1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    19 Jul '16 00:19
    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.
  2. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    19 Jul '16 00:31
    Is this a conversation you genuinely want to start and which you plan to contribute to, or are you actually just planning to talk about Hillary Clinton and progressives/the Nazis and black people in America?
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    19 Jul '16 03:00
    Originally posted by FMF
    Is this a conversation you genuinely want to start and which you plan to contribute to, or are you actually just planning to talk about Hillary Clinton and progressives/the Nazis and black people in America?
    Pot meet kettle.
  4. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    19 Jul '16 03:10
    Originally posted by whodey
    Pot meet 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?
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78550
    19 Jul '16 05:29
    Originally posted by whodey
    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.
    A 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:

    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.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 Jul '16 07:23
    Originally posted by whodey
    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.
    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 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.
  7. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78550
    19 Jul '16 07:491 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    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
  8. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14579
    19 Jul '16 09:001 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    In the 1940s...
    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?
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 Jul '16 09:24
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    That's Anselm's argument,
    It 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.

    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.
  10. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148450
    19 Jul '16 10:11
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    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?
    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.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 Jul '16 10:24
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Here with this topic we reject or grasp at what makes what we want the more viable choice.
    Speak for yourself. Don't pretend to know why I reject or grasp at things.
  12. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14579
    19 Jul '16 11:03
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    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.
    Being able to recognize what is in front of you would be better a better way to put it.

    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.
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    19 Jul '16 12:00
    Originally posted by FMF
    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?
    Pot reintroduced to kettle.
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    19 Jul '16 12:011 edit
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    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?
    Yes, so logic must then fail. I was hoping it would.

    It's only logical. 😵
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    19 Jul '16 13:441 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yes, so logic must then fail. I was hoping it would.

    It's only logical. 😵
    If logic fails, why did you bring this up?

    To show believing in god is illogical?
Back to Top