It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




"The purpose of the four theorems is to show that the property of being God-like is exemplified by some thing x" is not an answer. you are placeholding for something we specifically requested and you are unable to provide. or unwilling? it would be so much more conducive to discussion if you just provided an example instead of insisting you dont have to.


No I am simply stating the the argument doesn't argue for what exemplifies the property of being Godlike. It argues that something exemplifies this property.




This argument only works when you know all of the facts. There are zero facts in this word problem. The definition of "godlike" might as well be "unicornlike". Nobody has ever seen one, so I can make up the properties of what i think unicorns should be like. Based on the traditional stories. Or how about dragon like?


This again is woodcarver getting hung up on the semantics. Godlike is defined in a particular way. we could just call it some property y would that make you feel better?




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Uhhmm... Read those again. They do say the same thing.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I do have a problem with the statement that something/anything has godlike properties. Even if you define it as something that has only positive attributes. You and godel are only redefining things that we already have names for. Even though, It is not the semantics i have a problem with. It is the arbitrary axioms that that don't make sense. Why would i assume that a godlike thing only has positive attributes?

It is an arbitrary statement that begs two questions;

1) why define godlike that way when we already have a long history of examples of what gods are from thousands of ancient cultures?

2) is there anything that has only positive attributes? Why would that thing be a god?

I think you don't understand formal logic. Perhaps that is why you brought this old rag of an argument back for discussion.

Sye brugencate used this presupositional argument on matt dilahunty and got put in his place.


edit on 7-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




It is the arbitrary axioms that that don't make sense. Why would i assume that a godlike thing only has positive attributes?


Godlike is a definition in the argument not an axiom.




I do have a problem with the statement that something/anything has godlike properties. Even if you define it as something that has only positive attributes. You and godel are only redefining things that we already have names for.


You are getting stuck up on the word Godel chose to give to a particular property. You don't have to call it godlike no matter what you call it, the end result will be the same because its qualities are drawn from the definition of that property and the axiom, " A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive"




Why would i assume that a godlike thing only has positive attributes?


don't call it god like then. The argument is arguing for the exemplification of a property that something x can have if and only if it has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive.




why define godlike that way when we already have a long history of examples of what gods are from thousands of ancient cultures?


Because the argument isn't for that property even though your using the same word.




2) is there anything that has only positive attributes? Why would that thing be a god?



This right here is what I am talking about. It shows you don't understand the argument. Its like listening to a blind man try and describe colors, when you have seen colors you know he is wrong. This question is the very thing the theorems are answering..the theorems show that indeed there is something x that exemplifies the property of being Godlike as defined in the argument.




Sye brugencate used this presupositional argument on matt dilahunty and got put in his place.


If I were taking a presuppositional approach we wouldn't have gotten this far because I wouldn't have been convinced your world view could give a sound basis for the belief in the principle of uniformity in nature or the existence of logical absolutes. And to be honest I am not convinced but I concede that to people for the sake of conversation.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

You are right I misread.
edit on 7-4-2016 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive

The set of whole numbers implies the number zero. However zero is neither positive or negative.
[Axiom 1 is shown to be false]


Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Zero is neither positive nor negative.
[Axiom 2 is shown to be false]


Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
[Axiom 3 depends upon 1 and 2 being true, which they are not, so axiom 3 is no usable]


Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
[Axiom 4 depends upon 1 and 2 to be true, which are not, so axiom 4 is not usable]

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property
[Axiom 5 depends upon 1 and 2 being true, which they are not]

On their face, all 5 axioms are false, so there is no point moving on to theorem's.

Kev



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear




The set of whole numbers implies the number zero. However zero is neither positive or negative.


Lol way to use a fallacy of equivocation. I think its quite obvious that positive was not used in a quantitative sense but a qualitative sense.




A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive Zero is neither positive nor negative.


Again equivocation. I cannot for the life of my understand why anyone would have an issue with this axiom. I mean it is basically the law of non contradiction.




Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive [Axiom 3 depends upon 1 and 2 being true, which they are not, so axiom 3 is no usable]


I think axiom three is also derived from the definition of Godlike.




On their face, all 5 axioms are false, so there is no point moving on to theorem's.


I am sorry but your rejection to the first two are unwarranted in that they make use of a logical fallacy... wanna try again?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The first two axioms could be seen as true, except you would have to present an example. This would be difficult as the word positive is subjective.

I am getting hung up on the third.

3) the property of being godlike is positive.


He defines godlike, as something that has only positive attributes?

Why?


I understand the word godlike is a placeholder word. What i don't get is, how can something only have positive attributes?
edit on 8-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)
please watch Sye brugencate and matt dilahunty's debate. Hat you are explaing is most def presuppositional apologetics. Here is an abridged video. The original is on youtube. youtu.be...
edit on 8-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




I am getting hung up on the third. He defines godlike, as something that has only positive attributes? I understand the word godlike is a placeholder word. What i don't get is, how can something only have positive attributes?


Well axiom three states that it is a positive attribute in and of itself to have only positive attributes. The theorems show that something has only positive attributes based on the axiom that having necessary existence is a positive property. Necessary existence means you must exists in all possible worlds. If something x has an essential property(meaning without that property x wouldn't be x) that implies it has all positive properties(axiom 1) then it entails that something x would have as an essential property necessary existence(Axiom 5).



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive

The set of whole numbers implies the number zero. However zero is neither positive or negative.
[Axiom 1 is shown to be false]


Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Zero is neither positive nor negative.
[Axiom 2 is shown to be false]


Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
[Axiom 3 depends upon 1 and 2 being true, which they are not, so axiom 3 is no usable]


Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
[Axiom 4 depends upon 1 and 2 to be true, which are not, so axiom 4 is not usable]

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property
[Axiom 5 depends upon 1 and 2 being true, which they are not]

On their face, all 5 axioms are false, so there is no point moving on to theorem's.

Kev




Think this pretty much covers it.

Thanks kev.
edit on 8-4-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Sure, but you must show that there is something that has only positive attributes, otherwise you are just assuming that there is something. It is presuppositional. As in, you have to assume it exists.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Lol you call pointing out the fact that he used the fallacy of equivocation in his rebuttal mental gymnastics. Sometimes I wonder where all the critical thinkers have gone.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Sure, but you must show that there is something that has only positive attributes, otherwise you are just assuming that there is something. It is presuppositional. As in, you have to assume it exists.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

Lol you call pointing out the fact that he used the fallacy of equivocation in his rebuttal mental gymnastics. Sometimes I wonder where all the critical thinkers have gone.


Avoiding this thread, probably. As I should be doing.

You asked for feedback, you got it. Take it or leave it.

Deuces.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




Sure, but you must show that there is something that has only positive attributes, otherwise you are just assuming that there is something. It is presuppositional. As in, you have to assume it exists.


I don't think you are understanding the point I am making. Number concepts exists necessarily in all possible worlds. If something with all positive properties necessarily exists then it exists in all possible worlds. If it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world. That is deductive logic as well. You seem to be having an issue with Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes someone has shown me that I was wrong so I must run.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You would have to show that it is possible to exist in all other worlds or else you are supposing:

1) that there are other worlds/dimensions/plains/

2) that some CAN exist in all worlds.


This is what presuppositional means. You have to assume the axioms are true. Because they are not yet proven.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




ou would have to show that it is possible to exist in all other worlds or else you are supposing: 1) that there are other worlds/dimensions/plains/ 2) that some CAN exist in all worlds.


Now you misunderstand what philosophers mean when they say 'possible world'. A possible world is any conceivable way the world might have been. The actual world is the possible world that actually is.

No philosopher disputes that certain things have necessary existence. I gave you one example already, Number concepts. Now with the way the argument is formulated I would not be tasked to show that something can exists in all possible worlds but rather that necessary existence is a positive property, meaning something x would by definition exists in all possible worlds which thru law of logical inference we would mean it exists in the actual world.

Now this is normally the point where people think they could just inject a unicorn or something of that nature. The moment you do that you have no reason to attribute the positive property of necessary existence to the thing and as such it would not necessarily exists.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Woodcarver




Sure, but you must show that there is something that has only positive attributes, otherwise you are just assuming that there is something. It is presuppositional. As in, you have to assume it exists.


I don't think you are understanding the point I am making. Number concepts exists necessarily in all possible worlds. If something with all positive properties necessarily exists then it exists in all possible worlds. If it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world. That is deductive logic as well. You seem to be having an issue with Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property.


You are missing the IF in this problem. This is formal logic.

If A = B then you get X


Your A does not equal B , or at least it is not proven to be. Therfor your problem is not accurate.

You are forgetting that even logic problems must have real world relevancy to come to any meaningful conclusions.

Your axioms are not believable, so you cannot go forward with the problem without

A) proving your axioms

Or

B) assuming they are true


Without proof that your axioms are true, you must pre- suppose that they are true, which puts this firmly in the space of a presuppositional argument.

I know you don't want to understand this, but seeing as how everyone here disagrees with you, perhaps you should open your mind and take another look.

Especially when you are presenting someone else's very old argument. Did you take the time to read some of the arguments against this type of logic problem? There are lots of them. Perhaps you could take the time to read them and bring some of them here?
edit on 8-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
You are then supposing that the world could have been different. Care to show how that is possible? Or is this another assumption? You are not good at this game.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join