From Nothing to Nothing

a reply to: chr0naut

Exactly, it only works in the data set one is trying to plug it into and if you get lucky in others as it is not a universal thing and variable... the number 1 is a variable as it can represent any single thing imaginable except for 2 of course which has the exact same property also being a variable even the same varibable which means it certinally could in theory... this is exactly how algebra was formed using variables since X = 1 or 2 as in 2X or X+X to infinity.

I'm not really a math fellow I just comprehend it's function and limitation when placed on real world applications with such broad strokes... statistics in a model environment change the environment and the entire model falls apart like a house of cards yet that model may work else where in another environment was really the point I was making, so you could see that changing your expressions model made the positive positive fall apart...

No different than you changing the expression that made Godel's fall apart.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

My understanding of Godels Ontological argument is immaterial to its application in this topic thread.

Hardly immaterial, since it was you — and only you — who applied it.

If it were a pink unicorn that applied it, it wouldn't change its applicacy. The argument is separate from the person.

It would be a great waste of my time to re-state the obvious.

I am not asking you to explain Gödel’s argument to me. I am asking you to state your understanding of it. You are doubtless aware that Gödel’s original proof was written in German. Many different writers have translated it into English, and their formulations of it are not the same. I should like to see your version. That is all.

Gödel used the mathematical symbology of high-order modal logic, not German, to write the ontological argument (although his native tongue was German). Mathematics has notation of its own, the vagaries of most languages means that they are particlarly unsuitable as description of extremely specific mathematical truths. Gödel was a superlative mathematician and wrote his ontological argument in mathematical symbology (as reflected in the Wikipedia article).

Your confusion may be due to the two slightly different versions of Gödel's ontological argument, utilising slightly different symbology, but saying in essence, the same thing. Or possibly, you have seen English simplifications of Anslem's ontological argument or Leibniz's expansion upon it, which are often posited as being 'the same' as Gödel's. In any case, the version written by Gödel requires a little time and consideration to work through its 12 lines of logical code and even now is still under analysis, to allow it to be formalized sufficiently, to allow automated theorem proving to work upon it.

The implication that I would present something without an understanding of it, is clearly an ad-hominem attack

Perhaps you have forgotten what an ad hominem ‘attack’ (I think you mean argument) is. Allow me to remind you: it is a way of casting doubt on a proposition by casting doubt on the character or competence of the person who brought it forward. I am not doing anything like that.

I am merely asking what it is about Gödel’s Ontological Proof that makes you believe it counts as evidence for the existence of God. Because it is not ‘evidence’ of anything; it is a logical argument.

Yes, Gödel’s ontological argument is a 'logical' argument (hign-order symbolic modal logic specifically).

Yes its axioms can be questioned (in that alternate or 'exception' cases may be concieved). But those 'tenuous' axioms are also supported by both reason and observable evidence.

The opposite argument, that God does NOT exist, based as it is upon an absence of evidence for God's existence, is NOT a strong argument in comparison an argument with evidential support.

I am, therefore, more highly sceptical of the atheist argument.

All ontological ‘proofs’, including Gödel’s, are attempts to prove the necessary existence of God, not from physical evidence, but from reason alone. In other words, they attempt to prove that God exists because He must exist — not in order to make the world or any part of it exist, not in order that there might be a distinction between good and evil, not in order to to secure for mortal humans the promise of an afterlife, but simply because a being of the type we call God has to exist, in and of itself.

Your invocation of the proof on this thread appears to gloss over this vital distinction. You confuse proof with evidence, stating that Godel ‘proves’ God through ‘rigorous mathematics’. So I should like to see how, in your view, a set of axioms and theorems counts as evidence for anything.

Gödel's ontological argument does extend beyond just saying that God exists. It also says that God has "god-like properties", defined as only "positive" and no "negative" properties (in terms of a value judgemental framework), and must neccesarily exist in every possible world.

Gödel's ontological "proof" was given that name by the man himself, specifically in discussion with Dana Scott (the emeritus Hillman University Professor of Computer Science, Philosophy, and Mathematical Logic at Carnegie Mellon University) and Oskar Morgenstern (the co-founder, with John Von Neuman, of the mathematical field of game theory). In the latter days of Gödel's life he confided with Morganstern that he was "satisfied" with it and referred to it as a "proof", (according to Morgenstern's diary). This is just to demonstrate that I did not give it that name.

I have also referred to it in this thread as Gödel's ontological argument but this is not to detract from the fact that three of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century have called it a proof, so I'd be in good company.

That those three mathematicians should agree that it is a proof, should indicate to you that it must have been defined in mathematically rigourous terms.

So, no matter how you may disagree, I was justified in calling it "mathematically rigourous" and a "proof".

Now, on to my use of the word "evidence":

In a court trial, a discarded cigarette butt with the accused's DNA on it provides circumstantial evidence that they were at the scene at some time. Such weak evidence is often presented when prosecutors mount their case. It does not prove culpability, but does prove that it is a possibility. No matter how weak or circumstantial, it is still called "evidence".

However, one could not present an absence of evidence to the court (say, implying that the accused had 'cleaned up all traces' and obviously were therefore aware that they comitted the crimminal act).

On one hand, there are many weak, or subjective, or circumstantial, but observed or reasoned 'evidences', for the existence of God. On the other hand, there is no evidence at all for the non-existence of God. You can't present nothing as your evidence!

When I was in secondary school I studied the geometry of Euclid, in which I learned to prove that the area of a triangle was half the product of its base and height, that the relationship between a circle and its radius was given by a constant irrational number, and so on. None of this, however, gave evidence for the objective existence of triangles, circles and straight lines in, and in fact none of these objects exists in nature.

Thence my scepticism regarding mathematical ‘proofs’ of all kinds.

But, if you give me some time, I'm sure I could put together a simplification of Godels Ontological argument that even you might understand (see, I can do this too, it takes no mental effort).

Indeed. But what I asked of you does take some. I shall leave other readers of this post to draw the appropriate conclusions.

One might counter that plane geometry does exist, but is usually mapped upon multi-dimensional manifolds in nature, which warps the simple towards complexity. None the less, your youth was probably not wasted, those triangles, quadrilaterals and circles are useful in modern manufacturing.

I have spent some time answering your questions. I hope my answers were what you intended.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Interesting story. I still don't really "get it" (the whys and how's of if it all), but very intriguing nonetheless

a reply to: chr0naut

Hey, just wanted to say I didn't ignore your post here, just haven't gotten the time to respond in detail yet.

I haven't forgotten about it

Why do folks think that philosophy or math can prove the existence of objective things? Logical reasoning by itself does not prove things exist. In the real world you need more than that. You need objective evidence. You can make the numbers add up in an equation, but what does that mean in reality? In a logical inference, you can prove the reasoning, but not the premise in many cases. If you can't prove the premise, the reasoning may be valid, but it's not based on objective facts and hence can't be applied to the real world.

A good example of this is string theory. The math adds up, but how can we interpret that math to reality? String theory certainly is not proven, although the math itself is sound.

a reply to: chr0naut

I believe it was pointed out earlier that the ontological argument is essentially a case made for why it must be assumed that X is true. Why are we defending the employment of assumptions in scientific inquiry that double as both hypothesis and conclusion? There seems to be a few steps missing. For instance the theory only addresses the existence of X and only so far as to explain why it's okay to put the conclusion before the evidence, because that's totally how the scientific method works. This mathematical proof does nothing to address exactly what such a being is or where they come from or what they can do or how they feel about us specifically. It's conjecture and speculation all the way down.

a reply to: Barcs

Because these people never actually DO science, they think it, from armchairs, and congratulate themselves on being scientifically literate.

Speaking as someone who day in day out (even on weekends if a project is due) does science. This is both ammusing AND insulting at the same time

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

I believe it was pointed out earlier that the ontological argument is essentially a case made for why it must be assumed that X is true. Why are we defending the employment of assumptions in scientific inquiry that double as both hypothesis and conclusion? There seems to be a few steps missing. For instance the theory only addresses the existence of X and only so far as to explain why it's okay to put the conclusion before the evidence, because that's totally how the scientific method works. This mathematical proof does nothing to address exactly what such a being is or where they come from or what they can do or how they feel about us specifically. It's conjecture and speculation all the way down.

The OP was a fairly philosophical piece. A reasoned response is valid in that case.

We cannot apply scientific method to ANY absolute knowledge. This is because we cannot raise a valid antithesis against which to test theory. This is a fundamental and accepted limitation on science, explored fully by the philosopher Carl Popper.

Take, for example the laws of thermodynamics. There has been much affirmative and no contrary observation that throws doubt on these "scientific laws" (not my words) but no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization. A case could still exist that there is an unobserved exception and one single exception is enough to "break the rule". According to Popper's rationale, the laws of thermodynamics are pseudoscience (shock, horror!).

Once that is realised, it becomes clear that the entire edifice of science, which is built up upon such fundamentals, is, as you said of the ontological argument, "conjecture all the way down".

Differentiation between 'scientific conjecture' or 'philosophical conjecture' or 'mathematical conjecture' is irrelevant. They all have equal weight in human knowledge. You cannot say that a philosophical or mathematical conjecture is immaterial because it does not fit a 'scientific' view. They are of equal 'weight'.

It is true that the ontological argument does not say many things. It is very specific in what it says. It says that a single being such as God neccesarily exists in all possible worlds (no exceptions) and has has only positive value attributes and no negative value attributes. This, of course, rules out atheism and polytheism (in each world) as being valid alternatives.

Suggesting that we abandon the conclusions of the argument because it is limited is an unreasonable denial of what it does say.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Barcs

Because these people never actually DO science, they think it, from armchairs, and congratulate themselves on being scientifically literate.

Speaking as someone who day in day out (even on weekends if a project is due) does science. This is both ammusing AND insulting at the same time

One could argue that all those "armchair" philosophers also are 'doing science', sitting there testing the laws of physics and gravitation in their chairs.



This is not to say that everyone who has had any sort of secondary education has never performed any repetition of a famous experiment in a science class, and written up the aims, methodology and results.

Your comment also denies the existence of many of those "armchair" theorists and philosophers who also are working scientists.

Scientific method is a tool of discovery of knowledge, and not the only one in the toolbox.

Only someone who has a religious belief of the 'saving power of science' it would see otherwise.

Besides, doing science daily with deadlines. Sounds like a Technician.

a reply to: chr0naut

Has and does are different things. Someone who had a first aid certificate fifty years ago, is going to be woefully misinformed on recent changes in thinking, and might cause harm.

I have secondary education in wood working. Yet I'm not qualified to use a lathe either.

Your logic is flawed.

An actual scientist knows what work goes INTO science and as such will not fluff around. You want to play in another sandbox inside science, you either work with someone in that area OR you gain a qualification in it.

As for "religious beleif"? Nah Thats a nice attempt at casting shade neighbor, however I believe in the right tools for the right job. Thus my tools are Chemistry, Biochemistry, Genetics, and bioinformatics. I don't play in the sand box of Physics or Microbiology, as I've no training in them. Scientific method is all well and good, but gone are the days you can educate yourself in an area of science, the amount of specialized knowledge is too much to do that, and be competent. Similarly as a Process Development Chemist, I'd boot a Microbiologist out of my Kilolab if they thought they were going to scale something up for plant, its not safe, or sane.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Has and does are different things. Someone who had a first aid certificate fifty years ago, is going to be woefully misinformed on recent changes in thinking, and might cause harm.

I have secondary education in wood working. Yet I'm not qualified to use a lathe either.

Your logic is flawed.

An actual scientist knows what work goes INTO science and as such will not fluff around. You want to play in another sandbox inside science, you either work with someone in that area OR you gain a qualification in it.

As for "religious beleif"? Nah Thats a nice attempt at casting shade neighbor, however I believe in the right tools for the right job. Thus my tools are Chemistry, Biochemistry, Genetics, and bioinformatics. I don't play in the sand box of Physics or Microbiology, as I've no training in them. Scientific method is all well and good, but gone are the days you can educate yourself in an area of science, the amount of specialized knowledge is too much to do that, and be competent. Similarly as a Process Development Chemist, I'd boot a Microbiologist out of my Kilolab if they thought they were going to scale something up for plant, its not safe, or sane.

Got qual in my sandbox. It's just that there's not much real work in Astrophysics. I'm stuck in fromt of a monitor or in an armchair. A few times I have gone up on a dish or in an observatory but that is the old way and techs do most of that these days. I could teach but it is hardly doing the science & i'm not so young. (also, travelling & from from my country idyll to uni is a waste of life I don't want to endure).

Wasn't meaning a personal affront (which I now can see it could be taken that way). I was just saying it's a big world and a multi facet analysis is warranted.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

I believe it was pointed out earlier that the ontological argument is essentially a case made for why it must be assumed that X is true. Why are we defending the employment of assumptions in scientific inquiry that double as both hypothesis and conclusion? There seems to be a few steps missing. For instance the theory only addresses the existence of X and only so far as to explain why it's okay to put the conclusion before the evidence, because that's totally how the scientific method works. This mathematical proof does nothing to address exactly what such a being is or where they come from or what they can do or how they feel about us specifically. It's conjecture and speculation all the way down.

The OP was a fairly philosophical piece. A reasoned response is valid in that case.

We cannot apply scientific method to ANY absolute knowledge. This is because we cannot raise a valid antithesis against which to test theory. This is a fundamental and accepted limitation on science, explored fully by the philosopher Carl Popper.

Take, for example the laws of thermodynamics. There has been much affirmative and no contrary observation that throws doubt on these "scientific laws" (not my words) but no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization. A case could still exist that there is an unobserved exception and one single exception is enough to "break the rule". According to Popper's rationale, the laws of thermodynamics are pseudoscience (shock, horror!).

Once that is realised, it becomes clear that the entire edifice of science, which is built up upon such fundamentals, is, as you said of the ontological argument, "conjecture all the way down".

Differentiation between 'scientific conjecture' or 'philosophical conjecture' or 'mathematical conjecture' is irrelevant. They all have equal weight in human knowledge. You cannot say that a philosophical or mathematical conjecture is immaterial because it does not fit a 'scientific' view. They are of equal 'weight'.

It is true that the ontological argument does not say many things. It is very specific in what it says. It says that a single being such as God neccesarily exists in all possible worlds (no exceptions) and has has only positive value attributes and no negative value attributes. This, of course, rules out atheism and polytheism (in each world) as being valid alternatives.

Suggesting that we abandon the conclusions of the argument because it is limited is an unreasonable denial of what it does say.

So science can't make Universal generalizations about the laws of thermodynamics but you can make Universal generalizations about a cosmic entity? Just a detail I noticed. Additionally the ontological argument fails to satisfactorily Define positive and negative attributes. Are these attributes also Universal generalizations? I will admit the rhetoric is cute but again the ontological argument furnishes its own rebuttal, which I have already posted for you. I can post it again if you like. Not to mention that the ontological argument still does not address where X comes from or how X happens or how X feels about our little blue pearl. Or even if X feels or thinks or does anything at all except be. At that point X is pretty much useless as a hypothetical. Until you invent another thought exercise to convince yourself that you don't really need any substantial data to confirm the properties and dimensions of X.

a reply to: chr0naut

(a) I am assuming you are from New Zealand. SO am I. I've lived in the USA, worked in Science there, and done the same back home (both Dunedin and now Wellington)

(b) What I am seeing is a bunch of excuses for why you are not doing science, but are qualified to talk about it. I'm an amateur astronomer myself. I do it for the joy of looking down my telescope.

(c) I have taken NO affront, I told you many posts back, I see these discussions as sparing.

It returns to the fact you have yet to show any proof (of the scientific sense) for a deity. Hell show me why its singular not multiple even.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Well to begin with you have posted hypotheses (vs theories). Show me the quantifiable data to proove god.

Would it help you to know I work in the physical sciences (Chemsitry, Biochemistry etc) where you can measure things?

Sorry neighnour all you have posted are things verging on Hitchen's Razor.

Faith only requires belief.
Science only requires evidence.

Neither require the other. To try, is to miss the poing.

Again I opened with "speaking as a theistic person" in my reply. I believe in gods, many of them. I don't need to have evidence, my faith is strong. Mind you my deities also don't require me to show faith in public

One could argue that everything in existence, which has high-order complexity and interdependence is proof of a creator with intelligence, as Hoyle famously pointed out.

The idea that such an improbably complex and and varied system could arise from randomness is fairly hard to justify.

The very order of nature, which seems to seek towards the lowest energy state in all things, shows that something is directing things against what we know of the principles of physics (a singular result rather than a variety). Even a many worlds interpretation does not adequately answer the questions raised by the current state of this one.

Energy, matter, time and space ARE order. If an alternate world exists with those properties, then what are the ordering force/s? If a world does not have those attributes, or any others, does it even exist? If it cannot exist, surely it cannot then be one of the possibilities from which our one is a unique example. So all the infinte alternate worlds that do exist must all have to have an ordering principle of some type, already. The logic of the many worlds argument circularly opposes itself, in that regard.

It would seem that there are various 'proofs' of God but that the alternate view hangs its case upon a supposed absence of proof, which is itself absent in the face those proofs (as nebulous as they may be, depending upon worldview).

One even 'slightly possible' proof is stronger than nothing, which is all the atheist case has to offer.

Was reading through this thread which has some interesting ideas and comments. You commented that:

The idea that such an improbably complex and and varied system could arise from randomness is fairly hard to justify. The very order of nature, which seems to seek towards the lowest energy state in all things, shows that something is directing things against what we know of the principles of physics (a singular result rather than a variety). Even a many worlds interpretation does not adequately answer the questions raised by the current state of this one.

Randomness is a very interesting topic in physics. This article and video which appeared in Quanta Magazine describes how the law of increasing entropy could drive the organization of life. My own opinion (not based on direct evidence) is that there's no such thing as randomness in this universe. It can't exist simply because the energetics of mass dislocation from the very beginning of the universe could never produce a random state anywhere in the universe. Anyway, here's the article and video.



How Does Life Come From Randomness?
David Kaplan explains how the law of increasing entropy could drive random bits of matter into the stable, orderly structures of life.

www.quantamagazine.org...



Another interesting article from Quanta Magazine:

A New Physics Theory of Life

Why does life exist?

Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”


www.quantamagazine.org...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

I believe it was pointed out earlier that the ontological argument is essentially a case made for why it must be assumed that X is true. Why are we defending the employment of assumptions in scientific inquiry that double as both hypothesis and conclusion? There seems to be a few steps missing. For instance the theory only addresses the existence of X and only so far as to explain why it's okay to put the conclusion before the evidence, because that's totally how the scientific method works. This mathematical proof does nothing to address exactly what such a being is or where they come from or what they can do or how they feel about us specifically. It's conjecture and speculation all the way down.

The OP was a fairly philosophical piece. A reasoned response is valid in that case.

We cannot apply scientific method to ANY absolute knowledge. This is because we cannot raise a valid antithesis against which to test theory. This is a fundamental and accepted limitation on science, explored fully by the philosopher Carl Popper.

Take, for example the laws of thermodynamics. There has been much affirmative and no contrary observation that throws doubt on these "scientific laws" (not my words) but no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization. A case could still exist that there is an unobserved exception and one single exception is enough to "break the rule". According to Popper's rationale, the laws of thermodynamics are pseudoscience (shock, horror!).

Once that is realised, it becomes clear that the entire edifice of science, which is built up upon such fundamentals, is, as you said of the ontological argument, "conjecture all the way down".

Differentiation between 'scientific conjecture' or 'philosophical conjecture' or 'mathematical conjecture' is irrelevant. They all have equal weight in human knowledge. You cannot say that a philosophical or mathematical conjecture is immaterial because it does not fit a 'scientific' view. They are of equal 'weight'.

It is true that the ontological argument does not say many things. It is very specific in what it says. It says that a single being such as God neccesarily exists in all possible worlds (no exceptions) and has has only positive value attributes and no negative value attributes. This, of course, rules out atheism and polytheism (in each world) as being valid alternatives.

Suggesting that we abandon the conclusions of the argument because it is limited is an unreasonable denial of what it does say.

So science can't make Universal generalizations about the laws of thermodynamics but you can make Universal generalizations about a cosmic entity? Just a detail I noticed. Additionally the ontological argument fails to satisfactorily Define positive and negative attributes. Are these attributes also Universal generalizations? I will admit the rhetoric is cute but again the ontological argument furnishes its own rebuttal, which I have already posted for you. I can post it again if you like. Not to mention that the ontological argument still does not address where X comes from or how X happens or how X feels about our little blue pearl. Or even if X feels or thinks or does anything at all except be. At that point X is pretty much useless as a hypothetical. Until you invent another thought exercise to convince yourself that you don't really need any substantial data to confirm the properties and dimensions of X.

Please introduce me to this person, science, (or did you just use an anthromorphism)?

a reply to: chr0naut

You will find Godel's original German proof here. As you will see, it is written not in mathematical symbols but in words. Gödel did in fact write down a version in modal notation about thirty years later, which uses outdated symbology (and some words of explanation in English). So I am not sure where you found this 'original version of Godel's ontological proof in the symbols of formal logic.' Care to show it to us?

Incidentally, this is what the paragraph above the quoted proof at the link says (translated from German):

Gödel delayed the publication of the evidence because he feared that his request would be misunderstood as an independent attempt to establish a valid proof (of God). His real intention was to show the strengths and weaknesses of the axiomatic method: with a free choice of axioms (assumptions), one can prove any assertion.

As long as a person tries to make sense of their religious beliefs, their brains will continue to malfunction. There are two cures: abandon religion or abandon the presumption of rationality. Good luck.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

I believe it was pointed out earlier that the ontological argument is essentially a case made for why it must be assumed that X is true. Why are we defending the employment of assumptions in scientific inquiry that double as both hypothesis and conclusion? There seems to be a few steps missing. For instance the theory only addresses the existence of X and only so far as to explain why it's okay to put the conclusion before the evidence, because that's totally how the scientific method works. This mathematical proof does nothing to address exactly what such a being is or where they come from or what they can do or how they feel about us specifically. It's conjecture and speculation all the way down.

The OP was a fairly philosophical piece. A reasoned response is valid in that case.

We cannot apply scientific method to ANY absolute knowledge. This is because we cannot raise a valid antithesis against which to test theory. This is a fundamental and accepted limitation on science, explored fully by the philosopher Carl Popper.

Take, for example the laws of thermodynamics. There has been much affirmative and no contrary observation that throws doubt on these "scientific laws" (not my words) but no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization. A case could still exist that there is an unobserved exception and one single exception is enough to "break the rule". According to Popper's rationale, the laws of thermodynamics are pseudoscience (shock, horror!).

Once that is realised, it becomes clear that the entire edifice of science, which is built up upon such fundamentals, is, as you said of the ontological argument, "conjecture all the way down".

Differentiation between 'scientific conjecture' or 'philosophical conjecture' or 'mathematical conjecture' is irrelevant. They all have equal weight in human knowledge. You cannot say that a philosophical or mathematical conjecture is immaterial because it does not fit a 'scientific' view. They are of equal 'weight'.

It is true that the ontological argument does not say many things. It is very specific in what it says. It says that a single being such as God neccesarily exists in all possible worlds (no exceptions) and has has only positive value attributes and no negative value attributes. This, of course, rules out atheism and polytheism (in each world) as being valid alternatives.

Suggesting that we abandon the conclusions of the argument because it is limited is an unreasonable denial of what it does say.

So science can't make Universal generalizations about the laws of thermodynamics but you can make Universal generalizations about a cosmic entity? Just a detail I noticed. Additionally the ontological argument fails to satisfactorily Define positive and negative attributes. Are these attributes also Universal generalizations? I will admit the rhetoric is cute but again the ontological argument furnishes its own rebuttal, which I have already posted for you. I can post it again if you like. Not to mention that the ontological argument still does not address where X comes from or how X happens or how X feels about our little blue pearl. Or even if X feels or thinks or does anything at all except be. At that point X is pretty much useless as a hypothetical. Until you invent another thought exercise to convince yourself that you don't really need any substantial data to confirm the properties and dimensions of X.

Gödel's ontological argument includes reference and definitions of "God-like properties" and "positive properties" and "non-positive properties". They are intrinsic and neccesary to the argument.

In the refutation on RationalWiki, where were those properties denoted? The "most perfect island" and "unicorns" clearly do not have "God-like properties" and so that bit is conveniently left out. Please, feel free to review the RationalWiki page to verify this.

The conclusion is that they have refuted something other than Gödel's ontological argument in the hope that no-one would wise up to the "bait and switch", and it seems that they have had some success.

The ongoing work on Gödel's ontological argument by those interested in its modal logic might indicate that a refutation is far from acceptance.

a reply to: Barcs

Most of this stuff doesn't even matter in everyday life... even if you believe in the tooth fairy it's honestly moot to everyday.

The sun still suns and the ground still grounds, you basically only need to eat, poop and sleep and if you want to continue the species reproduce. All this other stuff we've just deemed important and hey it can either benefit or detriment and not everyone is ever going to agree on the benefit or detriment of anything as a whole, so we sorta kinda just have to get over ourselves

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

You will find Godel's original German proof here. As you will see, it is written not in mathematical symbols but in words. Gödel did in fact write down a version in modal notation about thirty years later, which uses outdated symbology (and some words of explanation in English). So I am not sure where you found this 'original version of Godel's ontological proof in the symbols of formal logic.' Care to show it to us?

Incidentally, this is what the paragraph above the quoted proof at the link says (translated from German):

Gödel delayed the publication of the evidence because he feared that his request would be misunderstood as an independent attempt to establish a valid proof (of God). His real intention was to show the strengths and weaknesses of the axiomatic method: with a free choice of axioms (assumptions), one can prove any assertion.

As long as a person tries to make sense of their religious beliefs, their brains will continue to malfunction. There are two cures: abandon religion or abandon the presumption of rationality. Good luck.

You are wrong.

The page you liked to is a German wiki type site, it includes descriptions of many ontological arguments. It is not the work of Gödel at all, merely commentary.

Here's a link to a .pdf that contains two scanned pages from Gödel's notes, penned some time prior to him going public with it just after 1970. Please refer to page 6 of the .pdf for the scanned pages. From the scanned pages, it is clear that Gödel wrote his 'margin notes' notes for the ontological argument in English and used symbolic logic for the main thing.

Page 7 of the .pdf shows the version apparently copied down by Dana Scott, prior to Gödel's notes becoming public. As you can see, Scott's version appears to have added some modal expressions and, perhaps, filled a few gaps. It is also mainly written in symbolic logic.

The 'quote' you included was from Oskar Morganstern's diary and actually said about Gödel that he delayed publishing because he feared people would believe "that he actually believes in God, whereas he is only engaged in a logical investigation (that is, in showing that such a proof with classical assumptions (completeness, etc.) correspondingly axiomatized, is possible)."

*Note (from Wikipedia): Morgenstern's diary is an important and usually reliable source for Gödel's later years, but the implication of the August 1970 diary entry—that Gödel did not believe in God—is not consistent with the other evidence. In letters to his mother, who was not a churchgoer and had raised Kurt and his brother as freethinkers, Gödel argued at length for a belief in an afterlife.

He did the same in an interview with a skeptical Hao Wang, who said: "I expressed my doubts as Gödel spoke [...] Gödel smiled as he replied to my questions, obviously aware that his answers were not convincing me." Wang reports that Gödel's wife, Adele, two days after Gödel's death, told Wang that "Gödel, although he did not go to church, was religious and read the Bible in bed every Sunday morning." In an unmailed answer to a questionnaire, Gödel described his religion as "baptized Lutheran (but not member of any religious congregation). My belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza."

It looks, from my perspective, that if my brain is malfunctioning, it's malfunction is no worse than yours.

We beat ourselves up with a reason for life, and I still think we only have to look no further back than the formation of Crystals. The really first re-produce-able evolution of matter. Crystal minerals grow in geodesic symmetry with how they are arranged at the atomic level. It shows primitive organization that ultimately lead to the complexity of DNA.

DNA Is Usually a Right-Handed Double Helix Applying the handedness rule from physics, we can see that each of the polynucleotide chains in the double helix is right-handed. In your mind’s eye, hold your right hand up to the DNA molecule in Figure 6-9 with your thumb pointing up and along the long axis of the helix and your fingers following the grooves in the helix. Trace along one strand of the helix in the direction in which your thumb is pointing. Notice that you go around the helix in the same direction as your fingers are pointing. This does not work if you use your left hand. Try it! A consequence of the helical nature of DNA is its periodicity. Each base pair is displaced (twisted) from the previous one by about 36°. Thus, in the X-ray crystal structure of DNA it takes a stack of about 10 base pairs to go completely around the helix (360°) (see Figure 6-1a). That is, the helical periodicity is generally 10 base pairs per turn of the helix. For further discussion, see Box 6-1: DNA Has 10.5 Base Pairs per Turn of the Helix in Solution: The Mica Experiment.

biology.kenyon.edu...The structures of DNA and RNA

Crystals and DNA are the progeny and messengers of GOD as far as I am concerned. The key is the ability to replicate, and once that was achieved, there are no boundaries to what life will be capable of.