"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"

[TheHeretic]

Gaspode said:

ritch7 said:

Wide open for attack there, potholes everywhere... And im on neither side.

Indeed. And it's constructed using the precepts as the ontological "proof" for the existence of god.

The 'holes' were the point.

[Gaspode]

mattnunn said:

have a go at kurt godel's ontological proof...

go on try it... you might like it. he's the greatest logician in history, do your atheist texts not teach you these things?

I'm with Russell on this. For me, the weakness in such arguments is that they start with an underlying intent "I must find a way to prove that god exists", and they do so by conflating ideas of perfection / 'goodness' with existence.

The fundamental argument is that 'good' exists because we can observe it, therefore something that is maximally good must exist, this is a necessary truth, so therefore god (who is maximally good) exists.

Godel dresses it up very cleverly, and it's beyond me to attempt a formal disproof. All I can do, like Russell, is to be dissatisfied with it. My dissatisfaction is that actually Godel is
still basing his proof on an assumption - that necessary being is positive. He's taking a formal logical logical construct (that of necessary existence) and conflating it with with notion of positive qualities, which to my mind is a subjective artefact of consciousness.

[Jabbah]

1) If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist then no being could be maximally great
2) It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
3) Therefore a maximally great being does not exist.

Why are we arguing about these logical "proofs". It’s obviously just intellectual logical masturbation. Surely no one actually believes that a set of logical statements written down can actually provide concrete proof for anything outside of logic or mathematics?

[Strangely Brown]

And then, off the page to the right, you have ChrisGB and mattnunn, who have transcended this earthly realm and exist in the world of woo.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Tuesday 2nd October 14:23

[TwigtheWonderkid]

There's a million arguments in favour of there being no god, but only one argument in favour of a god, that being it's hard to see how Cliff Richard has sustained a successful 50yr career without divine intervention.

[IainT]

Jabbah said:

1) If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist then no being could be maximally great
2) It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
3) Therefore a maximally great being does not exist.

Why are we arguing about these logical "proofs". It’s obviously just intellectual logical masturbation. Surely no one actually believes that a set of logical statements written down can actually provide concrete proof for anything outside of logic or mathematics?

If the axioms are well-founded and the application of logic is correct then it can and is useful in proving things. Much of science is done like this with experimentation used to verify and find practical uses.

The problem with the OA and variants has been well documented - it is built on false axioms.

[fluffnik]

ChrisGB said:

As for unsupportable guff, feel free to investigate.

I have been, hence my conclusion that it is indeed for unsupportable guff...

ChrisGB said:

By definition means that the word God implies various things - simple, spiritual, eternal, not contingent etc. being a necessary being is just what people mean when they say god in this tradition.

Defining something does not conjure it into existence nor make it necessary.

We know that the Universe exists and that it is necessary for us, as component parts, to do anything.

ChrisGB said:

You would need to show that people are wrong to get to this idea of god for the syllogism not to work, wouldn't you?

We could show that the axioms ain't; and we can, easily...

ChrisGB said:

For all those quoting FSM, please think about what inherently good properties might be. Is flying or spaghetti part of that? If not, and you take the challenge seriously, you will still just end up with qualities you would ascribe to "what theists mean by God" even if you won't use that word.

Noodly goodness looks like goodness to me!

Do you think the FSM or IPU or Ahura Mazda are less credible than the Abrahamic god?

Even though Ahura Mazda is by all accounts more maximally good?

[mattnunn]

Gaspode said:

mattnunn said:

have a go at kurt godel's ontological proof...

go on try it... you might like it. he's the greatest logician in history, do your atheist texts not teach you these things?

I'm with Russell on this. For me, the weakness in such arguments is that they start with an underlying intent "I must find a way to prove that god exists", and they do so by conflating ideas of perfection / 'goodness' with existence.

The fundamental argument is that 'good' exists because we can observe it, therefore something that is maximally good must exist, this is a necessary truth, so therefore god (who is maximally good) exists.

Godel dresses it up very cleverly, and it's beyond me to attempt a formal disproof. All I can do, like Russell, is to be dissatisfied with it. My dissatisfaction is that actually Godel is
still basing his proof on an assumption - that necessary being is positive. He's taking a formal logical logical construct (that of necessary existence) and conflating it with with notion of positive qualities, which to my mind is a subjective artefact of consciousness.

Well you might be correct, at least you've given it some thought and not rejected it out of predjudice.

Russel actually said of Godel's proof, "The argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."

But this is logic.

Which leads me to think that perhaps truth can not be defined as a mere examination of qualities and properties.

[mattnunn]

IainT said:

Jabbah said:

1) If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist then no being could be maximally great
2) It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
3) Therefore a maximally great being does not exist.

Why are we arguing about these logical "proofs". It’s obviously just intellectual logical masturbation. Surely no one actually believes that a set of logical statements written down can actually provide concrete proof for anything outside of logic or mathematics?

If the axioms are well-founded and the application of logic is correct then it can and is useful in proving things. Much of science is done like this with experimentation used to verify and find practical uses.

The problem with the OA and variants has been well documented - it is built on false axioms.

These are the Axioms of Godel's proof

Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property thus: "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995)
If a property A entails a property B (ie in every possible world if an object has property A it must also have property B), and if A is positive, B must also be positive.
We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying "the positive properties form a principal ultrafilter"):

Axiom 2: For all properties A, either A is positive or "not A" is positive. Never both.
Axiom 3: The property of "being God-like", G is a positive property.
Axiom 4: If a property A is positive, then it is so in every possible world.
Finally, we assume:

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm's argument.

Tell me which one of these is false.

Don't make up your own words, don't put words into the mouth of others, read the axioms above and address where the fallacy lies.

[Timsta]

mattnunn said:

These are the Axioms of Godel's proof

Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property thus: "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995)
If a property A entails a property B (ie in every possible world if an object has property A it must also have property B), and if A is positive, B must also be positive.
We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying "the positive properties form a principal ultrafilter"):

Axiom 2: For all properties A, either A is positive or "not A" is positive. Never both.
Axiom 3: The property of "being God-like", G is a positive property.
Axiom 4: If a property A is positive, then it is so in every possible world.
Finally, we assume:

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm's argument.

Tell me which one of these is false.

Don't make up your own words, don't put words into the mouth of others, read the axioms above and address where the fallacy lies.

Blimey, many of those are wrong:

Axiom 1: Properties of properties. let's take legs. Legs are a good thing to have. Sprinter's legs are fast (good), but will buckle under weight (bad). Weightlifter's legs are strong (good), but not quick(bad.) So, it depends on your definition of good.

Axiom 2: See my argument for Axiom 1. Something that is "good" can also be bad. A weightlifter won't outrun a predator, no matter how "good" his legs are. So, they are good for strength, but bad for speed.

Axiom 3: Being god like is a negative property. (Coming from an ex-youth pastor) "He" has the "power" to right everything in the world, but doesn't? Not a good thing.

Axioum 4: A positive property in this world isn't good in every world. Why would it be? Id there were only enough resources left on earth for 2 people and there was 1 woman and 5 men left, what would you do? Suddenly all the "good" would go out the window. Good is defined by how we live as a community in the current circumstances.

Axiom 5: Define "Necessary existence."

[mattnunn]

Timsta said:

Blimey, many of those are wrong:

Axiom 1: Properties of properties. let's take legs. Legs are a good thing to have. Sprinter's legs are fast (good), but will buckle under weight (bad). Weightlifter's legs are strong (good), but not quick(bad.) So, it depends on your definition of good.

Fail- no need to continue, read the Axiom again, no mention of "good" - he very clearly defines "positive"

[IainT]

mattnunn said:

Don't make up your own words, don't put words into the mouth of others, read the axioms above and address where the fallacy lies.

You can cut and paste from Wikipedia yet you fail to read and understand the various counters and criticisms raised by the likes of Kant.

As for 'making up my own words', what an accusation from the master of talking utter bks.

[mattnunn]

IainT said:

mattnunn said:

Don't make up your own words, don't put words into the mouth of others, read the axioms above and address where the fallacy lies.

You can cut and paste from Wikipedia yet you fail to read and understand the various counters and criticisms raised by the likes of Kant.

As for 'making up my own words', what an accusation from the master of talking utter bks.

Kant died 100 years before Godel was born. I do hope this helps. I'll happilly discuss his Critique of pure Reason if you wish to invoke a particular line of enquiry, although I doubt you do, he was very big on the idea of time and space being materially unreal. Either way it's not relevant here.

[Timsta]

mattnunn said:

These are the Axioms of Godel's proof

Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property thus: "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995)
If a property A entails a property B (ie in every possible world if an object has property A it must also have property B), and if A is positive, B must also be positive.
We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying "the positive properties form a principal ultrafilter"):

Axiom 2: For all properties A, either A is positive or "not A" is positive. Never both.
Axiom 3: The property of "being God-like", G is a positive property.
Axiom 4: If a property A is positive, then it is so in every possible world.
Finally, we assume:

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm's argument.

Tell me which one of these is false.

Don't make up your own words, don't put words into the mouth of others, read the axioms above and address where the fallacy lies.

Ok, I'll try again...

Axiom 1: Properties of properties. let's take legs. Legs are a positive thing to have. Sprinter's legs are fast (positive), but will buckle under weight (negative). Weightlifter's legs are strong (positive), but not quick(negative.) So, it depends on your definition of positive.

Axiom 2: See my argument for Axiom 1. Something that is "positive" can also be "negative," it depends on what you are using to define "positive."" A weightlifter won't outrun a predator, no matter how "good" his legs are. So, they are positive for strength, but negative for speed.

Axiom 3: Being god like is a negative property. (Coming from an ex-youth pastor) "He" has the "power" to right everything in the world, but doesn't? Not a positive thing.

Axioum 4: A positive property in this world isn't positive in every world. Why would it be? Id there were only enough resources left on earth for 2 people and there was 1 woman and 5 men left, what would you do? Suddenly all the "positive" would go out the window. Good is defined by how we live as a community in the current circumstances.

Axiom 5: Define "Necessary existence."

[mattnunn]

Timsta said:

Ok, I'll try again...

Axiom 1: Properties of properties. let's take legs. Legs are a positive thing to have. Sprinter's legs are fast (positive), but will buckle under weight (negative). Weightlifter's legs are strong (positive), but not quick(negative.) So, it depends on your definition of positive.

Ok, there is only one definition of positive, this is logic not language, there is a difference, language is reasonably arbitrary, forget language, let's deal with the logic.

So let's take let's take legs (human legs, not table legs, you see immediatly why language confuses)

Legs have a property - Bone. Bone is a positive property of legs, it is an attribute but also in the first definition it is also a positive aesthetic of a leg.

Strong, week etc... are not properties of a leg as you succesfully argued, if they were properties of leg they would be applicable to all legs, which as you argued they are not....

Do you see?

This is what is meant in the Axiom - If a property A entails a property B (ie in every possible world if an object has property A it must also have property B), and if A is positive, B must also be positive.

If leg has property A (Bone) it must also have property B (Calcium) and if A is positive by entailing B calcium is also positive.

Making sense?

[IainT]

mattnunn said:

Kant died 100 years before Godel was born. I do hope this helps. I'll happilly discuss his Critique of pure Reason if you wish to invoke a particular line of enquiry, although I doubt you do, he was very big on the idea of time and space being materially unreal. Either way it's not relevant here.

Goedel's OA suffers from the same basic flaws that Anselm's does. Sorry if that concept passed you by, I'll type slower next time.

[mattnunn]

IainT said:

mattnunn said:

Kant died 100 years before Godel was born. I do hope this helps. I'll happilly discuss his Critique of pure Reason if you wish to invoke a particular line of enquiry, although I doubt you do, he was very big on the idea of time and space being materially unreal. Either way it's not relevant here.

Goedel's OA suffers from the same basic flaws that Anselm's does. Sorry if that concept passed you by, I'll type slower next time.

Which is what? Are you sure it's a logical flaw and not just a difference of opinion?

[Jabbah]

mattnunn said:

These are the Axioms of Godel's proof

Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property thus: "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995)
If a property A entails a property B (ie in every possible world if an object has property A it must also have property B), and if A is positive, B must also be positive.
We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying "the positive properties form a principal ultrafilter"):

Axiom 2: For all properties A, either A is positive or "not A" is positive. Never both.
Axiom 3: The property of "being God-like", G is a positive property.
Axiom 4: If a property A is positive, then it is so in every possible world.
Finally, we assume:

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm's argument.

Tell me which one of these is false.

Don't make up your own words, don't put words into the mouth of others, read the axioms above and address where the fallacy lies.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)).

As an axiom why is that so evident to be true without controversy? I disagree with that axiom. Firstly why is it positive (where is the actual definition of positive in Godels actual proof btw?) and secondly why Necessary? It is basically creating an argument like: I want something to exist, so I will imagine it has a property that says it has to exist, therefore it must exist. No, all you've done is prove that an imaginary object exists in your imagination with an imaginary property of necessary existance.

Edited by Jabbah on Tuesday 2nd October 16:52

[IainT]

mattnunn said:

IainT said:

mattnunn said:

Kant died 100 years before Godel was born. I do hope this helps. I'll happily discuss his Critique of pure Reason if you wish to invoke a particular line of enquiry, although I doubt you do, he was very big on the idea of time and space being materially unreal. Either way it's not relevant here.

Gödel's OA suffers from the same basic flaws that Anselm's does. Sorry if that concept passed you by, I'll type slower next time.

Which is what? Are you sure it's a logical flaw and not just a difference of opinion?

The logical flaws in the OA have been covered, Kant's particular disagreement is covered on Wikipedia.

Let's look at Axiom 1, it stands on Gödel's definition of "positive properties" which, he goes on to define, according to wiki, as "positive in the moral aesthetic sense".

Given, as has been discussed above, it's possible to show properties that are context-dependant the assertion is doubtful at best.


If we look at the OA (in General) it proves that God, while being maximally-great is also maximally imperfect. Any negative traits (or to Gödel it) traits that are negative in the moral aesthetic sense that exist must have their origin in the creator of all things. For a trait to exist in some partial sense it must also exist maximally. Thus the source of all things must be maximally imperfect.

The Ontological Argument is the victim of itself. Its proof is also its contradiction which shows it to be logically false.

[mattnunn]

Jabbah said:

mattnunn said:

These are the Axioms of Godel's proof

Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property thus: "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995)
If a property A entails a property B (ie in every possible world if an object has property A it must also have property B), and if A is positive, B must also be positive.
We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying "the positive properties form a principal ultrafilter"):

Axiom 2: For all properties A, either A is positive or "not A" is positive. Never both.
Axiom 3: The property of "being God-like", G is a positive property.
Axiom 4: If a property A is positive, then it is so in every possible world.
Finally, we assume:

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm's argument.

Tell me which one of these is false.

Don't make up your own words, don't put words into the mouth of others, read the axioms above and address where the fallacy lies.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)).

As an axiom why is that so evident to be true without controversy? I disagree with that axiom. Firstly why is it positive (where is the actual definition of positive in Godels actual proof btw?) and secondly why Necessary? It is basically creating an argument like: I want something to exist, so I will imagine it has a property that says it has to exist, therefore it must exist. No, all you've done is prove that an imaginary object exists with an imaginary property of necessary existance.

Again this is a failure of language, or more correctly a failure of modal logic to operate outside of language and still be acceptable in everyday conversation.

Your essentially misunderstanding the term necessary in the context of modal logic or as it's used in philosophy, it's essentially a reciprocal of contingency, i.e a truth that comes before rather than as a result of something. i.e there is a truth that is necessary for existence (be it whatever) rather than existence creating a truth. The later being far more circular than the former because is truth is contingent than you have to ask yourself what is it the result of?

All axiom 5 is saying is that there must be, modally, something necessary rather than something that was simply possible.

But I'm glad the philosophy, science and religion are holding fast their bonds.