3 ms·
A lot of comments here are making counter-arguments by showing that some other improbable entity would exist by the same logic. This is fine, but be aware that
by goto11 7y ago
A lot of comments here are making counter-arguments by showing that some other improbable entity would exist by the same logic. This is fine, but be aware that Gödel was just formalizing a 1000 year old argument, and the first counter-argument using this form is also 1000 years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Gaunilo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Gaunilo
The argument basically comes down to if you can define something into existence. If the definition of X implies that X exists...then X must exist?
- antisemiotic 7y agoAlso, it looks like those who don't understand Kant are doomed to reinvent him haphazardly.
- jfengel 7y agoIs that such a bad thing? It's like a framework: if it's not necessary to download a thousand pages of Kant in order to arrive at the correct conclusion, is it really all that important to get the rigorous version instead?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- goto11 7y agoIt would however save many people a lot of time if they understood that logical reasoning cannot tell you facts about the world with are not already implied by the premises or definitions chosen. You cannot prove the existence of gravity or the platypus purely by logic. Neither can you prove the existence of "God", unless you define "God" in such a vague way that it doesn't tell you anything about reality.