Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Scientists claim to have proven God?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 9:55:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Apparently some scientists took Godel's work and punched it into computer running intense logical softwatre, and derived the existence of God through modal logic, but without the S5 axiom [http://now.msn.com...].

Here is the actual paper [http://www.logic.at...]

I cannot say I follow the logic all that well, but judging by all the intricate programs they had on that to ensure validity; I won't question it. However, the argument is only as good as the axioms it rests upon; these axioms are debatable. As the scientists themselves concede:

"Godel defined God as a being who possesses all positive properties. He does not extensively discuss what positive properties are, but instead he states a few reasonable (but debatable) axioms that they should satisfy." - Christoph Benzmuller and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo

To refute the argument, all one needs to do is show that one of the axioms is sufficiently problematic. I will attack the following axiom:

A: "A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive"

The above is problematic because one can come up with just as reasonable an axiom:

My Axiom: "A property necessarily implied by a non-positive property, is non-positive

Why is this whole scenario problematic? Because "courage" is a positive, but "hate" is a negative. The existence of "feeling" is necessarily implied by the existence of both of these. However, according to both axioms, "feeling" is both:

(i) Positive
(ii) Non-positive

That is clearly a contradiction. Therefore, one of the axioms has to go (either mine, or the scientists). However, there doesn't seem to be anything which makes one more plausible than another. In order to justify the argument, one must either special plead, or have some convincing external argument to tip the scales (who knows what that would be).

Another problem with the original axiom is it is clearly false. An objection to the same axiom (but with regards to Maydole's Argument From Perfection, not the argument in question) has been raised before [http://analyticphilosopher.com...].

...One can just say that being contingently omnipotence is a positive property. Imagine you have a being in possible W1 that lacks omnipotence, but in W2 has omnipotence...That being is clearly better in W2 than I am in W1, thus:

"Contingent omnipotence"

..Is a positive property. If the axiom in question is true, then whatever is entailed by contingent omniscience must be a positive property as well; this is false:

"Possible non-omnipotence"

...Is necessarily implied, but that is clearly not a positive property (Of course it would not be a good thing with regards to a being for it to possible not to have omnipotence, that's clearly a property better to lack than have).

Since the "axiom" is in question is false; the so called "proof" is not sound. However, the one thing I am extremely impressed with is how they used modal logic to derive this validity without the S5 axiom. I'm not sure if that has been done before...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 9:57:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
* Imagine you have a being in possible W1 that lacks omnipotence, but in W2 has omnipotence...That being is clearly better in W2 than it is W1, thus:
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 12:24:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 9:55:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Apparently some scientists took Godel's work and punched it into computer running intense logical softwatre, and derived the existence of God through modal logic, but without the S5 axiom [http://now.msn.com...].


Here is the actual paper [http://www.logic.at...]


I cannot say I follow the logic all that well, but judging by all the intricate programs they had on that to ensure validity; I won't question it. However, the argument is only as good as the axioms it rests upon; these axioms are debatable. As the scientists themselves concede:


"Godel defined God as a being who possesses all positive properties. He does not extensively discuss what positive properties are, but instead he states a few reasonable (but debatable) axioms that they should satisfy." - Christoph Benzmuller and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo


To refute the argument, all one needs to do is show that one of the axioms is sufficiently problematic. I will attack the following axiom:


A: "A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive"


The above is problematic because one can come up with just as reasonable an axiom:


My Axiom: "A property necessarily implied by a non-positive property, is non-positive


Why is this whole scenario problematic? Because "courage" is a positive, but "hate" is a negative. The existence of "feeling" is necessarily implied by the existence of both of these. However, according to both axioms, "feeling" is both:


(i) Positive
(ii) Non-positive


That is clearly a contradiction. Therefore, one of the axioms has to go (either mine, or the scientists). However, there doesn't seem to be anything which makes one more plausible than another. In order to justify the argument, one must either special plead, or have some convincing external argument to tip the scales (who knows what that would be).


Another problem with the original axiom is it is clearly false. An objection to the same axiom (but with regards to Maydole's Argument From Perfection, not the argument in question) has been raised before [http://analyticphilosopher.com...].


...One can just say that being contingently omnipotence is a positive property. Imagine you have a being in possible W1 that lacks omnipotence, but in W2 has omnipotence...That being is clearly better in W2 than I am in W1, thus:


"Contingent omnipotence"


..Is a positive property. If the axiom in question is true, then whatever is entailed by contingent omniscience must be a positive property as well; this is false:


"Possible non-omnipotence"


...Is necessarily implied, but that is clearly not a positive property (Of course it would not be a good thing with regards to a being for it to possible not to have omnipotence, that's clearly a property better to lack than have).


Since the "axiom" is in question is false; the so called "proof" is not sound. However, the one thing I am extremely impressed with is how they used modal logic to derive this validity without the S5 axiom. I'm not sure if that has been done before...

There are two different kinds of energy. The kind of energy that vibrates in disharmony with God's creation ( energy that vibrates in harmony ) will be destroyed soon. After the energy that vibrates in disharmony is destroyed, there won't be any need for science or religion to help us understand who we are.
Kassandra
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 3:17:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 9:55:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Apparently some scientists took Godel's work and punched it into computer running intense logical ...

I managed to download and read the formula, etc. Reminds me of a stock derivitive formula. The bottomline of which reads: get an inside trader or get punked.

Anywho, I was wondering if the decision to introduce the topic would, in itself, introduce an internal bias? And, if so, how is/would that bias be mitigated in the formula?
Kassandra
sigmadog
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 8:06:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 9:55:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

To refute the argument, all one needs to do is show that one of the axioms is sufficiently problematic. I will attack the following axiom:


A: "A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive"


The above is problematic because one can come up with just as reasonable an axiom:


My Axiom: "A property necessarily implied by a non-positive property, is non-positive


Why is this whole scenario problematic? Because "courage" is a positive, but "hate" is a negative. The existence of "feeling" is necessarily implied by the existence of both of these. However, according to both axioms, "feeling" is both:


(i) Positive
(ii) Non-positive


That is clearly a contradiction.

Well done.

It's fun to destroy arguments via logic, and when it's done in clear language, I like it even more.