[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 108 KB, 200x257, gödel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5917086 No.5917086 [Reply] [Original]

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

is that worth deciphering or it is flawed from the start?

>> No.5917090

Ignore the main article, scroll right down to "August 23, 2009 at 06:06 PM"

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/08/ontological-argument-for-god-rebuttal.html

>> No.5917097

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Alvin_Plantinga

The proof works.

>> No.5917105

It's flawed from the start. All of the different ontological arguments hing on the premise that existence makes a thing more "perfect" or "good", which makes no sense.

>> No.5917109

>>5917105
No, it does make sense. What doesn't make sense in this case is the false equivocation between the idea of god and god itself.

In other formulations of the OA the conclusion is usually smuggled into one of the premises, aka question begging, eg. planting's version which states that god is possibly necessary, which is logically equivalent to the conclusion that god is necessary, while in others has a corollary which actually disproves god.

>> No.5917115

>>5917109
supplemental: Godel appears to also be committing the fallacy of assigning existence as a property that something can have, which it is not

>> No.5917134

>>5917115
Yeah that's really the main problem with all form of ontological arguments.
I mean I COULD accept it if you could show me a working formal system where existence is a property, but I don't know of any.

>> No.5917181

I can imagine the greatest possible juggler.

If the greatest possible juggler exists in my mind, it must also exist in reality.
tehre fore the must be the greatest possible juggler which can juggle anything.

I can't believe people have wasted their careers on this shit.

>> No.5917213

>>5917134
>where existence is a property

What exactly do you mean by this?

>> No.5917242

>>5917086
Richard Dawkins doesn't accept it, so it's invalid.

>> No.5917269

>>5917242
>Richard Dawkins doesn't accept it, so it's invalid.

I seriously hope that's not the reason why you disagree with it.

>> No.5917272

>>5917242
>>5917269

samefag

>> No.5917274

>>5917272
wot

>> No.5917283

I'm hungry
I conceive the perfect sandwich, a sandwich that is so perfect, it feeds every hungry person in the world
Where's my sandwich

>> No.5917294
File: 14 KB, 535x425, cock.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5917294

>>5917181
This is actually a good counterargument.

If there is such a thing as a "juggler" then there is, necessarily, a greatest possible juggler -- one might say, a "God-like" juggler -- but that does not automatically imply that we know the skills and traits of such a juggler without ourselves being said juggler. Only that we can imagine them.

There is no reason to assert that "God-like juggler" is a single, consistent individual. He remains a myriad of (different, possibly mutually exclusive) ideas in the minds of those who hear the term.

>> No.5917305
File: 108 KB, 443x562, atheists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5917305

>>5917283
Everywhere and nowhere, feeding our hunger for righteousness.

>> No.5917319

>>5917086
That's just how a world-class mathematical logician trolls people.

>> No.5917321

>>5917181
you didnt understand the argument, the characteristics of a perfect juggler dont involve existence, a juggler is not an ontological creature

>> No.5917330

>>5917213
In common formal logic, existence isn't formalized as "X has the property to exist", but "there exists X such as [X properties]".
Existing isn't a property of X, it's a statement.

>> No.5917332

>>5917321
What makes you think that "perfect" is a meaningful term?

>> No.5917334

>>5917321

Surely a real juggler is better than a fictional juggler. Therefore existence is indeed one of his properties.

>> No.5917338

The problem with all arguments of this sort is they attempt to say something about reality while being divorced from reality themselves.

What makes relativity theory strong is that it makes predictions that are confirmed by experiment. In an alternate universe where relativity theory is false, those experiments would have different outcomes, and relativity theory would be dropped no matter how beautiful it be. (Or at best, relegated to theoretical mathematical physics.)

In an alternate universe with god, or an alternate universe without god, either way these philosophical thought experiments turn out exactly the same. Thus the only conclusions one can salvage from them are whatever tautologies they boil down to (in the cases they're even articulated formally enough for that).

>> No.5917348

>>5917334
"Better"?

In whose opinion? The dream of a perfect juggler is a lot more satisfying to me than actually seeing some jackass tossing katanas and elephants around while preparing a four course meal.

Ideas in our heads are almost universally better than their execution in reality.

>> No.5917366

>>5917348
>In whose opinion?

Mine, obviously.

>The dream of a perfect juggler is a lot more satisfying to me than actually seeing some jackass tossing katanas and elephants around while preparing a four course meal.

What does that mean? That you don't think a real guy could live up to the ideal? Well, this one could.

>> No.5917378

A perfect juggler would be a quiet, unassuming man who picks up three plain juggling balls one day, juggles a perfect (but perfectly ordinary) three ball fountain for fifty seconds, then puts them down. At no other time (past or future) does he ever do anything with juggling.

>> No.5917388

>>5917348
>"Better"?
>In whose opinion?
It doesn't matter. For the purpose of the ontological proof, "positive" can have any meaning the demonstrator wants it to have, it doesn't change the reasoning.

Which is why the ontological proof is shit. If it wre correct, you coud use it to show the existence of anything.

>> No.5917392

>>5917378

But he would have to exist to do that, right?

>> No.5917397

>>5917366
No, I'm saying that the best juggler would be one who doesn't perform where I have to watch his antics. I can imagine a perfect juggler and be happy with that idea, but I really don't want to live in a world where somebody has wasted their life becoming such a useless thing.

>> No.5918559

flawed from the start.
Get your epistemology and ontology straight OP. The proof is only true under certain assumptions, who are just assumptions. You could alos instantly assume God. What's the fucking difference. The man was a wizkid, but not a critical thinker.

>> No.5918597

>>5917086
according to wikipedia, this is only a proof that under certain axioms, godlike qualities are consistent. It's not about the existence of god something which not even godel himself believed.