It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Godel's ontological argument. Lets have some fun.

page: 1
1
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 04:08 AM
I will start off by saying that this is formal logic. The theorems that I put forth can be proven if you agree with the following axioms. Meaning the only place to attack this argument is to give good reason to doubt some of the axioms.

Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property

If you accept these axioms these theorems can be proven using formal logic:

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

So what are your thoughts do you accept these axioms or deny them?

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 04:49 AM

How could "god-like" be defined when there are none?

That's a colossal gap in your logic.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 05:02 AM

This is not my logic but Godel does define God like I suppose I should have put the definitions in the OP also here they are:

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 05:30 AM

The logic appears to STILL be flawed....I've just skimmed through the Wiki page and the whole idea has some issues.I'll try to post the link:

Gödels logic

TL;DR The whole idea assumes that deities could exist.Gödels gods could well be an advanced alien race.
edit on 6-4-2016 by Ericthedoubter because: Did it work?

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 05:34 AM

Actually they wiki page affirms exactly what I said in the OP

Quote from Source

The proof does not say that the conclusion has to be correct, but rather that if you accept the axioms, then the conclusion is correct.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 05:52 AM

So it all boils down to faith.Again.

I,as an atheist would genuinely like to see proof of the existence of god.I really would.It would make me ecstatically happy.

None is forthcoming....it's all about faith.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 06:19 AM

Well this was more of a discussion about the axioms and whether or not they can be justified. Would you reject any of those axioms?

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 06:50 AM

Taken from a purely logical standpoint?

I can accept them.

Replacing the word "God" with "Cheesecake" would make it far more acceptable for me.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:01 AM
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Do you have an example that fits x in this sense?

I also don't see the definition for what 'positive' is for the purpose of discussing this.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:01 AM

I,as an atheist would genuinely like to see proof of the existence of god.I really would.It would make me ecstatically happy.

I am bumping this thread and then running for cover, as this one is way over my head. I mean no disrespect for anyone here, but a part of me is aching to say that you, Ericthedoubter, are the proof you seek.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:15 AM

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Do you have an example that fits x in this sense?

I think it exists.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:20 AM

originally posted by: butcherguy

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Do you have an example that fits x in this sense?

I think it exists.

You can think love exists, and you can think it is an example of something that has properties and only those properties that are 'positive', but I would disagree. Therefore, I reject not only at least one axiom, but I reject the definition.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:26 AM

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: butcherguy

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Do you have an example that fits x in this sense?

I think it exists.

You can think love exists, and you can think it is an example of something that has properties and only those properties that are 'positive', but I would disagree. Therefore, I reject not only at least one axiom, but I reject the definition.

I am happy that you did not provide reasoning why you disagree that it exists, because it was not my intention to debate that.
I just wanted to know if you believed that it exists and is positive.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:33 AM

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: butcherguy

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Do you have an example that fits x in this sense?

I think it exists.

You can think love exists, and you can think it is an example of something that has properties and only those properties that are 'positive', but I would disagree. Therefore, I reject not only at least one axiom, but I reject the definition.

I am happy that you did not provide reasoning why you disagree that it exists, because it was not my intention to debate that.
I just wanted to know if you believed that it exists and is positive.

This is the problem with bringing in a concept like 'love' to a thread where the OP specifically says it is about formal logic.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:34 AM
I think the only way everyone can get on the same page is for "positive" and "god-like" to be defined. Then, and only then can one agree or disagree with the axioms.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:36 AM

I can give you a lot of examples of where "love" is not always positive a thing; greed, pride, obsession, addiction, etc. Why choose love as an example, anyway? Why not a rock. A rock in your hand positively exists, doesn't it?
edit on 6-4-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:41 AM

originally posted by: windword

I can give you a lot of examples of where "love" is not always positive a thing; greed, pride, obsession, addiction, etc. Why choose love as an example, anyway? Why not a rock. A rock in your hand positively exists, doesn't it?

The examples that you give are not love.
Addicts can say that they 'love' a drug. That doesn't make it love.
Greed can be described as love of money, but it is simply a desire to have more of something... not love.
Your examples are usually associated with the absence of love.

The rock on a hill that rolled down and crashed through a car windshield and killed a woman on her way to work? Not positive.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:42 AM

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: butcherguy

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Do you have an example that fits x in this sense?

I think it exists.

You can think love exists, and you can think it is an example of something that has properties and only those properties that are 'positive', but I would disagree. Therefore, I reject not only at least one axiom, but I reject the definition.

I am happy that you did not provide reasoning why you disagree that it exists, because it was not my intention to debate that.
I just wanted to know if you believed that it exists and is positive.

This is the problem with bringing in a concept like 'love' to a thread where the OP specifically says it is about formal logic.

The OP brought 'God' into the thread at the beginning.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:46 AM

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: butcherguy

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Do you have an example that fits x in this sense?

I think it exists.

You can think love exists, and you can think it is an example of something that has properties and only those properties that are 'positive', but I would disagree. Therefore, I reject not only at least one axiom, but I reject the definition.

I am happy that you did not provide reasoning why you disagree that it exists, because it was not my intention to debate that.
I just wanted to know if you believed that it exists and is positive.

This is the problem with bringing in a concept like 'love' to a thread where the OP specifically says it is about formal logic.

The OP brought 'God' into the thread at the beginning.

Agreed, the premise is flawed from the beginning (though to be fair the OP brought in God-like, there is a difference.)

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:50 AM

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: butcherguy

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Do you have an example that fits x in this sense?

I think it exists.

You can think love exists, and you can think it is an example of something that has properties and only those properties that are 'positive', but I would disagree. Therefore, I reject not only at least one axiom, but I reject the definition.

I am happy that you did not provide reasoning why you disagree that it exists, because it was not my intention to debate that.
I just wanted to know if you believed that it exists and is positive.

This is the problem with bringing in a concept like 'love' to a thread where the OP specifically says it is about formal logic.

The OP brought 'God' into the thread at the beginning.

Agreed, the premise is flawed from the beginning (though to be fair the OP brought in God-like, there is a difference.)

Being fair, the term 'god-like' is an adjective.

new topics

top topics

1