3 ms·

Very interesting. I was trying to think on how to refute premise 2, and came up with: - A real catastrophe is worse than an imaginary catastrophe Then not all

by tcgv 7y ago

Very interesting. I was trying to think on how to refute premise 2, and came up with: - A real catastrophe is worse than an imaginary catastrophe Then not all real things are better than imaginary things - An imaginary outcome in which my country's team wins the world cup is greater than a real outcome in which it doesn't Then not all real things are greater than imaginary thins Not sure if these are valid, since I'm not familiar with philosophical reasoning.

Saturn_V 7y ago
Yes, those are valid arguments! Maybe I should have reformulated it to "a real god is better than an imaginary god" directy, then that does not work anymore. But I am no expert either ;) The real way to break it down is by attacking (1). One common answer is that this does not prove the existence of the "biblical god" at all. Nothing about an omniscient creator God in heaven. It just proves there is a "best" thing. For all we know it could be a potato. Another way is to say that by accepting (1), we basically already assume a God exists. So, nothing new was concluded by proving he does. This logical flaw is called "begging the question". Although not everyone agrees if that is the case here.
- a1369209993 7y ago
  > a real god is better than an imaginary god Cthulhu. Or pretty much any god from or inspired by Lovecraft really. > For all we know it could be a potato. Or a jelly donut.
vinceguidry 7y ago
This is where you have to get into the nuts and bolts of Godel's proof. Godel axiomized "positive properties" into the proof. A positive property is such that either it or its negation is positive, never both. So a catastrophe is a negative property, it's absence is the positive. He then goes on to define God as the most positive thing imaginable. So a real catastrophe is not more positive than an imagined one.

3 ms·

Very interesting. I was trying to think on how to refute premise 2, and came up with: - A real catastrophe is worse than an imaginary catastrophe Then not all

by tcgv 7y ago

Saturn_V 7y ago
Yes, those are valid arguments! Maybe I should have reformulated it to "a real god is better than an imaginary god" directy, then that does not work anymore. But I am no expert either ;) The real way to break it down is by attacking (1). One common answer is that this does not prove the existence of the "biblical god" at all. Nothing about an omniscient creator God in heaven. It just proves there is a "best" thing. For all we know it could be a potato. Another way is to say that by accepting (1), we basically already assume a God exists. So, nothing new was concluded by proving he does. This logical flaw is called "begging the question". Although not everyone agrees if that is the case here.
- a1369209993 7y ago
  > a real god is better than an imaginary god Cthulhu. Or pretty much any god from or inspired by Lovecraft really. > For all we know it could be a potato. Or a jelly donut.
vinceguidry 7y ago
This is where you have to get into the nuts and bolts of Godel's proof. Godel axiomized "positive properties" into the proof. A positive property is such that either it or its negation is positive, never both. So a catastrophe is a negative property, it's absence is the positive. He then goes on to define God as the most positive thing imaginable. So a real catastrophe is not more positive than an imagined one.