Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Godel's Ontological Proof

annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 12:08:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

I couldn't figure out what the article was saying. It gave no details.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 8:56:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

Did you even bother to read the article?
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 1:30:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

I hope this is sarcasm, because it doesn't prove anything.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 1:46:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

From the article: "by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist."

And if that is true, then it follows that since Santa Claus is by definition, that for which no greater gift giver can be conceived, and while Santa exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as a greater gift giver if he existed in reality, it therefore stands to reason that Santa Claus must exist.

It's as ridiculous when applied to God as it is when applied to Santa.

Shall we apply it to purchasers of baby teeth and egg-hiding bunnies too?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 1:54:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 1:46:34 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

From the article: "by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist."

And if that is true, then it follows that since Santa Claus is by definition, that for which no greater gift giver can be conceived, and while Santa exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as a greater gift giver if he existed in reality, it therefore stands to reason that Santa Claus must exist.

It's as ridiculous when applied to God as it is when applied to Santa.

Shall we apply it to purchasers of baby teeth and egg-hiding bunnies too?

It doesn't work with Santa Clause. Santa Clause isn't a necessary contingent, God is.

Godel was an atheist, but his proof still stands. It is logically valid and sound, from what anybody can see. The best attacks if Godels proof are attacks on modal logic in general. People basically have to prove modal logic is flawed to prove Godels proof is flawed, and even though the attack on the school of logic is the best one it is still a little absurd, because it's calling a school of logic wrong, that has been proven good time and time again.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 2:01:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 1:30:31 AM, Cryo wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

I hope this is sarcasm, because it doesn't prove anything.

How come it doesn't prove anything? Godel is a world renowned mathamatician and he used a form of modal logic that ha been proven reliable. His numbers were run by a computer to avoid human error.

Can you please tell me where Godel or this computer went wrong with their math?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 2:01:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 1:54:56 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/16/2014 1:46:34 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

From the article: "by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist."

And if that is true, then it follows that since Santa Claus is by definition, that for which no greater gift giver can be conceived, and while Santa exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as a greater gift giver if he existed in reality, it therefore stands to reason that Santa Claus must exist.

It's as ridiculous when applied to God as it is when applied to Santa.

Shall we apply it to purchasers of baby teeth and egg-hiding bunnies too?

It doesn't work with Santa Clause. Santa Clause isn't a necessary contingent, God is.
Nothing about God makes him necessary. If it did, then atheism would be falsified.

Godel was an atheist, but his proof still stands. It is logically valid and sound, from what anybody can see. The best attacks if Godels proof are attacks on modal logic in general. People basically have to prove modal logic is flawed to prove Godels proof is flawed, and even though the attack on the school of logic is the best one it is still a little absurd, because it's calling a school of logic wrong, that has been proven good time and time again.
Or... one can use common sense and see that it's totally flawed from the beginning.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 2:05:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 2:01:55 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/16/2014 1:54:56 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/16/2014 1:46:34 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

From the article: "by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist."

And if that is true, then it follows that since Santa Claus is by definition, that for which no greater gift giver can be conceived, and while Santa exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as a greater gift giver if he existed in reality, it therefore stands to reason that Santa Claus must exist.

It's as ridiculous when applied to God as it is when applied to Santa.

Shall we apply it to purchasers of baby teeth and egg-hiding bunnies too?

It doesn't work with Santa Clause. Santa Clause isn't a necessary contingent, God is.
Nothing about God makes him necessary. If it did, then atheism would be falsified.

Godel was an atheist, but his proof still stands. It is logically valid and sound, from what anybody can see. The best attacks if Godels proof are attacks on modal logic in general. People basically have to prove modal logic is flawed to prove Godels proof is flawed, and even though the attack on the school of logic is the best one it is still a little absurd, because it's calling a school of logic wrong, that has been proven good time and time again.
Or... one can use common sense and see that it's totally flawed from the beginning.

How is it flawed? It's easy to just randomly say it's flawed, but I challenge you to point out that flaw. You can't do it. You also ignored every statement I've made. Please respond to each one individually.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 2:08:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 2:01:55 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/16/2014 1:54:56 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/16/2014 1:46:34 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

From the article: "by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist."

And if that is true, then it follows that since Santa Claus is by definition, that for which no greater gift giver can be conceived, and while Santa exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as a greater gift giver if he existed in reality, it therefore stands to reason that Santa Claus must exist.

It's as ridiculous when applied to God as it is when applied to Santa.

Shall we apply it to purchasers of baby teeth and egg-hiding bunnies too?

It doesn't work with Santa Clause. Santa Clause isn't a necessary contingent, God is.
Nothing about God makes him necessary. If it did, then atheism would be falsified.

Atheism is falsified according to Godel's proof. God is a necessary contingent according to modal logic. Without him the world wouldn't exist so he is a necessary contingent. Modal logic has different contingents that will help people arrive at the truth. SantaClause in your example wouldn't be necessary so the math would fail. Learn modal logic and do the math, and you'll see what I mean.

Godel was an atheist, but his proof still stands. It is logically valid and sound, from what anybody can see. The best attacks if Godels proof are attacks on modal logic in general. People basically have to prove modal logic is flawed to prove Godels proof is flawed, and even though the attack on the school of logic is the best one it is still a little absurd, because it's calling a school of logic wrong, that has been proven good time and time again.
Or... one can use common sense and see that it's totally flawed from the beginning.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 2:24:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 2:08:40 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/16/2014 2:01:55 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/16/2014 1:54:56 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/16/2014 1:46:34 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

From the article: "by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist."

And if that is true, then it follows that since Santa Claus is by definition, that for which no greater gift giver can be conceived, and while Santa exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as a greater gift giver if he existed in reality, it therefore stands to reason that Santa Claus must exist.

It's as ridiculous when applied to God as it is when applied to Santa.

Shall we apply it to purchasers of baby teeth and egg-hiding bunnies too?

It doesn't work with Santa Clause. Santa Clause isn't a necessary contingent, God is.
Nothing about God makes him necessary. If it did, then atheism would be falsified.

Atheism is falsified according to Godel's proof. God is a necessary contingent according to modal logic. Without him the world wouldn't exist
That's a circular claim. It requires accepting the premise that God created the world, and no evidence shows anything of the sort to be true.

If I say, "Bugs Bunny created carrots", are carrots therefore evidence for the existence of Bugs Bunny? One cannot assign God with a task, and then upon the basis of that task appearing to be complete, assert that God is now a necessary contingent without presenting the fallacy of a circular argument.

so he is a necessary contingent.
Not at all. According to the laws of physics, matter/energy cannot be created, and therefore were not created - they have always existed, though possibly in another state. Therefore, God is not at all necessary.

Modal logic has different contingents that will help people arrive at the truth. SantaClause in your example wouldn't be necessary so the math would fail. Learn modal logic and do the math, and you'll see what I mean.
If I assert that Santa bring presents for Christmas morning, then I have the same strength of argument in the fact that presents are indeed found on Christmas morning, as one would have in simply asserting that God created the universe. The fact is; we have a much better explanation for how those presents arrive, and a much better explanation for the existence of the universe.

Therefore God is not a necessary contingent. Not only do we have a better explanation than God, but that explanation is supported by objective evidence. God is not. This tends to make "modal logic" appear more like "blind assertion".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 2:35:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 1:54:56 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/16/2014 1:46:34 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

From the article: "by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist."

And if that is true, then it follows that since Santa Claus is by definition, that for which no greater gift giver can be conceived, and while Santa exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as a greater gift giver if he existed in reality, it therefore stands to reason that Santa Claus must exist.

It's as ridiculous when applied to God as it is when applied to Santa.

Shall we apply it to purchasers of baby teeth and egg-hiding bunnies too?

It doesn't work with Santa Clause. Santa Clause isn't a necessary contingent, God is.

Only by definition, which can be done with SC as well if we so chose. The objection of Gaunilo's Island still holds (though it was originally applied to Anselm's argument, which wasn't modal).

Godel was an atheist, but his proof still stands. It is logically valid and sound, from what anybody can see. The best attacks if Godels proof are attacks on modal logic in general. People basically have to prove modal logic is flawed to prove Godels proof is flawed, and even though the attack on the school of logic is the best one it is still a little absurd, because it's calling a school of logic wrong, that has been proven good time and time again.

Well, first, it's not demonstrated to be sound, in that it would need to be known to be TRUE in order to be sound. It's valid, if we fully accept the premises. But that doesn't make it sound necessarily.

To me, it's actually S5 which is problematic, not modal logic as a whole.

The notion of jumping from "possible" to "necessary" merely by definition is not one that is, IMHO, sensical.

In Godel's proof, specifically, the issue is that in Theorem 1: "If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified"--because to say something is "possibly necessary" in an argument for something's existence and with S5 being used is to beg the question and assume, necessarily, that it exists, which makes it circular. Circular arguments aren't invalid per se, but they aren't considered sound.

The notion of cross-world exclusion, whereby one possibility negates another possibility merely by being possible, is, in my opinion, incoherent. A possible world need only be internally coherent--that is, non-contradictory. But when arguing that God is necessary, you're arguing that if he's possible, then it's impossible for him not to exist, which means you've negated the universes in which he doesn't exist only by saying they can't exist because he exists; his existence in the possible world negates the possible world where he doesn't exist. This cross-contamination of possible world semantics breaks possible world semantics, because it makes them all reliant on each other and thus, in some sense, all one world--and in this case a world where you've defined God into existence by accepting, axiomatically, that he must exist since you've defined him as a being which must exist. In the case of God, we can just assume he doesn't exist as defined just as easily as we can assume he does exist as defined, which Godel would have us just accept as a premise.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 9:37:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 8:56:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

Did you even bother to read the article?

Yes. Judging by the stupidity of atheist comments here I'm the only one.
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 10:45:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Having read the German article as well (since "Spiegel" is a German newspaper and the involved scientist are from Germany/ Austria), this supposed proof seems to be no proof at all.

The article says G"del defined God as a being, that combines all positive traits in itself.
"...Wesen, das alle positiven Eigenschaften auf sich vereint."

Whereas he didn't define positive trait, but only gave two examples, being God and to necessarily exist.
" Er gab nur zwei Beispiele f"r positive Eigenschaften: Gott zu sein, und notwendigerweise zu existieren."

Therefore God is defined as:
a) itself, which is kinda redundant
and b) necessarily existent.

The obvious problem here is, that God is already predefined as existing, as necessarily existing even.
Therefore, no matter how much math you do, you can never come to a conclusion where God does not necessarily exist.

But this then begs the question, if he hadn't predefined God as necessarily existing, would he still have come to the conclusion that God exists?

Thus, G"del only proofed that God exists if you define it as something that exists, but not that any supreme being actually exists.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 11:23:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 9:37:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:56:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

Did you even bother to read the article?

Yes. Judging by the stupidity of atheist comments here I'm the only one.

"But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt G"del -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

If you actually read the article you would not have made such a stupid statement.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 11:28:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 1:54:56 AM, Wylted wrote:
It doesn't work with Santa Clause. Santa Clause isn't a necessary contingent, God is.

So if I define Santa Clause as a necessary contingent does it work now?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 11:42:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 11:28:43 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/16/2014 1:54:56 AM, Wylted wrote:
It doesn't work with Santa Clause. Santa Clause isn't a necessary contingent, God is.

So if I define Santa Clause as a necessary contingent does it work now?

It has to have the definition of one. The red hat wouldn't be a necessary attribute, nor would the gift giving or the elves. You'd have to define Santa clause in a way that makes all his attributes necessary and you couldn't really do that without redefining who SantaClause is. Bladerunner actually gave a pretty good rebuttal, and that's the road atheists need to travel down whe rebutting these arguments, but instead they keep bringing up arguments that are easily swatted down. I've argued Godel's ontological proof several times on here, and there really is only one way to swat it down and that's to attack the system of logic it uses.

Go back and reread Bladerunners post. That is the only rebuttal that's any good.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 3:28:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

That was good for a chuckle. Thank you.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 5:45:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 11:23:37 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/16/2014 9:37:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:56:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

Did you even bother to read the article?

Yes. Judging by the stupidity of atheist comments here I'm the only one.

"But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt G"del -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

If you actually read the article you would not have made such a stupid statement.

The solving of the equation is also news, retard.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 7:40:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 5:45:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/16/2014 11:23:37 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/16/2014 9:37:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:56:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

Did you even bother to read the article?

Yes. Judging by the stupidity of atheist comments here I'm the only one.

"But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt G"del -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."

If you actually read the article you would not have made such a stupid statement.

The solving of the equation is also news, retard.

That's not what you said. Read your own OP. And next time try that before calling someone else a retard.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 10:40:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 1:54:56 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/16/2014 1:46:34 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/14/2014 12:05:22 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Apparently Godel's ontological proof proves the existence of God. http://www.spiegel.de....

From the article: "by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist."

And if that is true, then it follows that since Santa Claus is by definition, that for which no greater gift giver can be conceived, and while Santa exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as a greater gift giver if he existed in reality, it therefore stands to reason that Santa Claus must exist.

It's as ridiculous when applied to God as it is when applied to Santa.

Shall we apply it to purchasers of baby teeth and egg-hiding bunnies too?

It doesn't work with Santa Clause. Santa Clause isn't a necessary contingent, God is.

Godel was an atheist, but his proof still stands. It is logically valid and sound, from what anybody can see. The best attacks if Godels proof are attacks on modal logic in general. People basically have to prove modal logic is flawed to prove Godels proof is flawed, and even though the attack on the school of logic is the best one it is still a little absurd, because it's calling a school of logic wrong, that has been proven good time and time again.

Godel wasn't an atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!