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.
originally posted by: chr0naut
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.
Another objection to the argument is also quite simple: one could change the possibility premise, and flip the argument on its head:
- A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
- A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
- It is possible that there isn’t a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
- Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist.
- Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (axiom S5)
- Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
Here's a link to a .pdf that contains two scanned pages from Gödel's notes
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)."
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
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.
The argument doesn't explain why these attributes are labeled as Godly or not godly or even what Godly means or how they figured out that's what Godly means. It simply says this is what we are assuming and if we are assuming this then we may also (un)reasonably assume these other things. It might be more productive to focus Less on what the ongoing work "might indicate", and more about what the results definitively demonstrate. That's how the scientific method works. Then again if you had such definitive results, you wouldn't need the ontological argument.
There's an indication for you. Just an indication but no less compelling than your rhetoric.
Another objection to the argument is also quite simple: one could change the possibility premise, and flip the argument on its head:
- A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
- A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
- It is possible that there isn’t a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
- Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist.
- Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (axiom S5)
- Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
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.
The argument doesn't explain why these attributes are labeled as Godly or not godly or even what Godly means or how they figured out that's what Godly means. It simply says this is what we are assuming and if we are assuming this then we may also (un)reasonably assume these other things. It might be more productive to focus Less on what the ongoing work "might indicate", and more about what the results definitively demonstrate. That's how the scientific method works. Then again if you had such definitive results, you wouldn't need the ontological argument.
Gödel's ontological argument actually does define what it means by "God-like properties", so what you said was untrue. It is just that the definition is limited to some specific modal logic. Like all symbolic representation (including all languages) fuzziness of definition could always be proposed. However, if there is some agreed understanding of what those terms might mean, they are semantically useful.
How would Gödel's ontological argument be invalidated by definitive proof of God's existence?
There's an indication for you. Just an indication but no less compelling than your rhetoric.
Another objection to the argument is also quite simple: one could change the possibility premise, and flip the argument on its head:
- A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
- A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
- It is possible that there isn’t a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
- Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist.
- Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (axiom S5)
- Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
OK, but that is applied to Anslem's ontological argument, not Gödel's.
originally posted by: chr0naut
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'.
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: chr0naut
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'.
Complete load of nonsense. They most definitely do not hold equal weight when talking about the existence of something and science is most definitely not conjecture all the way down. Evidence talks. Speculation walks. Philosophy, sound math and logical reasoning are a good START to a scientific hypothesis, but after that you need evidence if you wish to continue to prove anything. Philosophy, math and science all work together to prove things empirically, they aren't 3 equal parts of knowledge that prove things separately. You need the evidence, you need the tests, you need working math, and you need logic to connect them together.
The ontological argument is terrible, every version of it. It doesn't prove anything, it speculates about things we have no idea about and assumes properties that can't be rectified in any way shape or form. You could only say that they prove anything, IF their definitions and assumptions are true, but of course that is a HUGE IF.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: chr0naut
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'.
Complete load of nonsense. They most definitely do not hold equal weight when talking about the existence of something and science is most definitely not conjecture all the way down. Evidence talks. Speculation walks. Philosophy, sound math and logical reasoning are a good START to a scientific hypothesis, but after that you need evidence if you wish to continue to prove anything. Philosophy, math and science all work together to prove things empirically, they aren't 3 equal parts of knowledge that prove things separately. You need the evidence, you need the tests, you need working math, and you need logic to connect them together.
The ontological argument is terrible, every version of it. It doesn't prove anything, it speculates about things we have no idea about and assumes properties that can't be rectified in any way shape or form. You could only say that they prove anything, IF their definitions and assumptions are true, but of course that is a HUGE IF.
If it is based only upon observation and hypothesis and is never really tested (except for repetition of process, producing the same results), how is that different from Aristotle's "science"?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: chr0naut
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'.
Complete load of nonsense. They most definitely do not hold equal weight when talking about the existence of something and science is most definitely not conjecture all the way down. Evidence talks. Speculation walks. Philosophy, sound math and logical reasoning are a good START to a scientific hypothesis, but after that you need evidence if you wish to continue to prove anything. Philosophy, math and science all work together to prove things empirically, they aren't 3 equal parts of knowledge that prove things separately. You need the evidence, you need the tests, you need working math, and you need logic to connect them together.
The ontological argument is terrible, every version of it. It doesn't prove anything, it speculates about things we have no idea about and assumes properties that can't be rectified in any way shape or form. You could only say that they prove anything, IF their definitions and assumptions are true, but of course that is a HUGE IF.
If it is based only upon observation and hypothesis and is never really tested (except for repetition of process, producing the same results), how is that different from Aristotle's "science"?
in what manner do you mean?
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: chr0naut
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'.
Complete load of nonsense. They most definitely do not hold equal weight when talking about the existence of something and science is most definitely not conjecture all the way down. Evidence talks. Speculation walks. Philosophy, sound math and logical reasoning are a good START to a scientific hypothesis, but after that you need evidence if you wish to continue to prove anything. Philosophy, math and science all work together to prove things empirically, they aren't 3 equal parts of knowledge that prove things separately. You need the evidence, you need the tests, you need working math, and you need logic to connect them together.
The ontological argument is terrible, every version of it. It doesn't prove anything, it speculates about things we have no idea about and assumes properties that can't be rectified in any way shape or form. You could only say that they prove anything, IF their definitions and assumptions are true, but of course that is a HUGE IF.
If it is based only upon observation and hypothesis and is never really tested (except for repetition of process, producing the same results), how is that different from Aristotle's "science"?
in what manner do you mean?
In what manner do you mean, "in what manner do you mean"?
I was talking about the assumptions upon which science is based. If the assumptions are not testable, should we abstain from calling them 'science'?
Consider this analogy: Harry Stottle who fancies himself scientifically aware, has observed that every time he switches the light switch, the light goes on (at least until something breaks). From hearsay he knows that the light globe can work without a switch, so he surmises that the radiant light is somehow intrinsic in the light globe and that the switch on the wall sends a special message to the globe to release its light, or not. No amount of manipulation of the light switch will alert Harry to the errors of his assumption. You would, no doubt, agree that Harry's assumptions are NOT scientific, so how could you would expect that the same untested (and perhaps untestable) assumptions about Thermodynamic laws or whatever, to be scientific?
Science needs more than ONLY the assumption (theory or hypothesis) and observation pairing, to determine the truth.
Science requires testability, which implies that we can raise an alternate case that fits the observations. Perhaps we cannot theorize about an alternate case because we have simply never observed the alternate, or the conditions such an alternate requires?
In the case of many basic precepts upon which science is constructed, we cannot test the assumptions. Nor can we validly use one untested assumption to 'prove' another. The testing part makes it science. It also reveals a limitation of what science is capable of showing.
What assumptions are you talking about here?
And how does that vindicate your ontological assumptions?