3 ms·

The very page you link lists a logically sound ontological argument[1]. It appears to me that you're judging the argument fallacious because you don't like the

by User23 6y ago

The very page you link lists a logically sound ontological argument[1]. It appears to me that you're judging the argument fallacious because you don't like the conclusion. [1]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#GodOntArg https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#Go...

whatshisface 6y ago
The fallacy in that one is thinking that accepting those axioms is any different than directly accepting the conclusion. :) Stating a bunch of axioms and deriving something doesn't prove what you derived, except in a technical sense of the word "prove," not in a useful sense related to determining the truth. Even if we accept that Godel's logic was sound, there is plainly no more reason to believe in his starting point than there is to directly believe in the end.
- CRConrad 6y ago
  This -- your reasoning -- seems so obviously true that I can only wonder if Gödel was joking, and anyone who takes this argument seriously is just plainly missing his little joke. I mean, heck, this seems to be just a re-formulation in proper high-falutin' philomasophical terms ("For any x, there is a B such that B[x] = A", yadda yadda) of the old kindergarten argument: 1) God is the ultimate good; he embodies and incorporates all that is good. 2) Existing is good, certainly better than not existing. 3) Therefore, God exists; he obviously must exist, because otherwise he wouldn't incorporate all that is good (in this case, specifically, existence). That's so laughably childish that these notes found after his death can't be anything but Gödel amusing himself, predating Sokal by decades.
- medstrom 6y ago
  What? You contradict yourself several times. Does accepting the axioms obligate you to accept the conclusion or not? First you say it does, then you say it doesn't. And proving something is of course quite literally "determining the truth", you can't just dribble it away like that. This comment looks like word salad intended to let the reader believe whatever they want.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    Proving that some axioms imply a conclusion does not prove the truth of the conclusion, when the axioms themselves remain unproven. For example: Axiom 1) All comments by whatshisface are right. Theorem 1) This comment is right. Proof: Whatshisface wrote this comment. That's a proof in the mathematical sense and there's nothing wrong with it in that way, but that it has nothing to do with the truth of the theorem.
    - medstrom 6y ago
      Axioms are not something you ever prove, as in, they're not provable even in principle. I would not call this an axiom, this is simply a premise. It can be determined. You'd trace this premise back up a chain of premise-based arguments, and if all are valid, you eventually reach some of the 5-10 (I forgot) core axioms that underlie all of logic. And those are not provable, but you'd generally be considered mad not to accept them. I'm not sure what you want to achieve by focusing on this topic. You just saying you don't agree with the axioms in the article, right? So just say that.

by User23 6y ago

whatshisface 6y ago

The fallacy in that one is thinking that accepting those axioms is any different than directly accepting the conclusion. :) Stating a bunch of axioms and deriving something doesn't prove what you derived, except in a technical sense of the word "prove," not in a useful sense related to determining the truth. Even if we accept that Godel's logic was sound, there is plainly no more reason to believe in his starting point than there is to directly believe in the end.

CRConrad 6y ago
This -- your reasoning -- seems so obviously true that I can only wonder if Gödel was joking, and anyone who takes this argument seriously is just plainly missing his little joke. I mean, heck, this seems to be just a re-formulation in proper high-falutin' philomasophical terms ("For any x, there is a B such that B[x] = A", yadda yadda) of the old kindergarten argument: 1) God is the ultimate good; he embodies and incorporates all that is good. 2) Existing is good, certainly better than not existing. 3) Therefore, God exists; he obviously must exist, because otherwise he wouldn't incorporate all that is good (in this case, specifically, existence). That's so laughably childish that these notes found after his death can't be anything but Gödel amusing himself, predating Sokal by decades.
medstrom 6y ago
What? You contradict yourself several times. Does accepting the axioms obligate you to accept the conclusion or not? First you say it does, then you say it doesn't. And proving something is of course quite literally "determining the truth", you can't just dribble it away like that. This comment looks like word salad intended to let the reader believe whatever they want.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Proving that some axioms imply a conclusion does not prove the truth of the conclusion, when the axioms themselves remain unproven. For example: Axiom 1) All comments by whatshisface are right. Theorem 1) This comment is right. Proof: Whatshisface wrote this comment. That's a proof in the mathematical sense and there's nothing wrong with it in that way, but that it has nothing to do with the truth of the theorem.
  - medstrom 6y ago
    Axioms are not something you ever prove, as in, they're not provable even in principle. I would not call this an axiom, this is simply a premise. It can be determined. You'd trace this premise back up a chain of premise-based arguments, and if all are valid, you eventually reach some of the 5-10 (I forgot) core axioms that underlie all of logic. And those are not provable, but you'd generally be considered mad not to accept them. I'm not sure what you want to achieve by focusing on this topic. You just saying you don't agree with the axioms in the article, right? So just say that.