Gödel's ontological proof

provide a contradiction to it or counterexample to disprove it completely, or else the creationists win(sort of... not really lol)

Other urls found in this thread:

yourbias.is/confirmation-bias
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The ontological arguments are too strong. God is real, but that doesn't mean any religion is true.

>2018
>modal logic
ISHYGDDT

Alright, I did it. What do i win?

So what you're saying is the creationists win?

First explain to me how this piece of logic proves the existence of gods. For I don't see it.

A simplified version by dana scott

A1 Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both:
∀φ[P(¬φ) ≡ ¬P(φ)]
A2 A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive:
∀φ∀ψ[(P(φ) ∧ !∀x[φ(x) ⊃ ψ(x)]) ⊃ P(ψ)]
T1 Positive properties are possibly exemplified:
∀φ[P(φ) ⊃ !∃xφ(x)]
D1 A God-like being possesses all positive properties:
G(x) ≡ ∀φ[P(φ) ⊃ φ(x)]
A3 The property of being God-like is positive: P(G)
C Possibly, God exists: !∃xG(x)
A4 Positive properties are necessarily positive:
∀φ[P(φ) ⊃ ! P(φ)]
D2 An essence of an individual is a property possessed by it and
necessarily implying any of its properties:
φ ess. x ≡ φ(x) ∧ ∀ψ(ψ(x) ⊃ !∀y(φ(y) ⊃ ψ(y)))
T2 Being God-like is an essence of any God-like being:
∀x[G(x) ⊃ G ess. x]
D3 Necessary existence of an individ. is the necessary exemplifi-
cation of all its essences: NE(x) ≡ ∀φ[φ ess. x ⊃ !∃yφ(y)]
A5 Necessary existence is a positive property: P(NE)
T3 Necessarily, God exists: !∃xG(x)

Cathy please go

>"proving" something about the real world

I mean the truth doesn't explicitly state anything besides "god" exists, which could be anything really. This is more a cause for a cross-religion boxing match with the loose interpretation of whatever is the "positive property" being the subject to bicker over.

If Earth stood still, it would have mid-day, mid-night, sun-up and sun-down as 4 corners. Each rotation of earth has 4 mid-days, 4 mid-nights, 4 sun-ups and 4 sun-downs.
The sixteen(16) space times demonstrates cube proof of 4 full days simultaneously on earth within one (1) rotation. The academia created 1 day greenwich time is bastardly queer and dooms future youth and nature to a hell.
Ignorance of 4 day harmonic cubic nature indicts humans as unfit to live on earth.

>A1 Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both:
>A2 A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive:
>A3 The property of being God-like is positive: P(G)
>A4 Positive properties are necessarily positive:
>A5 Necessary existence is a positive property: P(NE)
Okay -- so what is P, exactly?

Is P some abstract notion we are developing here, from scratch, for sake of proving something expressed NOT in terms of P (just a proof-logistical vehicle)?

Or is it supposed to correspond to any particular intuition?

In case of the former, then we had better end up with a conclusion that is NOT specified in terms of P. For I don't know what P means, so any theorems about P mean very little to me. This is a legitimate operation, but it needs to end in a theorem not involving P.

In case of the latter, then I'd like to know what that intuition is; and more importantly, I would like some justification for the axioms above, for for the moment I do not understand where they are coming from.

>D1 A God-like being possesses all positive properties:
Okay. This has nothing to do with the usual notion of gods, of course. It's just a definition with a suggestive name.

>T3 Necessarily, God exists: !∃xG(x)
In other words: there is an x such that all positive properties hold for it.

Working under the assumption that positiveness is an abstract property for the sake of the proof, we have: (1) assumed a bunch of properties of the property P, which may or may not be consistent; and then (2) have proven, under these assumptions, that there is an x such that Q(x) for all Q with P(Q).

I don't see what this has to do with gods. In fact, I don't see how it has any relevant meaning at all, since P was some notion we constructed for the sake of the proof, with no outside relevance.

Unless of course P is supposed to represent some existing intuition. If so, what would it be? And what argument is there for axioms A1 .. A5?

It has been shown that Gödel's system is inconsistent.

t. Fr. Roger Bacon

where?

Okay, my argument evolved as I wrote it out and I'm pretty sure it's wrong somewhere, but let's see what you think:

from A1 (∀φ[P(¬φ) ≡ ¬P(φ)]) and D1 (G(x) ≡ ∀φ[P(φ) ⊃ φ(x)]) we get:

P1 ¬G(x) ≡ ¬∀φ[P(φ) ⊃ φ(x)] (D1, ME)
P2 ¬G(x) ≡ ∃φ[¬φ(x) ∧ P(φ)]
P3 ¬G(x) ≡ ∃φ[¬φ(x) ∧ ¬¬P(φ)] (DN)
C1 ¬G(x) ≡ ∃φ[¬φ(x) ∧ ¬P(¬φ)] (A1)


P4 ∃ψ[¬G(ψ) ∧ ∃x∀y[ψ(x) ∧ P(x) ∧ y=x]] ⊃ (P(ψ) ∧ ¬P(ψ))

it seems that the existence of something with a singular positive property (e.g. some very specific good action) causes a contradiction an the defenition of a god-like being and axiom 1.


Otherwise, refer to the usual argument about necessary existence not being a positive property.

>Okay. This has nothing to do with the usual notion of gods, of course. It's just a definition with a suggestive name.
this

>I can read the proof in modal logic symbolic notation and understand almost all of it
A-am I becoming autistic?

no it means you're getting a basic understanding of advanced math

Where is it shown?

>be unironic, srs fedora, sincerely reject the idea of god on intellectual grounds and personally, emotionally hate the idea in addition to this

>tfw the proof gets consistently verified in multiple ways by various proof-checking software in the coming years

>tfw forced to massively rethink my worldview - but I'm still constitutionally unhappy, and not contrite in doing so (my heart remains hard becuase that's how I'm wired)

Why you gotta hate the Big Guy?

All available experience and data are telling me, on balance, that he's a dick.

>All available experience and data
yourbias.is/confirmation-bias

> He doesn't know about Alvin Plantinga
> He doesn't know that Plantinga's modal logic argument for the existence of God does not rely upon existence being a positive property
Repent

>plantinga's argument is so bad I ignored it in my statement about ontological arguments.

On Veeky Forums this has to be bait, it fails the dummy test for ontological arguments for god, that is, use it to prove multiple omnipotent beings. (or anything else if it's especially weak)

>necessary existence is a positive property
this is the stupidest axiom I have ever seen
people commit suicide. come on.