/sci/ - Science & Math

logic: garbage in, garbage out

>>12271748
>the worst axioms you can imagine

where are the atheist logical disproofs for God?

>>12273565
There are several but they all rely on tertium non datur.

>>12271748
>5 axioms
You don't even need that many to do calculus

>>12273599
You need way more than 5 axioms to do calculus.

>>12273606
6?

>god exists because existing is in his definition
oh shit, I didn't realize that, I guess I have to believe in god now

>>12273719
7 at least.

>>12273724
That's cool anon. I've never actually seen an atheist converted by such an argument before but I guess there's a first time for everything!

>>12271748
I appreciate your attempt at logically proving the existence of our Lord and Savior the holy Christ, son of God and mother Mary the virgin, but you're not helping your case by not grouping all those axioms at the beginning of the proof.

>>12273724
I bet your tiny atheist brain exploded at such elegant proof, but don't worry not everyone can be a master logician.

>>12273565
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
If you had such a disproof then it would be considered a trick of the Devil.
In other words, a reason to believe the Devil doesn't exist is evidence in support of his existence.
Now, I think it is possible to argue that the Devil could pull a greater trick by convincing the world that he doesn't exist by using the activity of suppression and repression. In other words create so much evidence for his existence that people simply repress it away, imagining the world to be free of the Devil.

>>12273784
this is just descartes' argument for god from meditations written differently
even philosophers know it's bullshit

I just checked the proof in Coq and it is true, valid and correct. Redditors BTFO

>>12273818
It's valid alright. It just doesn't mean what you think it means. Specifically, it means basically nothing.

>reddit can't into sacred higher order modal logic

>>12271748
Stop shilling this bs. Everyone knows this is just a rehash.

Come home science man

>>12273784
Newton was into alchemy and Godel was into having shitty axioms and defining a content-free word-salad as "God", everybody has their vices and no intellect is perfect.

>>12273725
My uncle worked for Nintendo and they did calc with just 3

>>12273784
D3,A5: If a property is the essence of an individual, that individual exists.

That's funny.

# Deriving some consequences:
Let's pose the following definition: F is an individual having at least one negative property as well as an essence.
From (D3,A5), F necessarily exists, and his negative property as well. But that's not possible, because (D3,A5) is a positive property and can't imply the existence of a negative property (A2). So there's a contradiction.
Two solutions:
- Individuals with at least one negative property can't exist.
- Individuals with at least one negative property can't have an essence. So the set of their properties can't be implied by a single property. But the existence of an individual implies the existence of his properties, so necessarily the existence of an individual is not a property of said individual. Properties characterize individuals, so this individual is not characterized by his existence. And therefore he doesn't logically exist.

#Conclusion:
Individuals with at least one negative property don't exist. So only positive properties can be exemplified.
Therefore the world can only be populated with individuals possessing positive properties exclusively.

#Bonus round:
All individuals that have an essence and any combination of positive properties, actually exist (D3,A5).
So the world is exclusively populated with individuals exhibiting all possible combination of positive properties.

Lmao

Greatest logician of the 20th century, admired by everyone from Von Neumann and Turing to Einstein, faculty at the IAS.

What have the fedoras in this thread done with their lives? Moreover what has ANY fedora done to compare? Love how science these days is edgelords like black science guy while real thinkers like Newton, Godel, Clerk Maxwell, etc. were all theists.

>>12273818
>>12271789

>>12274080
>>12274123
It's legitimately really interesting how such a distinguished expert could have made such an embarrassing schoolboy error in this "proof". He must have been able to see clearly why his proof was bunk, and yet he presumably thought it was legitimate. Is this the corrupting power of religion?

>>12274123
>What have the fedoras in this thread done with their lives?
I logically proved that his ontological argument has funny implications
>>12274080

Does that count as ridiculing? Did I just ridiculed Gödel, the father of logic? I guess that depends on whether or not he believed in his ontological argument.

>>12274123
>>12274123
Newton supposedly spent more time studying the bible than he worked on physics/math. It's truly a tragic thing that science is now being grouped with atheism.

Let science be as is. Unless scientists have the actual tools to deal with religion and metaphysics - stick to your domain and stop mixing oranges with apples.

Scientism is a real thing.

>>12273565
>God is a supreme being
>there can be only one Supreme being, otherwise they wouldnt be supreme
>most religions feature a god who is the supreme being
>since there cannot be more than one supreme being, and there cannot be a god equal or superior to the God of any given religion, there is no supreme being.
God is a supreme being, therefore there is no God.

>>12273784
did he prove that these axioms are consistent?

>>12274080
Based reductio ad absurdanon
I'm pretty sure even though gödel believed in god he just made this axiom system for keks and giggles

>>12274152
>It's truly a tragic thing that science is now being grouped with atheism.
No, it's truly a tragic thing that Newton wasted so much of his time on religion. At least we know better now.

>Unless scientists have the actual tools to deal with religion and metaphysics
We do.

>Scientism is a real thing.
Absolutely. A very correct thing.

>Let science be as is.
Indeed.

>>12274172
Of course not.

>>12273795
Circular logic. You’re presupposing the Devil’s existence as a condition to prove his existence.

>>12274171
*Deism blocks your path*

>>12273784
are these axioms consistent?

>>12273784
is that Adam Friedland from cumtown?

>>12274080
Did Godel know he was making a bullshit argument then?

>>12274080
how are those consequences absurd?
you just proved soft-solipsism

I actually came the exact same conclusions independently
but through quantum physics instead:
the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment
shows that any finite measurement not just ceases to
exist, but NEVER exists in the first place.
the system behaves as if it had always been in
superposition without ever being out of superposition

so only immortal beings can ever escape superposition
and the things measured BY immortal beings
(like the mortals/environment around them)

it's also true that anything an immortal interacts with
will affect that immortal for the rest of their life
because if it didn't, that interaction would be "washed out"
by the proceeding eons and new interactions
which would be equivalent to a quantum eraser and
the interaction would have never actualized to beginwith.

>>12271748
>ctrl + f
>kant
>0 results
Hmmm, Kant btfo's ontological arguments by simply claiming, Existence isn't a predicate.

>>12275047
>how are those consequences absurd?
I never implied that. I'm aware I didn't prove a self contradiction.
I said the consequences were funny because they would clash with many axioms defined as true by many people (especially religious ones), like the shared sentiment that negative properties actually exist in this world.

>>12275376
Kant was being a huge faggot when he said that.
His main argument is that if existence existed as a property of an object, it would bring nothing of value to said object. That's false, because if an object exists, it implies that all its properties (and only those) exist, so the property of existence of an object is a property that implies the existence of all its properties. Hardly useless.
And if existence wasn't a property, what else would it be then in first order logic? A special case? Something isolated from the rest of the theory?
Kant wasn't a logician, he was a theologian. You have to be extra cautious about anything he said, because he said a lot of stupid things.

>>12273784
Hegel's Science of Logic addresses precisely this ontological argument according to which God is conceived as the "sum of all positive realities" in the section on Determinate Being. Godel's "proof" is ironically a thing only among pretentious midwits who know little about the history of philosophy.
See §199-§206.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl109.htm

>>12273565
You can't prove a negative. It's the responsibility of the claimant to prove their claim positively.

>>12275457
nah youre just a pseud. to say something exists is the same as saying it. you cannot possibly conceive of something which is not an object of consciousness

>>12275376
Based Kantfag.

>>12275457
>Kant was being a huge faggot
you're literally anime posting.
>His main argument is that if existence existed as a property of an object, it would bring nothing of value to said object.
It literally doesn't. We can say an object has certain properties. These properties would be predicates. Ok well for how could these objects have these properties if it doesn't exist? It must exist. So it isn't a leap to say this object has certain properties and exists. What exactly does this add? The object must already exist to have these properties. Saying it exists adds no extra information, but if existence was a property it would add more information. Existence therefore can't be a property and by extension the predicate existence must not be a "real" predicate.
>That's false, because if an object exists, it implies that all its properties (and only those) exist, so the property of existence of an object is a property that implies the existence of all its properties
You're actually in the wrong here. Read my earlier response.
>And if existence wasn't a property, what else would it be then in first order logic? A special case? Something isolated from the rest of the theory?
You're being pedantic, of course existence is grammatically a predicate, what is meant by "Existence isn't a predicate" is that existence isn't a property of an object so while grammatically a predicate it isn't a "real" predicate
>Kant wasn't a logician, he was a theologian.
Calm down you Nietzschean incel, Kant was an affirmed agnostic.
>because he said a lot of stupid things.
This entire paragraph of yours has been stupid.

>>12275475
Hegel- theist who spent the latter part of his life writing theology
>>12275376
Kant- still a self proclaimed believer in God despite criticising god proofs
>>12271748
Godel- theist

holy fuck bros literally every genius is on our side?????

>>12275457
so you strawmanned him. well done retard

>>12275523
2hus aren't anime.

>>12275523
>In a work published the year he died, Kant analyzes the core of his theological doctrine into three articles of faith: (1) he believes in one God, who is the causal source of all good in the world

sorry, theistbros have claimed kant.

>>12275531
>Kant- still a self proclaimed believer in God despite criticising god proofs
Well technically he was an agnostic but yes he still believed in God still, I don't care about the existence of god or whatever just stop using the ontological proof considering existence isn't a predicate.

>>12275531
Atheistgang... we lost...

>>12273818
>trusting a computer
https://github.com/clarus/falso
it's an argument from authority
you aren't actually helping people understand it
you're telling them that they don't have to understand

>>12271748
>I wrote down gibberish and God is one of the words I used
>please pat me on the head, mommy
it just stinks of begging for approval

>>12273784
WTF?? I'm an atheist, but I've had this line of reasoning for ages too. I'm basically Kurt Godel :D

>>12274010
Or maybe they are just smarter than you

>>12275818
I don't agree with Godel's axioms, but I don't think his motive was to obtain approval. If anything, I think his motive was probably more so to convince himself, i.e. to reaffirm his own beliefs.

>>12273565
>logical disproofs
Underaged & Homeschooled

>>12273784
Fails at D1. Argument is circular from there on.

>>12275523
>you're literally anime posting.
Irrelevant and it's not anime.

### Existence is information ###
>The object must already Exist to have these Properties.
This is logically equivalent to the following truth table (1) :
- !E | !P | True
- E | !P | True
- !E | P | False
- E | P | True

According to the truth table (1):
- if the object doesn't exist, the properties necessarily don't exist.
- if the object exists, the properties of said object either exist or don't.
So the existence of an object has an influence on the truth of the existence of the properties of said object. And that is:
- positing the existence of an object implies that the existence of the properties of an object can be true.
- on the contrary, positing that the object doesn't exist implies that the existence of the properties of an object is necessarily false.
This is information. Depending on whether or not you posit your object to exist, associated properties can or can't exist.
This proves that the existence of an object is information. And this information is related to said object.

### Existence of an object has at least the same content of information than all of its properties ###
If an object exists, all of its properties exist as well, because otherwise it wouldn't be itself. Thus, Existence => Properties. An object existing is equivalent to all its properties existing. And thus, the existence of an object has AT LEAST the same information content than all of its properties.

(cont)

>>12275523

### Existence actually adds information ###
>Saying it exists adds no extra information
When you posit the existence of the properties of an object one by one, positing the last property of the object is the same as positing the existence of the whole object, which is information that no property possesses on its own.
The fact that properties of an object form a whole, is a property itself, and provides more information than the sum of the information of each property.
Then what is that extra information? The information provided by the existence of an object is the existence of the object itself, it is the fact that it is complete.

>You're being pedantic
There is no pedantism in logic.

>of course existence is grammatically a predicate
>it isn't a "real" predicate
You're using your own silly version of logic and expect people to know what you mean by your arbitrary definitions.
You're not doing logic, and thus aren't logical.

>Calm down you Nietzschean incel, Kant was an affirmed agnostic.
Kant believed in the existence of God.