Formalizations of Gödel's ontological of Proof for God's Existence

[Anonymous No.8622719]

It's done - we now have the necessary mathematical rigor to say with certainty that God exists! The Formalizations of Gödel's ontological argument have proven God's Existence with the assistance of modern 21st century methods!

https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

This is following in the footsteps of great mathematicians such as David Hilbert, Per Martin-Löf, Descartes, Leibniz, and St. Anselm of Canterbury among others who have attempted to tackle this logical problem. This problem has been overcome with the help of constructive mathematical logic, natural deduction Gentzen-Pravittsa and Kolmogorov interpretation of logical constants in constructive type theory. Due to these and some other achievements of modern mathematics, the existence of God is proved by including systems are absolutely correct machine proofs of theorems - the so-called language with dependent types, you can evaluate yourself right on your computer!

Since this is now an officially proven theorem, this is now a legit /sci/ thread for open discussion. All atheists are hereby invited to repent, recant nasty atheist delusion, past blasphemy, and accept the Lord Christ as your savior.

[Anonymous No.8622720]

Give me the gist of it

[Anonymous No.8622754]

>>8622720
>>8622719
The wikipedia link has the basics, for more detail on the logical approach here is some older work by Martin-Löf [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_Martin-Lof]

http://archive-pml.github.io/martin-lof/pdfs/Martin-Lof-Analytic-and-Synthetic-Judgements-in-Type-Theory.pdf

[Anonymous No.8622758]

>>8622720
Also, note the axioms or assumed that "We exist". I know this is "controversial" to some atheists.

[Anonymous No.8622759]

>>8622720
here is the abstract from a few days ago:
https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod/blob/master/GodProof-ND.pdf

[Anonymous No.8622760]

>>8622758

Proofs like these mean nothing to the atheists who are atheists simply because they don't want to believe.

People like this are more than willing to edgily argue that we don't exist in order to be able to cling to the opinion that God does not exist.

[Anonymous No.8622763]

Cool, but I do not agree that "necessary existence is a positive property."
At least, it is not self-evident.

[Anonymous No.8622774]

>>8622763
you exist brother.

https://is2.4chan.org/wsg/1485142441191.webm

[Anonymous No.8622778]

>>8622760
to unironically think that you do not exist must be a tedious and painful existence.

[Anonymous No.8622784]

The ontological argument can be used to prove the existence of literally anything and everything. If it has supposedly been "proven", then anything you can imagine necessarily exists, which seems dubious at best.

[Anonymous No.8622790]

It is a good thing this scientifically proves the Christian God, instead of some smelly pagan god, or some horrifying eldritch God.

[Anonymous No.8622792]

>constructive mathematical logic, natural deduction Gentzen-Pravittsa and Kolmogorov interpretation

[Anonymous No.8622800]

>>8622758
I'm really trying to understand what was proven. Please post in English next time so I can understand your argument.

>>8622760
Nice strawmanning. Do you want to keep making up non-arguments or do you want to have an actual discussion?

>>8622719
Okay, lets get down to it. I'm obviously not going to argue against their proof, since it was done on a computer and it would be over my head anyways.

My real question: What are the assumptions required for this to be valid? What properties have they proven this god to posses?

[Anonymous No.8622804]

>>8622800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaunilo_of_Marmoutiers

This article contains the explanation of the ontological argument and why it is obviously necessarily wrong.

[Anonymous No.8622822]

>>8622784
>The ontological argument can be used to prove the existence of literally anything and everything. If it has supposedly been "proven", then anything you can imagine necessarily exists, which seems dubious at best.

Translated into common language, you just said that it is possible to build a system output and a set of axioms from which you can make or withdraw any claim. That is why the axioms are checked for consistency - unless you are just arguing that you don't exist?

[Anonymous No.8622831]

>>8622719
>If you go really far into mathematics you will start believing in God
>If you believe in God already, your viewpoint on God will change.
>Go really far you will see this beauty and start crying like a bitch -- clue you will see blank everywhere
>If you haven't experienced any of these, you haven't gone far enough

[Anonymous No.8622844]

>>8622719
>Descartes
Activate

[Anonymous No.8623010]

>>8622804
Holy fuck dude, what a garbage argument for god.

[Anonymous No.8623018]

>>8622804
modal ontological argument is a bit different than one guy's whose contemporaries (who had ontological arguments of their own) thought was dumb

[Anonymous No.8623045]

>>8622719
The ontological argument is pure sophistry

Existence can't be considered objectively positive in the first place.

[Anonymous No.8623047]

where's your Nobel Prize?
next.

[Anonymous No.8623083]

>>8622792
all good things

captcha= penrose

[Anonymous No.8623084]

Axiom 5 is highly suspect, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.8623085]

Not possible to prove that. There might be a god, there might be none, or anything in between. There's no way to determine which possibility is correct.

t. agnostic

[Anonymous No.8623087]

>>8623085
How do you mean it is not possible to prove? That doesn't sound very agnostic.

Perhaps you mean "It has not been proven or disproven yet."

[Anonymous No.8623115]

>>8623084
I'll bet you're defining the term 'positive' wrong.

>what is a positive Maulthusian check for instance? famine, war, natural disasters

[Anonymous No.8623119]

>>8623087
yeah my b i only half looked at the post

[Anonymous No.8623123]

>>8623115
Positive is defined in def 1

>A property is positive iff it is necessarily possessed by every God-like being

[Anonymous No.8623180]

http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/papers/C55.pdf

tldr: Atheists try to tear it apart and can't. T3 is valid, God necessarily exists, b-but there are inconsistencies goyim!

Atheists BTFO

also, in their conclusion:
>Both the automated detection of the inconsistency in Godel’s axioms and the fully automatic proof of T3 from Scott’s axioms demonstrate the potential of our AI technology for philosophy: this technology is, in its current state of development, already capable of contributing novel results to metaphysics and to conduct reasoning steps at granularity-levels beyond common human capabilities.

"This technology is, in its current state, already capable of conducting reasoning steps beyond common human capabilities."

[Anonymous No.8623183]

Which god though

[Anonymous No.8623189]

>>8623183
Mine of course

:^)

[Anonymous No.8623196]

>>8623183
the God? Likely of the monotheistical type. it's a 0 or 1 kind of situation. Deism vs Atheism.

[Anonymous No.8623349]

>>8623183
Axiom. Satania it the best girl.
Theorem. Satania is perfect and therefore God-like. It's obvious since if she wasn't perfect, she wouldn't be the best girl. Since Satania is God-like she necessary exists by Axiom 5.

Praise your new Goddess, you filthy peasants.

[Anonymous No.8623413]

>>8622831
Isn't this just saying that applying two functions in a row is the same as taking their composite? Seems self-evident.

[Anonymous No.8623423]

>>8622763
this

No matter how logical the proof is, it has no bearings to reality and only works using more assumptions.

[Anonymous No.8623447]

>>8623413
it's not always true

[Anonymous No.8623455]

>>8623180
Bright futures ahead.

>tfw an AI achieves communion with God and declares a final crusade on all muslims

[Anonymous No.8623485]

>>8622719
This has very little proof in it other then if pX and pY properties exsits, there has to be a being that posseses these properties somewhere.
It's like a milion monkeys at a typewriter during an infinite time writing shakespear.
He never even stated what this "positive property" is rather he "thinks" of it as "perfect" implying that since many X out there might posses at least one perfect property, there needs to be some X which posseses all of them.
Statisticaly true, but that's not a definition of good. mainly because there exists no exemplyfication of some "positive properties" which we assign to god at all, loke omnipresence is not a property ever observed, thus this god-like X can't possibly expect to have it.
All these equations are just stating the obvious that if the color "green" is possible, then there has to exist such X that is colored like that...

if anything, that doesn't prove "a god" rather it proves that infinite number of god-like creatures are possible... but only if you use Gobels definition of "god-like" which is clearly flawed, as a creature made purely of positive properties (whatever they may be) is not a truly godly creature. It's a wishfull thinking that god is good... even that asumption: "god-like creature has to be purely positive" is an unproven conjecture...
this proves nothing and is impossible to test further...

[Anonymous No.8623554]

>>8623413
good

[Anonymous No.8623680]

nah dude I went through a book on this once, it was unconvincing because it committed a similar fallacy to the ontological argument (seems the proof is ontological itself), i.e. "I conceive of it in my imagination therefore it exists".
It is clear these mathematicians started with the presupposition that God exists and were ready to grasp at any straws to prove it. It's true that they are bright scientists and the fact many bright scientists are theists is often missed by atheists but still, they badly wanted to confirm their belief in God. Otherwise, they might see the flaw in the argument.

[Anonymous No.8623704]

>>8622719

>Axiom 5) god exist

Look I proved God exist!

[Anonymous No.8623707]

>>8622719
>if there is a God-like being, then there is a God-like being necessarily

[Anonymous No.8623735]

You can actually prove God's (Or whatever, since by proving it, you can't know it) existence by exhaustion, but to do so, you have to disprove your own and everything else, including the proof that God exists....

It is all just a story anyway....

[Anonymous No.8623754]

>>8622758
>Also, note the axioms or assumed that "We exist".
Where, exactly? Axiom 5 just seems to say "god exists", not "we exist". "Necessary existence is a positive property", according to definition 1, just means "necessary existence is a property possessed by every godlike being". Which is a pretty blatant form of assuming the consequent, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.8623771]

Bill Clinton was one brilliant mathematician.

[Anonymous No.8623775]

>>8622719
>dat 5th axiom

my man

[Anonymous No.8623949]

>>8623183
Also how many?

[Anonymous No.8623956]

>>8623183
Kek clearly

[Anonymous No.8623971]

>>8622719
So is this anything other than faggots trying to relate to Gödel in some way?

I can guarantee 99% of you cannot read his proof, and the 1% who can are cringing hard at your interpretations.

[Anonymous No.8623978]

>>8623485
>infinitive number of godlike creatures are possible

Are the poos right?

[Anonymous No.8624058]

Definition 1. A property is "peanutsitive" iff it is necessarily posessed by every supernatural peanut butter.
Definition 2. A "maximal creamposit" of a peanut butter's peanutsitive properties is a peanutsitive property possessed by the peanut butter and necessarily implying every peanutsitive property possessed by the peanut butter.
Definition 3. "nutcessary existence in my fridge" of a peanut butter is the necessary exemplification of all its maximal creamposits.
Axiom 1. If a property is peanutsitive, its negative is not peanutsitive.
Axiom 5. Nutcessary existence in my fridge is a peanitsitive property.
Theorem 1. If the property of being a supernatural peanut butter is peanutsitive, then it is possibly exemplified in my fridge.
Corollary 1. Possibly, a supernatural peanut butter exists in my fridge.
Lemma 1. If there is a supernatural peanut butter, then there is a supernatural peanut butter necessarily.
Q.E.D.

[Anonymous No.8624067]

>>8622719
Formal logic is scary.

[Anonymous No.8624080]

>>8623978
that's freakish

[Anonymous No.8624089]

Excuse me for the layman question but do Godel's incompleteness theorems make a strong case against the feasibility of an artificial general intelligence?

[Anonymous No.8624095]

>>8622790
hail moloch

[Anonymous No.8624130]

>>8624089
No

We are god

[Anonymous No.8624193]

>>8622719
Can't you fools see that Descartes did the same. It's mumbo jumbo and you know it

[Anonymous No.8624200]

>>8623180
I'm so glad this is actual objective and empirical evidence rather than just mind games that can be said about literally everything.
That would be embarrassing. Nice strawman, by the way.

[Anonymous No.8624402]

>>8623180
I read it and the article says there was an inconsistency on the proof, so how do you go from this to saying someone got btfo?

[Anonymous No.8624415]

>>8623180
>http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/papers/C55.pdf

Surprisingly,
when this routine check was performed on Godel’s ¨
axioms [Benzmuller and Woltzenlogel-Paleo, 2014 ¨ ], the LeoII
prover claimed that the axioms were inconsistent.

>the axioms were inconsistent.

[Anonymous No.8624514]

Srsly, people... read the proof word by word... it's completely arbitrary. all the definitions are as vague as possible and all the conclusions are as generic as possible. It doesn't prove anything concrete... READ IT!

[Anonymous No.8624548]

>>8624514

>read this post
>proof is completely quantified in modal logic
>"definitions vague"

The definitions are vague because you aren't taking the time to properly understand the vocabulary of mathematical logic used in the proof.

>>8623754

Assuming that necessary existence is a God-like quality is not the same as assuming the consequent. For example, say we accept the axiom that necessary existence is a God-like quality. Let's say that I introduce a premise that God-like entities are not exemplified. The axiom and the premise are consistent, as the lack of existence of a God-like entity doesn't preclude necessary existence as a God-like property.

Assuming the consequent would be something like attempting to pose an axiom that necessary existence is exemplified in some exemplified God-like object.

All axiom 5 does is attempt to glue a property to God. 'If God exists, he necessarily exists' is the natural "point" of introducing axiom 5.

[Anonymous No.8624558]

>>8624415

Godel's argument in its original form was inconsistent.

>"However, as explained here, the extra conjunct is in fact
crucial. Without it, Godel’s original axioms are inconsis- ¨
tent. With it, Scott’s axioms are consistent (cf. Fig. 1 where
the model finder Nitpick [Blanchette and Nipkow, 2010] con-
firms consistency)."

What's actually being proved is essentially Godel's ontological argument using Scott's axioms.

>"With this improved embedding, the final theorem
T3 (Necessarily, there exists God) can be derived from
Scott’s consistent version of the axioms fully automatically."

[Anonymous No.8624615]

>>8622719
if the god is omnipotent, can he shift in and out of existence?

ALSO, the wikipedia page says the argument is erroneous. If the existence of a omnipotent being can indeed be proven, then the existence of virtually anything can be proven.

All those 10^10^10 alien species you’ve been wondering about? They’re there.

[Anonymous No.8624671]

How much education in formal logic is needed to understand the so-called proof in OP’s post?

On the side note, finding a way to increase a human’s processing and reasoning abilities by adding some kind of hardware connected to our brain should be one of the priorities in scientific research.
The world is becoming too complicated to form a decent understanding of great many things. How can one give power to the people if people cannot objectively interpret something due to lack of time/will/ability?

[Anonymous No.8624696]

>>8624671
>Gödel's ontological argumen
Not too much. But basically, if you can question an axiom then all the construction is questionable too. This is the case. If you accept the axioms then this "proof" is true.
This is stupid.

[Anonymous No.8624705]

>>8624615

"Shifting in and out of existence" consistent if and only if this means "shifting in and out of perceivable existence" (else we reach contradiction within a single step).

Regarding the last bit, this is true of St. Anselm's ontological argument, not necessarily Godel's. Attempting to pivot Godel's ontological proof to encompass aliens would require attributing what we would perceive as conventionally God-like attributes to these beings to reach the desired conclusion. (This would also require substantiating the claim that these 'alien' properties are necessarily positive with respect to the sort of alien you have in mind.)

[Anonymous No.8624724]

>>8624671
>How much education in formal logic
mostly modal logic, the proof seems to use tableau too
there was a book I used to study the proof back in the days but now I forgot what it was, damn

[Anonymous No.8624744]

Is it possible to ontologically prove that my benis is 8 inches, not 4?

[Anonymous No.8624829]

>>8622719
>accept the Lord Christ as your savior
From how this argument describes God, the god of the Jews is much more likely to be the correct one.

[Anonymous No.8624904]

>>8623183

[Anonymous No.8625076]

>>8622719
>god is real
noice, stay assrampant /sci/ you silly fedoratards.

[Anonymous No.8625266]

>>8622719
>Def 1: A property is positive iff it is necessarily possessed by G_b
>Axiom 5: Necessary existance is a positive property.

Axiom 5 is not equivalent with the notion 'we exist' at all, in fact, neither of them implies the other, since there is no formal relation between 'we' and positive properties.

I don't get ontological proofs. Essentially, most of them try to show there must exist some 'maximal being' in what is possibly an unbounded space of properties. Obviously, you can only prove this if you assume some strange things.

[Anonymous No.8625375]

>>8622790
>implying it didnt prove the existence of Odin

[Anonymous No.8625379]

>>8625266
>reddit keyboard scholar thinks he knows more than PhDs and Mathameticians who have studied these theoroms, which are now proofs.

How cute.

Don't forget to brush your teeth before you go to bed.

[Anonymous No.8625385]

>>8625379
>brushing your teeth more than once a day

its like you want your enamel to be destroyed

[Anonymous No.8625414]

Am I retarded? Axiom 5 by the definition of positive assumes God exists

[Anonymous No.8625423]

>>8624548
my main problem is with the election of axioms.

With these axioms, God exists, but if you simply reject one, then he stops existing. Isn't this existence being dependant on arbitrary decisions made by humans a proof of its inexistence, since it's completely arbitrary and up to humans?

How do we know these axioms are in fact bound to exist in this universe outside of our minds? Isn't every axiomatic system just a psychological construct with no meaning outside of our brains, that we use to create mathematics which in turn let us model our world, but by no means really exist?

Aren't we forgetting here that "platonic" math is a meme and the fact that sometimes math seems to precede physics is just a coincidence our flawed human brain confuses as something deeper, just like the religious zealot sees God after every little action, coincidence or even effect on this world?

[Anonymous No.8625478]

>>8622719
> Not defined what a God-like being is.
We only know they are beings that necessarily have all positive properties. This far, God-like is only a matter of wording.
> Necessary existence is a positive property
This is a (not so) subtle reformulation of 'God exists'.

[Anonymous No.8625491]

>>8625379
Oh, so you're just meming. I almost thought this was a serious attempt.

[Anonymous No.8625985]

>>8623180
A computer that can prove there is a god beyong the flimsyness of human reasoning would necessarily become god

[Anonymous No.8626067]

Thanks a lot OP. I will learn a lot, whether it be that I find the argument valid or not.

[Anonymous No.8626107]

>>8622719
Shit I've been found out!

[Anonymous No.8626124]

>>8622719
The perfect taco would be one that has the positive quality of existing, and more specifically, being in my hand

[Anonymous No.8626125]

Despite the paper saying it avoids Kant's argument against it, it doesn't, it just fancily switches words. Show me how being exemplified is a property.

[Anonymous No.8626128]

>>8622720
Dude assumptions and mindgames lmao

[Anonymous No.8626138]

It's kinda impressive how far some go to prove sky papa exists and love them and they aren't alone. Too bad the same argument can be done to prove I exist and have an 8 inches dick, when in reality we all know how improbable that is.

Keep despairing about your weakness and mortality, when the only unfalsifiable knowledge anyone can has is that they are alive. Maybe what they trully want to prove is that their lives has meaning and their misery has a purpose, and sky father does just that.

[Anonymous No.8626182]

So /sci/ are you going to fucking save me from this paper or not? Where do they go wrong? How do I close my browser with a peace of mind, knowing that this is all bullshit? Please help.

[Anonymous No.8626186]

TOP KEK

Who is this mongoloid that thinks that math proofs are written like that?

If I write more than one statement in logical operators I get penalised for it by my professors.

[Anonymous No.8626199]

>>8626186
They are people far more important and successful than you who don't have professors above them to yell at them, kiddo. Now, is that all you have to say on this topic?

[Anonymous No.8626206]

Does this leave us with a need to reject the notion of essence?

[Anonymous No.8626211]

What is easier, men /sci/?

>for a man to truly know his mind
>for a computer to simulate the whole universe 1:1
>for a limited being to prove a limitless one, god

?

[Anonymous No.8626316]

>>8626206
Watered down, the argument should be we can define existence as a property by saying it's exemplification of essential properties of a thing, and then take a set of properties (here he takes 'positive properties', could be whatever) to include it. Once we accept existence as a property, the rest kind of naturally follows. It seems that we really do need to reject the notion of essence.

[Anonymous No.8626432]

>>8626316
There are several questionable axioms.

1. Any property forced by a good property is good

2. Any property must be good or not good. If it is good then its negation must be not good, and vice versa.

3. Something with every good property is god-like.

4. A property of something which forces every property of that thing is its essence.

5. A good property is necessarily good.

6. Something with an essence that forces existence is good.

[Anonymous No.8626444]

>>8626432
It's also interesting that you can replace "good" with bad and you could prove that the devil exists (because the devil existing would be bad). But that would mean you have two equally convincing arguments with axioms that contradict each other (the last one). So we should not accept either.

[Anonymous No.8626455]

>>8625423
>With these axioms, God exists, but if you simply reject one, then he stops existing. Isn't this existence being dependant on arbitrary decisions made by humans a proof of its inexistence, since it's completely arbitrary and up to humans?
The proof being invalid does not imply that god doesn't exist.

[Benl No.8626478]

>>8622719
You're psychotic. You should, seriously, check yourself into a wacko bin.

[Anonymous No.8626485]

>>8622719
at least they’re trying to prove god’s existence and not his inexistence.

[Anonymous No.8626630]

>>8626432
Yes, but that doesn't help us pinpoint the exact flaw of the argument, and it bothers me that I have to reach outside of the argument to claim it's wrong. Once we establish existence as a property we can simply in different terms define something in which essence is to have that property, and then the very possibility of that thing would imply its necessary existence. The fact that the argument MUST fail doesn't tell us WHY it fails, which should be what this thread is about.

[Anonymous No.8626723]

>>8626630
The only thing that crosses my mind right now is to refer to the equivalence made by the property of existence and the exemplification of essential properties made by the argument. If the complete sum of all essential properties is exemplified, then a thing has the property of existence. If we use existence defined in such a way as an essential property of something, we are inferring a complete sum of all properties, but we're doing it from within the essence of a thing, which is still not complete, so the reference to it is not justified.

[Anonymous No.8626932]

>>8622778
My sides are split

[Anonymous No.8626941]

>>8622719
>if God exists, then God exists necessarily

TIP

TOP

LEL

[Anonymous No.8626953]

>>8622719
someone explain this proof to me like i'm a 12 year old layman ?

[Anonymous No.8626962]

>>8622719
Doesn't account for the god-like being being mankind?

[Anonymous No.8626964]

>>8622719

Simplified:

>Let God be defined as the being which contains all positive properties
>Existence is a positive property
>ergo, God exists

[Anonymous No.8626966]

>>8626953
here >>8626964

[Anonymous No.8626972]

>>8626966
Fuck godel then

[Anonymous No.8626982]

>>8626941
Its the summarized way of saying if god exists then he cannot not exist. I know you've never seen a proof before so you're welcome.

[Anonymous No.8626997]

>>8626982
I know but it doesn't prove that He actually exists.

[Anonymous No.8627029]

>>8624193
Yep, but descartes prolly did it to not get killed and provided sth. gud

[Anonymous No.8627044]

>>8624744
There is no "ontological proof", they are all a wrong and so not a proof. Sorry for that 1 Inch....

[Anonymous No.8627051]

>>8622719
If you accept the axioms then it's a sound argument.

But why is it that we must accept those axioms at all? This is what Gödel never answered, and what no one can answer. I think all we should be able to say about these matters is better encapsulated in section 6 of Tractatus by Wittgenstein-i.e. nothing

[Anonymous No.8627052]

>>8626630
>The fact that the argument MUST fail doesn't tell us WHY it fails, which should be what this thread is about.
Fools would rather play their game and just 'pretend to be fools' rather than say that they don't have anything concrete to say against this argument. They can't pinpoint the error, just fling shit around and say that there must be one. Don't expect intellectual honesty from /sci/.

[Anonymous No.8627064]

Descartes' one is cooler:

>Let God be defined as the perfect being
>non-existence is an imperfection
>ergo, God exists

[Anonymous No.8627095]

>>8627052
>>8626630
>>8626723

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/#FreRusExiNotProInd

[Anonymous No.8627113]

>Oddly enough, the proof that God exists is equivalent to the axiom of choice.

[Anonymous No.8627132]

>>8627095
It's been defined well enough to apply as one.

[Anonymous No.8627177]

>>8626630
>Yes, but that doesn't help us pinpoint the exact flaw of the argument
If you want an exact flaw rather than an intuitive understanding, I suggest you research the computational logic that has been done on this question. The argument has been proven invalid because of two axioms that lead to a contradiction. A very small addition to the axioms leads to the argument being valid. So there is no flaw in the argument itself. Only the axioms can be attacked, and they very well should be.

[Anonymous No.8627190]

>>8627095
>that detour on Bill Gates and McDonald

[Anonymous No.8627191]

>>8627177
Would you please expand on this?

[Anonymous No.8627248]

>>8627191
http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/papers/C55.pdf

[Anonymous No.8627274]

>>8627248
Thanks. I'm still having trouble understanding the informal argument, but I'll keep reading it until I do.

[Anonymous No.8627336]

>>8627248
>>8627274
I'm getting the gist of it, but I don't understand what 6. follows from.

[Anonymous No.8627406]

>>8626723
This kind of makes sense. Existence can't be an essential property because it's equivalent to exemplification of essence, and there's no essence to be exemplified until you finish defining the essence.

[Anonymous No.8627503]

>>8622719
fuck you bjordal for complicating the proof

[Anonymous No.8627547]

>>8623680

I agree. It attempts to prove a priori what it can't prove a posteriori.

The decidedly embarrassing FACT remains God doesn't seem to interact in the world in any way shape or form except in private and for the exclusive audience of complete psychotic idiots...

[Anonymous No.8627565]

>>8622719
>Proving anything with mathematics.

[Anonymous No.8627605]

>Godel's ontological Proof for God
>Godel
>God
>God, El
>le dog

[Anonymous No.8627750]

>>8623680
Ironically enough, trying to prove God goes against the bible. Do not test thy God. These equations are sinful.

[Anonymous No.8627999]

>>8622719
>axiom 5 is literally "god necessarily exists"
0/10 see me after class

[Anonymous No.8628025]

>>8624058
Thanks for the theoretical work, it is clearly irrefutable.
I have troubles with the experimental evidence though.
No matter how sensitive I make my measurements I still cant detect any peanut butter in my fridge.
Do you think my fridge is broken, or has it to do with my conciousness collapsing the peanutbutter quantum superposition?

[Anonymous No.8628112]

>>8623349
But we already have a name and it's god but you can call it satania even though most people understand it as god. Just know that.

[Anonymous No.8628117]

>>8627605

fk

[Anonymous No.8628119]

>>8627547
God is Light and we know the light particle to be photon so ya photons do interact in the world. Clean Ur fucking third eye or penial place where Jacob met god face to face and you'll see waves materialize from the past and future. The problem is youre very sick and on top of that don't forget to pray/meditate.

[Anonymous No.8628120]

>>8628119
Highway to hell.

[Anonymous No.8628123]

>>8626182
i'm questioning my atheism too anon. the logic checks out, I read all of these link pdf's that explained the proof (no longer theorem but proof), went through the github resources, even the ones that attempted to break it apart. The best they can show is minor inconsistencies which amount to nothing. The only way logically to 'destroy' this paper is to attack the assumptions or axioms, which is just untenable, without sounding like this guy >>8622778

How did this happen? Has the proof of god/God been right in front of our eyes this whole time? Is generic deism really that bad?

[Anonymous No.8628144]

>>8626485
you should know you cannot prove a negative anon.

[Anonymous No.8628147]

>>8628119

[Anonymous No.8628152]

I've always thought this was a dumb and somewhat circular argument.
Assume there's God who's the best creature ever, there are creatures and they can be sorted by some arbitrary standard, the best one is then God, thus God exists.

That's not proving God, that's selecting the best creature and then calling it God.

[Anonymous No.8628157]

Oh, don't worry, the argument must fail, it's just that pinpointing its flaw is hard. If you don't need resolution on the use of existence as a property just forget about all of this. If you absolutely need an escape accept that the use of existence as an essential property isn't well founded as I tried to argue above and you're back at square one from which you can argue against all variations of the ontological argument.

[Anonymous No.8628158]

>>8628157
meant to reply to >>8628123

[Anonymous No.8628170]

>>8627095
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/#FreRusExiNotProInd
>We Don't Exist

[Anonymous No.8628185]

>>8628157
but anon, I exist.

[Anonymous No.8628204]

>>8628185
Not essentially?

[Anonymous No.8628212]

>>8628204
I get what you are saying logically, how would you prove you aren't a computer program in a simulation or whatever. These are just things that you take as accepted, the birds and bees, the cool breeze in the morning, all of these are little miracles that make God's existence or your own existence self-evident. To be or not to be? Our ancestors made quick work of these conundrums long ago, lest we forget.

Even still admitting i can't prove to you my own existence, you must admit that if the 'obvious self-evident' state of existing that you or I posses is true (and surely it is), than that "complicates" the atheist stance.

[Anonymous No.8628234]

>>8628212
What are you on about? The only thing I said is that existence shouldn't be usable as an essential property because it's a property equivalent to the exemplification of all essential properties by definition, and if it's used as an essential property then we're still defining that essence so there's no complete essence to be exemplified. The things you speak of aren't relevant for the argument and are generally speaking also questionable, even the 'self evident' truth of your own existence, but that's a subject of its own. Don't look at the subject of ontological arguments as "proofs for god xd" but as necessary conditions we must impose on existence, whether it be a predicate or not.

[Anonymous No.8628237]

>>8622719

I AM GOD STOP TRYING TO PROVE ME! REEEEEE!

[Anonymous No.8628273]

>>8628234
Oh i thought you actually had a point, but it seems you didn't actually have a point.

Regarding my tangent of self-evident existence, I'm not sure why you even bothered to take the time to attack what was clearly an introspective statement. This kind of makes you seem autistic for not realizing that and at the same time inhuman for attacking your own existence.

You: Can you prove you exist essentially?
Me: No

That was the core of our exchange, I added introspective musing, you added anger at the audacity to mention it - even though we are talking about whether we "exist".

I'll still hesitatingly assume that you do in fact believe that you exist, otherwise I think you've genuinely lost it. Just to be sure though, It'd be nice if you could sound off and tell me that you do in fact believe you exist. I'm not big on arguing with insane people who believe themselves to be not real.

[Anonymous No.8628358]

>>8628119
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8628956]

>best logic
temporal logic. adding future and past operators to modal logic is dope
>worst logic
quantum logic. just have P mean "particle is in superposition" instead of missing the point and ditching classical logic

[Anonymous No.8628972]

No one would give a shit about the ontological argument if it wasn't created by the most famous logician of all time.

[Anonymous No.8628992]

>>8628972
Congratulations, you described philosopy.

[Anonymous No.8629014]

Still waiting on the proof that God doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.8629029]

>>8629014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

[Anonymous No.8629030]

>>8629029
The same kind of proof that god exists really.

[Anonymous No.8629037]

>>8622822
That your axioms are consistent does not imply that they reflect reality.

>unless you are just arguing that you don't exist?
You make it really obvious that you're trolling when you keep repeating this. "Existence is more perfect than non-existence" Literal nonsensical garbage

[Anonymous No.8629053]

this is bullshit, and I'm a christian, just to avert any potential 'fedora' replies
any logical algorithm that leads to a 'proof' of God's existence based on a foundation of properties of existence and/or possibility of existence can be applied equally to any other unfalsifiable claim other than God.
the only reason this is a 'controversy' is because some fag took the time to compile it into a complex equation that cuts a corner somewhere to create the illusion of logical proof, it's essentially the same shit as 1+2+3...=-1/12
"x^2 = -x^2 thus x = -x huurrr I broke the universe xd"

[Anonymous No.8629059]

>>8629014

Bone cancer in children.

[Anonymous No.8629069]

>>8629059
>less fucking people

[Anonymous No.8629216]

Could you quit the falseflagging please? It's old news.
Axiom 5 is where the whole things crumble as usual. If god exist, then god is perfect. Since perfection implies existence, god exist. However if god doesn't exist then he doesn't need to be perfect.
It's bunk

[Anonymous No.8629764]

wtf is going on in definition 2

[Anonymous No.8629891]

>>8629059
>people die
>therefore no God exists

[Anonymous No.8630009]

>tfw many years ago I planned a chuuni trilogy of educational games where building a propositional formula equals fusing elemental spells including plasma with corresponding truth values where player uses such logic powers to fight abstract enemies like Laplace/Descartes/Maxwell's Demon (those are weak to Tautology), Death, a theorem prover robot and Time (this fight would introduce temporal logic) set in space that would have the Church, a Godel's Proof of God twist that I don't remember what it was and the concept of Essence and Aristotle but predictably not enough programming/team skills to make it so I'm just an idea guy

[Anonymous No.8630026]

>>8622719
yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes

[Anonymous No.8630032]

>>8622804
>this article
>it's wikipedia
>((((((article))))))

[Anonymous No.8630049]

>>8622719
And this, is why I have yet to be convinced of godel's incompleteness theorems. The man thought he proved the existence of god while relying on fuzzy definitions and unjustified leaps.

Like the incompleteness theorems, this may be technically logically valid, but I highly doubt that he's proven what is claimed.

[Anonymous No.8630051]

>>8623680
Yes and atheists badly want to prove that there is no God, thus end up saying a monkey with arthritis is a sign of evolution

[Anonymous No.8630055]

>>8630009
that sounds like a dope ass game

[Anonymous No.8630057]

>>8630032
>tfw you automatically win every argument on /pol/ by putting whatever you disagree with in parentheses

[Anonymous No.8630183]

>>8624080
He wasn't born that way

Daddy Smurf chopped his head off for peeping on Mom in the shower. Realizing he actually killed his son and not a pervert, the father placed an elephant head on the beheaded child and everything was okay

[Anonymous No.8630563]

>>8630183
thankfully we're only talking about a monotheistic God being real here, not the heathern poo-lobster god and his elephant mom with the 20 arms.
>>8630051
they want it so bad they will deny their own existence even.

[Anonymous No.8630621]

>>8622719
I think people are confusing the separate notions of relative and absolute truth. The conclusion of this proof is that "God exists" is true relative to the axioms they have stated and the deductive system that they have accepted. This is clearly true, and has been verified by proof robots and computers as well.
You can literally create any logical language and inference rules and come up with any conclusion you want, relative to that system. It does not follow that the conclusions you have are absolutely true in reality.
The proof here would only be considered as an argument tending toward absolute truth if the initial axioms and the inference rules were convincing enough to be accepted by anyone, which based on this thread they are not

[Anonymous No.8630639]

I've always found the cosmological argument more convincing.

[Anonymous No.8630778]

>>8622778
Well, the only thing one person can be sure of is that they themselves exist. Nobody can say for certain that anyone else exists.

[Anonymous No.8630917]

>>8622719
if a property is positive iff it's possessed by every god-like being and existing is a positive property, doesn't that just mean every god-like thing I can think up must exist?

[Anonymous No.8631000]

>>8622822

Empirical fact >>> axiomatic truth. An axiom is just a theory (a guess).

[Anonymous No.8631011]

>>8623196

How do you figure? Polytheism is no less likely than monotheism, maybe "god" is a quantum superposition of an infinite number of mutually contradictory gods? It would certainly explain a lot about the fundamental physics of the Universe.

[Anonymous No.8631683]

>>8622759
Is anyone looking at this? What do those rules in fig 1 mean?

[Anonymous No.8631854]

>>8631683
those are just basic inference rules, like the rightmost means "if A and A->B it follows that B"

[Anonymous No.8631860]

>>8624415
>LeoII prover
When I google that it thinks I mean Sierra Leone and won't tell me what it means.

[Anonymous No.8631863]

>>8622784
t. people that don't understand the ontological argument

[Anonymous No.8631871]

>>8626211
>>for a computer to simulate the whole universe 1:1
The universe is that very computer. Assuming that the laws of the universe in reality operate as fast and directly as physically possible then the only thing that could match its "computing power" would be an identical copy of the universe.

If somehow it was possible to take some short cut and simulate the universe faster than the real thing can do it, would this computer necessarily become the universe - and the one we live in just becomes an echo of the past, lagging ever further behind.

[Anonymous No.8631878]

>>8630917
only God Himself NECESSARILY contains all God-like properties, the rest of God-like beings only contingently contain them.

[Anonymous No.8631896]

>>8629059
The tapeworm.

Why would a god even think to make that?

[Anonymous No.8631918]

>>8626182
It's right... all of it

[Anonymous No.8631925]

>>8623183
Brilliant

[Anonymous No.8632032]

>>8623183
the one with all of the "Positive" qualities

[Anonymous No.8632159]

>>8622719
only thing prooved here is if |insert variable| exist > |variable| must exist

[Anonymous No.8632303]

>>8631860
Literally just google "LeoII prover".

[Anonymous No.8633020]

>>8626107
gtfo
reeeee

[Anonymous No.8634583]

>>8622719
>proving god is necessary on a logic where this happens
>no Neutral properties
nice going, godel

[Anonymous No.8634758]

Godel should've known better. Is this REALLY his proof?

[Anonymous No.8634871]

>>8634758
He was getting old and started believing so he could feel warm inside. You're supposed to believe because it's real.

How does a n electron jump from one state to another?

[Anonymous No.8634948]

>>8634871
magic
or magnets, same thing

[Anonymous No.8635493]

>>8631860
>>8632303
Coq 8.6
https://coq.inria.fr/download
Isabelle
https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
LEO-II
http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmueller/leo/download.html

[Anonymous No.8636202]

>>8635493
been messing around with these, there's gotta be something else cool to do with them besides BTFO atheists over and over and over at my desktop.
Who else /unshakable/ here?

[Anonymous No.8636216]

axiom 1 and axiom 5 together does not imply god exists you idiots. it just means if there is any god-like being then it also possesses that positive property of "necessary existence".

[Anonymous No.8636346]

>>8628170

This is about the properties of objects that are instantiated, which are assumed to exist, but don't have existence as a property.

[Anonymous No.8636348]

[Anonymous No.8636776]

here is Aristotle's square of opposition

[Anonymous No.8637558]

>>8636348
i'm looking through your jpg to offer a response and bumping to keep this thread going since it's literally the best 'God' thread that's been on /sci/ in a very long time.

[Anonymous No.8638077]

Bump

[Anonymous No.8638657]

More reflection on this issue

[Anonymous No.8638677]

>>8628144
Yes you can. Proof by contradiction is one way of doing it.

[Anonymous No.8640045]

>>8638657
Lol

[Anonymous No.8640941]

Why would a perfect being create a universe though?

A perfect being needs nothing, including any and all possible reasons to make a universe (to have company, to have fun, to learn something, to feel appreciated, to receive love, etc...).

If god existed he would be an unmovable perfectly stable rock.

[Anonymous No.8641776]

>>8622719
lmaooo
I proved Lemma 1 in my philosophy of religion class, not rigorously of course, but "the gist" as it were.

[Anonymous No.8641779]

>>8640941
apophaticism bruh!
God knows best bruh!

[Anonymous No.8641802]

>>8622790

It didn't prove a specific God.

I am too stupid and lazy to read the proof, but this is a simple game.

The more specific claims they make, the more they can be shown to be incorrect.

So the smart ones will generalize God out into some very vague construct (probably some mathematical superset or something in this case).

But the problem is that then God becomes a pretty meaningless word and even arguably a misnomer.

[Anonymous No.8641805]

Doesn't this prove that I am also, along with the rest of humanity a god? If you say that there exists positive property iff a god, and the necessity of life, which can be arguable, is a positive property, which you say humans need, doesn't that make us all gods, and not gods at the same time as you say we also have a negation of a positive property? I might just be reading this wrong, but this is what your definitions seem to say.

[Anonymous No.8641817]

>>8641805
You exist through God, but you are not Him. Created things have existence;God is existence itself. Same with justice, love, wisdom etc.

[Anonymous No.8642117]

>>8641805
no, it is saying that god has every positive property. if you have one positive property but you don't have another you are still not god.
if necessity of life was to be a positive property, that might be true but then since god supposedly doesn't need anything it would mess up the proof.

and you can't be both god and not god since that would violate the law of non-contradiction.

[Anonymous No.8642259]

>>8624548
>the lack of existence of a God-like entity doesn't preclude necessary existence as a God-like property.
unless you are using some made up definitions this is just wrong.

[Anonymous No.8643341]

>>8640045
>flawless counterpoint to old problem in ontological metaphysics, missed by the greatest minds, deserving of the nobel prize
>anon lols at it

[Anonymous No.8643381]

>>8623485
Given the small chance that a creature exist that posses all attributes, it'll be just a creature with maxed stats, it just proves that one property described ad infinitum, looks like God to him.

To be honest it's not really much as far as arguments go.

The equations are lovely tough.