Godel's ontological argument. Lets have some fun.

a reply to: butcherguy

The examples that you give are not love.

That's your subjective opinion. I disagree.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy

The examples that you give are not love.

That's your subjective opinion. I disagree.

I gave you a star, because you are right in your opinion.

It is difficult to work, this issue of love, because of its nature.
Is love tangible?
Is love a noun?
Is it a verb?
Or both?
You see what I mean.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

These axioms only make sense when you don't have to assume that the object is real. It falls apart as soon as you realise that.

The theorems are all assumptions. And that is clear when you read godel's definitions of the terms he uses. He has never witnessed something that is godlike, so he just assumes, ( based on the bible? ) what the term god-like means. Basically, this is a formula for faith.

Axiom 1 and 2 are sound. I could maybe tear them apart, but i'll play along.

Axiom 3 is a total assumption and has no place in this formula. Again i state that there is no basis for his definition other than what he wants a god to be like. The definition is based on his fantsay revelation. Not to mention an assumption that god is real or that god-like beings exist. This axiom might work on cheesecake, dogs, or treehouses, but not gods. How can this be logical if we have to halt in our tracks on axiom 3? Based on lack of evidence.

Axiom 4. The properties of imagined beings are imagined. We must first observe a thing before we know what it's properties are.


I guess i'm done. That was easy.

a reply to: butcherguy

In reality, from a human standpoint, love is a drug.

I remember one time, I was sitting on a cliff on Maui, watching the waves crash into the black lava cliff. It was such a beautiful scene! I was thinking about how the rock would eventually succumb to the ocean and it's relentless "love" for the shore. In reality, the ocean water is compelled to crash against the rocky shore because of lunar tides and the earth's rotation.

Does love really exist as an independent "agency"? I don't think so.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
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?

Godels ontological BS: basically some nonsense about reality vs imagination (??)

...what the hell does godlike even mean? Superhuman? Super saiyan? Ch34tin6 haxxor? Let's be a little less vague.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ericthedoubter

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

English please.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Servant: "to prove god exists, first we need to assume that he is real, and, oh!!!! I guess we don't need to go any further. Class dismissed. "

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Servant: "to prove god exists, first we need to assume that he is real, and, oh!!!! I guess we don't need to go any further. Class dismissed. "

This.

a reply to: Ericthedoubter

Taken from a purely logical standpoint? I can accept them. Replacing the word "God" with "Cheesecake" would make it far more acceptable for me.

I don't see how your point is anything more than that of a semantics issue. You could replace the word God-like with whatever as long as the definition remains the same.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

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

From OP:

Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive

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?

The purpose of the four theorems is to show that the property of being God-like is exemplified by some thing x. Those theorems are proven by the laws of modal logic if the axioms are accepted. So I don't see the need to have an example for the argument to hold.

a reply to: Klassified

They have been defined look at the OP and the third comment.

I have read several of your recent threads and I get the impression you are seeking external validation of your belief system. If your faith is absolute you would have no desire to do this. The fact that you are doing this demonstrates that you have questioned you own faith. Are these threads really to convince other people or yourself?

a reply to: Woodcarver

These axioms only make sense when you don't have to assume that the object is real. It falls apart as soon as you realise that.

I don't see any reason those axioms couldn't be true for something real.

The theorems are all assumptions. And that is clear when you read godel's definitions of the terms he uses. He has never witnessed something that is godlike, so he just assumes, ( based on the bible? ) what the term god-like means. Basically, this is a formula for faith.

The term God-like has nothing to do with the Christian God. It is defined as something that has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive . Like I said the theorems can be proven using formal logic if you grant the axioms.

Axiom 3 is a total assumption and has no place in this formula. Again i state that there is no basis for his definition other than what he wants a god to be like. The definition is based on his fantsay revelation. Not to mention an assumption that god is real or that god-like beings exist.

Axiom 3 to me seems to be quite easy to agree with. If being God-like is having as essential properties only positive properties it would see its quite easy to say that having the quality of being God-like is a positive property as not Being God-like would be not positive.

Axiom 4. The properties of imagined beings are imagined. We must first observe a thing before we know what it's properties are.

Your not even addressing axiom 4?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: [post=20572754]

I don't see any reason those axioms couldn't be true for something real.

Yes. But only things we know are real. We do not know that gods are real. Nor do we know what any properties could be considered godlike, because we've never seen a god. These axioms and theorems do nothing to prove the existence of god. They rely on the reader to already assume god's existence.

The term God-like has nothing to do with the Christian God. It is defined as something that has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive . Like I said the theorems can be proven using formal logic if you grant the axioms.

why would you grant the axioms? They are all based on assumptions. Shouldn't you explain why anyone should just accept the axioms? They are not based on reality. How can something be solely positive? That doesn't even make sense. Why would something godlike, necessarily be good/positive? There are a thousand questions you would need to figure out before we can get past axioms 1, 2, and 3. And neither you, nor Godel have those answers.

Formal logic still needs facts to come to any conclusions. This is not formal logic. This is a bunch of wishes and opinions based on the belief that an ancient book written by uneducated barbarians is actually the truth hidden deep within and between each translated word. Which is logically impossible.

Axiom 3 to me seems to be quite easy to agree with. If being God-like is having as essential properties only positive properties it would see its quite easy to say that having the quality of being God-like is a positive property as not Being God-like would be not positive.

Why should we assume that something godlike could only have positive attributes/properties? The keyword that makes this fall apart is "IF". Shouldn't you show why we should accept this instead of just asserting that we should accept it as fact?

Your not even addressing axiom 4?

I did address it. It is just another assumption that a) god exists. And b) that you could know it's properties. Which you can't because you can only know the properties of a thing by observing it or it's effect on other things. Neither of which applies to any gods. Soooo... Yes, i can just ignore that one until we fix all of the other major problems with your/Godel's Unlogic.


Please explain why i should accept any of the assumptions?

Utter disbelieve ... Almost nobody reflects here that ontological argument have 1000 year long tradition in western thinking. In fact almost every thinker from church fathers to Heidegger had something to say about it. This is just one of many views on classical intellectual puzzle: is there valid ontological argument for existence of God?.

And yes, this is example of one of branches of theology - which is basically logic applied through prism of Bible or revelation in broader sense.

From this context is OP perfectly understandable - even if really minimalistic - and terms like God-like and positive property are defined by tradition.

S&F for OP. This is perfect example of phishing in non email domain


And why disbelieve? I was born in atheist family in most secular country in the world. While ATS have large international community, user base is probably from mostly "christian" USA. What are you studying in those Sunday schools if not theology?

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?

Ontological arguments only work when the axioms and the theorems make sense. The definition or properties of godlike is mere speculation, because you're only going by a traditional idea of what a god is, based on an opinion, based on a book, written by ancient, uneducated, superstitious, people, who thought the rain came when god was pleased with them. People who thought headaches and illnesses were the work of demons.

Any properties of gods are imagined and not observed.


a reply to: JanAmosComenius

a reply to: Morrad

I have read several of your recent threads and I get the impression you are seeking external validation of your belief system. If your faith is absolute you would have no desire to do this. The fact that you are doing this demonstrates that you have questioned you own faith. Are these threads really to convince other people or yourself

I mean you can get whatever impression you get. I don't know what you mean by if your faith is absolute ect...I wrote this thread because I thought it was interesting. I wrote understanding Christianity to show how the world can be explained by that world view. Why do the threads have to be to convince anyone? I wrote them simply because I wanted to write them. If I convince someone I would be rather surprised as my only intention was to have a conversation.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

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

From OP:

Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive

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?

The purpose of the four theorems is to show that the property of being God-like is exemplified by some thing x. Those theorems are proven by the laws of modal logic if the axioms are accepted. So I don't see the need to have an example for the argument to hold.

if god is math, then just say so. everyone, grab a calculus book and head to your local college library for a study session with the divine theorems of pythagoras!

joking aside, "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.

also, this:

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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?

Ontological arguments only work when the axioms and the theorems make sense. The definition or properties of godlike is mere speculation, because you're only going by a traditional idea of what a god is, based on an opinion, based on a book, written by ancient, uneducated, superstitious, people, who thought the rain came when god was pleased with them. People who thought headaches and illnesses were the work of demons.

Any properties of gods are imagined and not observed.


a reply to: JanAmosComenius

so much elaborate mental gymnastics just to convince us to presume.

a reply to: Woodcarver
Almost total agreement. OP should be answered in 3 rational ways:

1. Ontological proof of Gods existence is probably (you can not prove negative) impossible hence your argumentation is probably pure gibberish.
2. Hey, that is nice example of ontological argument! Let see where it will bring us.
3. Sorry, I do not understand a word. Can you elaborate?

And disagreement? Euclidean geometry (every geometry) is based on set of axioms - one of the most famous is parallel postulate. It is not provable nor observable, still (almost) nobody dispute existence of a/the triangle (at least and rightly so as idea). We even base our predictions in observable world on not provable, not observable and rather complex idea.

For Godel this was probably just intellectual joke. Incompleteness theorem applied on classical theo-logical exercise if I understand it well.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Yes. But only things we know are real. We do not know that gods are real. Nor do we know what any properties could be considered godlike, because we've never seen a god. These axioms and theorems do nothing to prove the existence of god. They rely on the reader to already assume god's existence.

You just contradicted yourself. Here you say these axioms work for things we know are real, but your previous comment was "These axioms only make sense when you don't have to assume that the object is real." You don't understand this argument. Its quite obvious by your response here. The fact that we have never seen a god doesn't take away anything from the definition of Godlike given.

why would you grant the axioms? They are all based on assumptions. Shouldn't you explain why anyone should just accept the axioms?

Why are you assuming that I have granted the axioms. I don't know where I stand on the axioms of this particular form of the argument.

How can something be solely positive?

A positive property is one of the axioms the argument is based on. It defines that as a property whose negation is not positive. It is a way of discussing and defining the properties ascribed to a God-like being.

That doesn't even make sense. Why would something godlike, necessarily be good/positive? There are a thousand questions you would need to figure out before we can get past axioms 1, 2, and 3. And neither you, nor Godel have those answers.

You obviously didn't read the definition of Godlike given in the third comment. Godlike having those and only those properties which are positive .

Formal logic still needs facts to come to any conclusions. This is not formal logic. This is a bunch of wishes and opinions based on the belief that an ancient book written by uneducated barbarians is actually the truth hidden deep within and between each translated word. Which is logically impossible.

I don't think you have any idea what formal logic is. Your responses lack intellectually unsophisticated. Go to the wiki page posted by Ericthedoubter and you can see the formal proof their.

Why should we assume that something godlike could only have positive attributes/properties? The keyword that makes this fall apart is "IF". Shouldn't you show why we should accept this instead of just asserting that we should accept it as fact?

You are arguing semantics. You can call it whatever you like. The argument seeks to show their something, x, has some essential property, y, that is defined as have those and only those attributes that are positive. You are getting caught up on a childish understanding of the word Godlike when it really is just an arbitrary placeholder like a variable.




"Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive "

Your statement:Axiom 4. The properties of imagined beings are imagined. We must first observe a thing before we know what it's properties are.

I did address it. It is just another assumption that a) god exists. And b) that you could know it's properties. Which you can't because you can only know the properties of a thing by observing it or it's effect on other things. Neither of which applies to any gods. Soooo... Yes, i can just ignore that one until we fix all of the other major problems with your/Godel's Unlogic.

"Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive "

Your statement: Axiom 4. The properties of imagined beings are imagined. We must first observe a thing before we know what it's properties are.

Axiom 4 has nothing to do with the properties of an imagined being. The argument isn't even about a being its about the existence of something that exemplifies the property of being Godlike as defined in the argument.

a reply to: TzarChasm

What do you want to provide? You have key phrase "ontological argument", Internet and brain resulting in link:

en.wikipedia.org...

where you can find link to:

en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof

from where you can be redirected to modal logic etc...

And now please discuss subject of this thread.

BTW OP is joking on you and I should be shamed kicking his sand castle.