Godel's ontological argument. Lets have some fun.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

How do you go about proving that there are other possible worlds?

How do you then prove that something could exist in all possible worlds?

Why bring this up until it is proven?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Yes. Certain things do exist. But not everything. You must prive somethings existence for it to necessarily exist.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I have to go to work. I will return later. Please watch the video i posted earlier. Perhaps we could discuss it later.

a reply to: Woodcarver

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 therfor your problem is incorrect. You are forgetting that even logic problems must have real world relevancy to come to any meaningful conclusions.

It does have real world relevancy? It shows that in the actual world the property of being Godlike is exemplified.

Your axioms are not believable, so you cannot go forward with the problem without A) proving your axioms Or B) assuming they are true

I don't see why you think i have said they are true. Sure I have been arguing in the affirmative, but i don't know where I stand on this version of the argument. You'll notice in my thread We need RESAONS for God i used a different version. i created the thread to discuss the validity of the axioms because if they are true then the theorems and its conclusion is true.

Godlike = undefined

Thanks so much for clearing that up.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I've defined it a hundred times now kid

The only place to attack this argument is to give good reason to doubt some of the axioms.

A contradiction to this is actually simpler than you think,

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive

You only need to create a situation where being Human is preferable or equal to God-Like. Objectively.

My interpretation of the Shabaka Stone is such:

When you die, you are granted with the power to control Mass, Time, Energy, Light, and their opposite states. You become God.

My hypothetical: You meet a Vampire who offers you eternal(immortal) life. Do you choose to live eternally as Human, or die to eternally(timeless) become God?

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

Neither seem negative to me, this would be different for each person, and I think I would personally choose Vampire. My conclusion is people die everyday, and being God-like might be better but, being a Vampire makes me special.

Satisfactory answer?

a reply to: imjack

Godel is pretty famous for his IQ at 170-190.

Mine tested 149.

The method I chose was "What Religions make everyone God?" And worked back from there.

Objectively speaking if everyone is God-like, it means nothing. I was only able to do this because the implications of 'God-like' means there is more than one. The true, and the like. If it's a noun as opposed to an adjective I cheated- but it was not.

It does not prove there is or is not a God, however it proves:
Nothing is God-like.

a reply to: imjack

You only need to create a situation where being Human is preferable or equal to God-Like. Objectively.

How exactly would this refute the idea that being God-like is a positive property? It might show that being human is also a positive property, but that does nothing to show the the negation of Godlike is not positive.

Neither seem negative to me, this would be different for each person, and I think I would personally choose Vampire. My conclusion is people die everyday, and being God-like might be better but, being a Vampire makes me special. Satisfactory answer?

The Axiom seeks to say what a positive property is. Being a vampire would require you to kill human beings that in my view would make it a negative property means its negation not being a vampire would be a positive property.

When you die, you are granted with the power to control Mass, Time, Energy, Light, and their opposite states. You become God.

I don't see how this bares any wait on the argument. The argument is discussing a an essential property not the existence of a being. Why would any one take believe this to be true?

a reply to: imjack

Objectively speaking if everyone is God-like, it means nothing. I was only able to do this because the implications of 'God-like' means there is more than one.

If everyone exemplified that property of having those and only those attributes that where positive then everyone could be godlike but we know that the actual world is not this way.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Woodcarver

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 therfor your problem is incorrect. You are forgetting that even logic problems must have real world relevancy to come to any meaningful conclusions.

It does have real world relevancy? It shows that in the actual world the property of being Godlike is exemplified.

Your axioms are not believable, so you cannot go forward with the problem without A) proving your axioms Or B) assuming they are true

I don't see why you think i have said they are true. Sure I have been arguing in the affirmative, but i don't know where I stand on this version of the argument. You'll notice in my thread We need RESAONS for God i used a different version. i created the thread to discuss the validity of the axioms because if they are true then the theorems and its conclusion is true.

Sure, if you change the definition of godlike.

You should go about this in a different way then. First you should prove the axioms. (Which will be difficult). And prob use better terminology. Godlike a loaded word and it really doesnt fit the definition it is being forced into.

To me, the term godlike is used to say that someone or something has similar qualities as a/ god. But that is not how he uses it. ( any properties a god has are unknowable because no one can produce this fantasy being for inspection. Any claim to what properties a god has will be purely fictional. Anyone who makes these claims is undoubtably, a liar.)

So he's changing the def of the word "godlike" to describe something that has no negative qualities. In doing this, he is

A) assuming that something can exist that has no negative qualities.

B) he has arbitrarily chosen the word godlike to define this thing that he neglects to produce for inspection.

He could have just used the word positive instead of godlike, but he is simply injecting the term into this formula to draw on the imagery, and because he wants to use this formula to prove that god exists. This word problem is actually a not so clever attempt to circumvent the traditional need to provide evidence because this is the biggest obstacle that proselytizers have.

Nobody should accept these axioms as they are now. The terminology is uselessly confusing unless you are trying to be purposefully vague. Try simplifying the terminology and you will see that it leaks like a collander.

a reply to: Woodcarver

So now lets switch it up a bit to one that I actually do think is convincing, because that one is getting boring.


Now its important to remember that this is an ontological argument. Ontology is the study of being. So what this seeks to show is that by the nature of the being described in the argument it must necessarily exists. The same way one could argue that the concept of the number two must exists in all possible worlds based solely on its nature this argument seeks to do the same with a Maximally Great being. Also it is what is known as modal logic, so premises 2-5 follow logically if premise 1 is true.

Alvin Plantinga's version:

What does Plantinga mean by a Maximally Great Being(MGB)?

A maximally great being is that has those and only those properties which are great-making properties to their maximal extent.

Great making properties are those properties that it is better to have, than not to have.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being

So this is my favorite thing about this argument.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being does not exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exists, then a maximally great being does not exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in does not exists in some possible world, then it does not exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being does not exists in every possible world, then it does not exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being does not exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being does not exists.

Both forms of the argument work logically, but via law of non-contradiction both forms of the argument cannot be true as their premises contradict. So it is up to us to decide. The atheist must maintain that that the concept of a Maximally Great Being is logically impossible like the concept of a married bachelor, or a three sided square. On the other hand, I see no reason why a Maximally Great Being would be considered an incoherent notion, it seems to be an intuitively coherent. What is your position here and why?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

1. By direct relationship. Unless God-like is better than something else, it's not possible to define positive like everyone's been crying. I agree crying isn't necessary, because we understand the definition of Human. I made a distinction.

2. Being a Vampire does not mean you must kill Humans. Read what I wrote, that's all there is to it. The hypothetical is a Vampire Bites you, nothing else. Immortality has multiple applications. It's still exclusive to God-like, and inferior to the definition I gave being timeless, but potentially preferable, like you even you suggest. Thus established Eternal is not positive.

3. Death is an essential property of Human, only immortal discloses it.

4. You disprove yourself by saying everyone has the property, they do not- if so everyone would be a Vampire or Dead right now. In a round about way, you're trying to use the method I used to disprove me. Hilarious!

5. Thus an example of Death used as the notion of providing God-like quality can be shown to disprove preference if for an immortal example is offered.

It is simple, in my definition(that I'm allowed to make, only the Axiom matters like you endlessly say):
1. Everyone dies eventually
2. A Vampire does not
3. A choice must be made, and neither is preferable.

My logic in disproving the Axioms is perfect, if you want to dispute it at all you must attack the definitions:
1.Death provides the quality God-like
2.Vampires are immortal and do not die

However
3. Neither are preferable

If you disagree with definition one, that's fine with me. The Shabaka Stone is credited to being one of the oldest conceptual beleifs, and almost every religion in the world traces back to Egyptian Religion. Jesus himself has many quotes that suggests dying turns you into God.

That being said I only read the OP, but it seems to me you're trying to use this as existentialist evidence of a God, and that's not worth disputing at all, as the implications are ONLY about the possibility of God-like creatures. The answer in short is that nothing can be God-like, the implications of God alone is that there is generally only one, and this is a perfect example of why nothing(else) can be God-like.

Even in Greek Myths with many Gods, there is no "God of everything" you have the God of War, the God of Love, the God of Commerce and none of them are matched.

If you even think this can close to a spiritual discussion you are wrong. The Axioms ARE disproven, this is a GOOD thing for someone religious in my understanding. It means NOTHING is as powerful as God, however again, it's not even disputable about the topic being about God when God-like is an adjective, and that's how it became so easy to create an objective answer.

If it's preferable to be God(noun), that's a whole different can of worms on its own. Probably also disproven, as people would have different choices:
1. Be God
2. Being doted on by God

That alone to me seems to make neither preferable.

a reply to: imjack
Anyway, the whole thing is a clever trap designed by Godel for Atheist to attempt to disprove the Axioms, unknowingly aiding the arguement for an all-powerful being.

If you disagree with his definition of God-like, that's really the only place to 'win' but just like me he tackles that objectively with evidence of God-like qualities from the past so the simplest arguement is "No." to his definition, and his conjecture would be similar to mine "lulz, but I just used what history said". It objectively is useless in proving God, but perfect reasoning for why God-like is simply a bunk word in the first place, similar to other things that there can only be one of.

If you're the best, nothing is like you, you're the best.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

1). It is possible that you are a ham sandwich named Harry Ridgeback.

2) if it is possible that you are a ham sandwich, in some possible world, then it is possible that you are a ham sandwich in every possible world.


Again, word problems must have real world relevancy. They still need evidence for them to work. Why don't you simply produce the evidence that convinced you that gods exist. It must have been empirically convincing for you to shape your entire world view around this belief. So where is the evidence that convinced you? If there was no empirical evidence, then why do you believe?


As an atheist, i can have the position that gods are possible but extremely unlikely. So unlikely as not to believe. I do not need to be a 100% denier of the possiblity that gods could exist. But when we look at traditional examples of known god concepts, i can be 100% sure that Thor was never a real entity. Likewise with Zeus, jesus, Mithra, Osirus, and the others.

It is still possible that something has attributes that i would consider "godlike" but it wouldn't match any example of a god that we have seen in books so far.

This list is more logically sound, however, you can replace "maximal being" with "ham sandwich", and it still works. So it has no real world relevancy. Again!!

Or did i just prove you are possibly a ham sandwhich? I will assume that that probability is low, so low as to not believe in it.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It is still possible that something has attributes that i would consider "godlike" but it wouldn't match any example of a god that we have seen in books so far.

Sorry but objectively, it's not. Even if something had EVERY attribute of God, the attribute that makes God, God, is always unmatched. This is in Godels definition.

Assuming you met Aliens 'stronger' than God this would be still possible, but their attributes would be measured in a method that discounts the fact our "God" is best at something they are not.

Read my last post disproving the Axioms only supports nothing can be "like" God.

a reply to: imjack


It depends on what the godlike attributes are. You are only reffering to the christian god. There are thousands of proposed gods though. It doesn't need to be the attribute of omnipotentcy. It could be some other invented attribute.

Either way you are technically correct.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I agree, but I'm just saying your arguement is only valid if he's THE BEST ham sandwich, and it's able to be measured. The God of Sandwiches.

The Greek examples are the best though. Is Zeus stronger than Hermies? Sure. Does this mean Hermies is not a God? No.

Strength means nothing. Godlike means superior attribute, but the being that has it is simply God, so "God-like" is a meaningless term. Especially on its own. It's a comparative form of speech.

It was Godels intention to prove that. Sure it has religious implications, but he by all means used an Atheist approach.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This is above my security clearance..

a reply to: imjack

2. Being a Vampire does not mean you must kill Humans. Read what I wrote, that's all there is to it. The hypothetical is a Vampire Bites you, nothing else. Immortality has multiple applications. It's still exclusive to God-like, and inferior to the definition I gave being timeless, but potentially preferable, like you even you suggest. Thus established Eternal is not positive.

The definition of Godlike does not imply that other things cannot share some of its positive properties unless for some reason having that property implies your the only one that has it. Now in your situation with the Vampire you seem to be equating the property of immortality(never able to die) with eternal(no beginning no end). You could be created immortal but that doesn't necessarily entail the property of timelessness.

What are you claiming is exclusive to being Godlike?

I don't see how you have established that the property of being eternal is not positive. Immortal maybe but not Eternal.

3. Death is an essential property of Human, only immortal discloses it.

I would argue that there is no reason to assume that the property of being immortal is necessarily exemplified by anything. A vampire is a contingent being. It does not exists in all possible worlds and there is no reason to believe that they can exists in the actual world.

4. You disprove yourself by saying everyone has the property, they do not- if so everyone would be a Vampire or Dead right now. In a round about way, you're trying to use the method I used to disprove me. Hilarious!

I never said everyone has the property. I said if it was the case that everyone had those and only those properties which are positive then everyone could be classified as Godlike. This is not however shown to be the case in the actual world.

5. Thus an example of Death used as the notion of providing God-like quality can be shown to disprove preference if for an immortal example is offered.

Ok but you have arbitrarily decided that Humans become Godlike when they die. You have given no rational argument that shows this must be the case in the actual world necessarily. It has no backing in logic and reason or empirical evidence. So unless you can provide that I don't see how any of this holds any weight .

Thus an example of Death used as the notion of providing God-like quality can be shown to disprove preference if for an immortal example is offered.

A hypothetical situation that is just made up and has no reason to be considered true is not a refutation .Nothing about the ontology of Death or Being human implies that Godlikeness is given to a human after death. In fact the idea would be logically impossible if you consider omnipotence a positive property. Two things cannot logically be omnipotent so two people could not logically exemplify Godlikeness.

If a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents were even possible, then possibly, at a time, t, some omnipotent agent, x, while retaining its omnipotence, endeavors to move a feather, and at t, another omnipotent agent, y, while retaining its omnipotence, endeavors to keep that feather motionless. Intuitively, in this case, neither x nor y would affect the feather as to its motion or rest. Thus, in this case, at t, x would be powerless to move the feather, and at t, y would be powerless to keep the feather motionless! But it is absurd to suppose that an omnipotent agent could lack the power to move a feather or the power to keep it motionless. Therefore, neither x nor y is omnipotent. This line of reasoning appears to reduce the notion of a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents to absurdity.

plato.stanford.edu...

It is simple, in my definition(that I'm allowed to make, only the Axiom matters like you endlessly say):

I say only the axioms matter because a symbolic proof was done by Godel. If you accept those axioms it shows based on the ontology of the property he has defined that it is necessarily exemplified in the actual world via the four theorems. You can't just state that an argument holds logically based on the axioms thats not how formal logic works lol.

1. Everyone dies eventually 2. A Vampire does not 3. A choice must be made, and neither is preferable.

Are these supposed to be axioms of premises?

1.Death provides the quality God-like 2.Vampires are immortal and do not die

I would argue that if something is Godlike the Vampires are not actually immortal as a Godlike being would be able to remove an immortal being from existence. Death and absent of existing are entirely different things. I would also argue there is no reason to believe Vampires exists in the actual world, and I would also argue that there is no reason to believe death provides the quality of being Godlike and in fact there are reasons to think the idea is contradictory.

Sorry buddy don't think you've disproven anything lol.

If you disagree with his definition of God-like, that's really the only place to 'win' but just like me he tackles that objectively with evidence of God-like qualities from the past so the simplest arguement is "No." to his definition, and his conjecture would be similar to mine "lulz, but I just used what history said". It objectively is useless in proving God, but perfect reasoning for why God-like is simply a bunk word in the first place, similar to other things that there can only be one of.

You cannot disagree with his definition the moment you do that any argument you bring up will be a strawman fallacy. He is arguing for a particular type of property if you change the property of course the argument won't work...