[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 379 KB, 1920x1080, field.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15463718 No.15463718 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

If the formalised Kurt Godel's proof is valid then does this not mean god exists? What are the issues with this?


>> No.15463721

no. has nothing to do with god. please stop forcing this retarded non-sequitur.

>> No.15463722

No mathematical proof can possibly "prove" God, only evidence.

>> No.15463725

care to elaborate

>> No.15463735

>in any reasonable mathematical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proved.
nothing to do with god whatsoever.

>god exists is a true statement that cannot be proved!!!!
no way of verifying this, so it's completely impotent.

>> No.15463755

>If the formalised
Check the link at least, i was talking about this not the incompleteness stuff, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

>> No.15463769

simply an invalid argument. conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

>> No.15463772

>only shows existence
>doesn't show uniqueness
Which god is he talking about?

>> No.15463775

Well there can only be one, which religion is correct is a different topic

>> No.15463777

There's a similar argument here called Plantingas modal ontological argument that I think is probably more famous
A lot of people seem to think the argument is airtight, but he leaves out something at the first step. He assumes that the possibility that it's impossible there's a God is impossible. As in, it could be impossible for there to be a God, which as far as we know is just as possible as the alternative

>> No.15463782

Yeah, if you scroll down on the page it says it was proven to be problematic. But the other formalised versions with different axioms and whatnot were proven with computers. Also, I haven't learned the logical syntax, so I can't evaluate these things properly, that's why i'm asking.

>> No.15463794

>Well there can only be one

>> No.15463903

because multiple gods would not be gods since they have equal power and would thus not be omnipotent/godlike

>> No.15463926

What if god decided to create another god? He can do that, can't he? He's omnipotent after all.

>> No.15463934

That thing would simply be god, not "another" god

>> No.15463996

Replace "God" with "Ghost", and "Godliness" with "Spookiness" and see what happens

>> No.15464020

No atheist would grant that it's 'possible' for a God to exist in the sense Plantinga is using the term
you would literally be a theist if you granted the premise
Plantinga is silly. This is just inventing a system were the words have very convoluted not-immediately-obvious implications, then explaining the implications.
Then people who wants the conclusion to be true starts clapping

I've yet to be presented this argument by a theist, who doesn't immediately equivocate to a daily common use of 'possible', when I explain why I don't grant it
>How do you know it's impossible??? You don't know everything!! You are just close minded...
Like, seriously?

>> No.15464075

what does, in your own words, being a valid proof have to do with the truth of the conclusion?

>> No.15464136

>proven with computers
lol, I went to check if my beloved Coq proof assistant has ever been pressedinto service dealing with modal logic a.k.a. the high order of obfuscation, and one of the first hits of searching for 'modal logic coq' was an implementation of modal 'logic' atop of Coq's classical logic, with the 'proof' used as a demonstration of the capabilities of the implementation in question.

>> No.15464138

forgot link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christoph-Benzmueller/publication/273201458_Interacting_with_Modal_Logics_in_the_Coq_Proof_Assistant/links/54fb1fcb0cf2859b88579d1f/Interacting-with-Modal-Logics-in-the-Coq-Proof-Assistant.pdf

>> No.15464141

am I posting in a dead thread? it happens pretty often that after I post, the thread gets archived. am sad.

>> No.15464268

I'm still here (OP), just don't know what the logic syntax is

>> No.15464355

Funny. Some time ago I noticed the same thing. I think most threads are shortlived...

>> No.15464633

skipping the syntax thingy, gödel's proof is valid but his assumptions are bogus. all these proofs have assumptions that assume the existence of god indirectly, then prove it from those assumptions directly.

>> No.15464668

Is there any good website where I can learn logic? It seems like it's pretty useful to know and solve problems with. Also, what makes a proof valid?

>> No.15464705

I'm not sure what to recommend. I have a severe distaste for the way the discipline is treated, anyway. apparently people use the term 'valid proof' in a loose manner to mean all sorts of vague but encouraging things about a proof but the definition I grew up with was 'a proof consisting of correct inference steps only', so e.g. it should not contain a reasoning step of the form A implies B therefore not A implies not B. but you can start from any axioms, loony or otherwise, or you can assume your conclusion as an axiom, and validity would not be impacted. you can have a valid proof proving ridiculous garbage, but it must do so through correct steps.
as for modal logic, which gödel used, I think it is mere wanking. it can be restated in plain logic, but its adherents wave it around as if it was this super-powerful tool.
tldr I hate philosophers.

>> No.15464851

It would have to be sound too, which is the harder part since it includes many axioms.

>> No.15465096

>I think it is mere wanking.
It depends on the shape of the universe of discourse that you want to reason within. If it's characterizable as a directed graph, modal logic is the right tool.
It's no more powerful than ordinary logic, but (tractably) proves slightly different things.

>> No.15465122

>all these proofs have assumptions that assume the existence of god indirectly, then prove it from those assumptions directly
The fact that you think this tautology is a meaningful statement shows you're too stupid to understand mathematics or God.

>> No.15465176

Don't you think it's weird that you already have to presuppose the existence of God, for argument to be persuasive to you?

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.