intuitively one would imagine that "essence" is an intrinsic property. This means that we should be able to deduce its extrinsic properties from its essence, but that would mean all electrons in the universe should have the same wavefunction. This is known not to be the case, first observationally and second because of Pauli's exclusion principle. So, suppose the essence involves extrinsic properties, again this flies in the face of what we know about electrons. Pauli's exclusion principle would fail if we were able to distinguish one electron from another (the exclusion principle requires that there is no experiment that can detect if two arbitrarily chosen electrons are swapped around). So there is a simple counterexample to show that there is no property of electrons from which all its quantum numbers can be deduced.
Ontological arguments never work. Even if his argument is valid (in the sense that the conclusions follow from the axioms), which it probably is Godel was a genius, it is not sound unless the axioms are true. The axiom concerning essence flies in the face of what we know about real objects in the real world.
Originally posted by whodeyTwo odd things in that claim. Why mention the MacBook? Do MacBooks compute differently from other computers? And the claim that modal logic shows that an all-powerful being could exist doesn't follow from the argument.
In 2013, two mathematicians processed Godel’s equations on a MacBook and found them to be correct. However, the theorem doesn’t prove that God exists, simply that it’s possible that an all-powerful being could exist according to modal logic.
This is why the whole argument is ridiculous:
1. There is a pink being called an 'Invisible Pink Unicorn', and nothing pinker than it can be imagined.
2. Invisible Pink Unicorns exist as an idea in the mind.
3. With all other things being equal, a being that exists in both the mind and reality is pinker than a being that only exists in the mind.
4. Therefore, if Invisible Pink Unicorns only exist in the mind, then it’s possible that we can imagine a being pinker than Invisible Pink Unicorns .
5. However, that contradicts argument one because nothing pinker than Invisible Pink Unicorns can be imagined.
6. Therefore, Invisible Pink Unicorns exist.
19 Jul 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's Anselm's argument, Godel's argument is more sophisticated, for one thing not relying on spurious claims about the necessity that because I can imagine something more powerful than I am it must exist. For Godel's argument see the Wikipedia page:
Two odd things in that claim. Why mention the MacBook? Do MacBooks compute differently from other computers? And the claim that modal logic shows that an all-powerful being could exist doesn't follow from the argument.
This is why the whole argument is ridiculous:
1. There is a pink being called an 'Invisible Pink Unicorn', and nothing pinker than it ...[text shortened]... r than Invisible Pink Unicorns can be imagined.
6. Therefore, Invisible Pink Unicorns exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof
19 Jul 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt is based on what Whodey posted (and I don't mention Godel at all). So are you saying whodey got the wrong argument? Not surprising given that Whodey is virtually incapable of quoting a source correctly.
That's Anselm's argument,
Godel's argument is more sophisticated, for one thing not relying on spurious claims about the necessity that because I can imagine something more powerful than I am it must exist. For Godel's argument see the Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof
Looks rather nonsensical to me, but then you have already demonstrated a major flaw in your previous post.
19 Jul 16
Originally posted by Great King RatBeing able to recognize what is in front of you would be better a better way to put it. We
Doesn't the idea of being able to proof the existence of God go against the very nature of your religion, which tells us that we must believe in his existence, rather than know his existence?
tend to see what we want in a lot of cases and this is the biggest one. Here with this topic
we reject or grasp at what makes what we want the more viable choice. In the end it is
said or written that everyone will be without excuse, so proof is there acknowledging it is
up to each of us.
Originally posted by KellyJayBeing able to recognize what is in front of you would be better a better way to put it.
Being able to recognize what is in front of you would be better a better way to put it. We
tend to see what we want in a lot of cases and this is the biggest one. Here with this topic
we reject or grasp at what makes what we want the more viable choice. In the end it is
said or written that everyone will be without excuse, so proof is there acknowledging it is
up to each of us.
So I'm right? You don't have to believe in his existence, you can just see it? Believing in his existence is at best secondary to actually knowing? If so, why doesn't he make it crystal clear that he exists? Why doesn't he just show himself leaving no doubt whatsoever?
We tend to see what we want in a lot of cases
Yes, you do, KellyJay.
Here with this topic we reject or grasp at what makes what we want the more viable choice.
Kudos to twhitehead for understanding what you said here, but I haven't the foggiest idea what you meant.
In the end it is said or written that everyone will be without excuse
Yes, people have said that. But people lots of things, most of which is nonsense.
... so proof is there acknowledging it is up to each of us.
No, saying "everyone will be without excuse" does not make "... so proof is there" a logical follow-up. What people say or write is not proof of any kind of supernatural existence.
19 Jul 16
Originally posted by FMFPot reintroduced to kettle.
How many hundreds of threads and topics and discussions have I tried to redirect to be about things like Hillary Clinton, progressives/Nazis and black people in America? For me it's just this one. So I'm not sure that your pot and kettle reference works.
Do you yourself believe that you can make a universally applicable and intellectually valid logical argument that God - as you perceive Him - exists?
19 Jul 16
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatYes, so logic must then fail. I was hoping it would.
Doesn't the idea of being able to proof the existence of God go against the very nature of your religion, which tells us that we must believe in his existence, rather than know his existence?
It's only logical. 😵
