/sci/ - Science & Math

Yea well too bad Gödel was mentally crazy in his later years.

That proof is logically a fallacy. Gödel, I am dispoint.

I can't read formal logic. Explain in Engrish plox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof#Critique_of_definitions_and_axioms

>>1216505

godel, like feynman, was of little consequence

>>1216561
inb4

Essentially this is the proof:

God exists.
I said so.
Therefore god exists, otherwise, I wouldn't say so.
Checkmate.

It's funny how all illiterates finds anything legit as long as it contains some functions, symbols and operators they can't follow.

>>1216622
Checkmate indeed, atheists!

wikipedia says it's essentially... "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." which is bullshit.

The jist of it is:

1. God is good.
2. To exist is good.
3. Therefore, God exists.

No, srsly, that's it. Don't let the fancy formal logic scare you, existence is not even considered a property per se in actual logic (as opposed to modal logic, which is used here).

"Gödel would not publish because he was afraid that others might think "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)."[1]" from that same wiki article

>>1216663
Well, it's really more like "God is perfect. To be perfect, you have to exist. Ergo, god exists."

Yes, it is a completely bullshit idea.

>>1216663
MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

Observe:
>Christian
-This Pizza is delicious! A skilled cook must have made it.
-I concur!

>Atheist
-This Pizza is delicious! A skilled cook must have ma-
-YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT!

Can someone explain to me this?

"Religions are, for the most part, bad -- but religion is not."

...What the fuck? Religions are bad, but religion is not?

...What the fuck?

Do any of you remember a delicious rage thread early in /sci/'s history involving a christian blog and a gross misinterpretation of this theory?

Great stuff.

lrn2Plantinga

inb4 epicurean paradox in formal language

funny that no one who buys this shit also buys into plato's Ideas

>>1216680

>>1216680
substitute the second "religion" with "faith" to get the general gist of it

>>1216680

I think they mean to say that the intention behind religion is good.

But so is the intention behind the idea of... Communism.

>>1216680
little r religon

>>1216708
>Communism
le gasp!

The odor coming from my urine is my god.

May my piss have mercy on you all.

>>1216671

We're not talking about pizzas here. We're talking about rocks. Just because a rock is pretty, doesn't mean someone made the rock. Your metaphor skills need work.

just a gues (gess)?

>>1216671
Observe:
>Christian
-This Pizza is delicious! A skilled cook must have made it.
-I concur!

>Atheist
-This Pizza is delicious! A skilled cook must have ma-
-That's not delivery, it's DiGiorno.