5 ms·

There are tight logical proofs. Note I point out the ontological argument is now validated by computer. I am merely sketching them above. I also disagree ath

by yters 6y ago

There are tight logical proofs. Note I point out the ontological argument is now validated by computer. I am merely sketching them above. I also disagree atheism is the default. As Einstein says, simplify as much as possible, but no further. Atheism is incapable of explaining reality as we experience it. While simple it lacks explanatory power. Saying atheism is the default due to simplicity is like saying nothing is a better explanation than something because nothingness is simpler than something, which is clearly the wrong way to go about picking theories. Monotheism is our most parsinomous theory to date.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> There are tight logical proofs. No, there aren't. > Note I point out the ontological argument is now validated by computer. While an invalid argument is useless, a valid one can still be no good. Here is a logically valid argument: Major Premise. all who post claims of proofs of God’s existence on HN should be killed. Minor Premise. yters posted a claim of proof of God’s existence on HN Conclusion. Therefore, yters should be killed. Now, if I claimed I proved you should be killed, you would probably object, and claim there was a problem with the major premise. And I think many people would agree with you, but the correctness of the premises isn't relevant to logical validity, only soundness.
- yters 6y ago
  Well that's the problem with all proofs. If the premises are false the proof is not sound. That doesn't preclude the proof being tight, i.e. as in well reasoned and logically argued. Outside of mathematics you will be hard pressed to find a proof where someone doesn't disagree with a premise or two. And even within math we have intuitionists and constructivists claiming things like proof by negation is invalid. So if your criterion for solid proof is one that everyone agrees with, you are bound to be perpetually disappointed. On the other hand if your criterion is proofs that highly intelligent people find convincing after fully understanding the argument, then I again submit to you the ontological argument which even Russell claimed was sound at one point in his life before walking that back and saying it is wrong for some unknown reason.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Well that's the problem with all proofs No, its the problem with pure logical proofs, which is why for statements about reality rather than abstract relations of concepts, empirical proofs (despite being less absolute) are generally preferred. > the ontological argument Since you have merely waved at and sketched the argument, let me do the same it's demolition: existence is not a predicate.
    - yters 6y ago
      I guess that means we cannot say anything exists. Sounds sensible to me.

by yters 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> There are tight logical proofs. No, there aren't. > Note I point out the ontological argument is now validated by computer. While an invalid argument is useless, a valid one can still be no good. Here is a logically valid argument: Major Premise. all who post claims of proofs of God’s existence on HN should be killed. Minor Premise. yters posted a claim of proof of God’s existence on HN Conclusion. Therefore, yters should be killed. Now, if I claimed I proved you should be killed, you would probably object, and claim there was a problem with the major premise. And I think many people would agree with you, but the correctness of the premises isn't relevant to logical validity, only soundness.

yters 6y ago
Well that's the problem with all proofs. If the premises are false the proof is not sound. That doesn't preclude the proof being tight, i.e. as in well reasoned and logically argued. Outside of mathematics you will be hard pressed to find a proof where someone doesn't disagree with a premise or two. And even within math we have intuitionists and constructivists claiming things like proof by negation is invalid. So if your criterion for solid proof is one that everyone agrees with, you are bound to be perpetually disappointed. On the other hand if your criterion is proofs that highly intelligent people find convincing after fully understanding the argument, then I again submit to you the ontological argument which even Russell claimed was sound at one point in his life before walking that back and saying it is wrong for some unknown reason.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Well that's the problem with all proofs No, its the problem with pure logical proofs, which is why for statements about reality rather than abstract relations of concepts, empirical proofs (despite being less absolute) are generally preferred. > the ontological argument Since you have merely waved at and sketched the argument, let me do the same it's demolition: existence is not a predicate.
  - yters 6y ago
    I guess that means we cannot say anything exists. Sounds sensible to me.