3 ms·

As an atheist, I have mixed feelings about it. I like it as a training in logic, yet I feel it is of no theological value...

by netrus 13y ago

pmelendez 13y ago
From the paper: "Gödel defines God as a being who possesses all positive properties. He does not extensively discuss what positive properties are, but instead he states a few reasonable (but debatable) axioms that they should satisfy" I'm not an atheist, but for truth's sake you would notice that Gödel definition of God is very wide and not necessarily aligned with any mainstream religion.
Shorel 13y ago
Reading the Wikipedia version of that, it is full of HUGE assumptions: > Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property That's in total disagreement with evolution. No being is really necessary. > Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent. Now that's in huge disagreement with any religious book, as all of them are full of inconsistencies. Any proof lacks any value if the starting axioms lack value by themselves. Newton wasted years of his life studying the bible. We shall simply view all this as the waste of time it was and simply expect future genius to not do the same.
bsullivan01 13y ago
"God" doesn't necessarily mean one that cares what you ate on Friday.....or if you pushed the elevator buttons on Shabbat.
- astrodust 13y ago
  Replace "God" with "burrito" and it's the same thing.
dragonwriter 13y ago
I am a Christian, and I think this argument (and more simple ones of the same general form -- notably St. Anselm's) are good examples of the limitations and abuses of logic; they are superficially attractive in isolation, but if you accept the basic form (and, particularly -- as pointed out Kant's critique of Anselm's argument, which is equally applicable to Godel's -- accept the erroneous idea that existence can be treated as a predicate) you can "prove" the existence of pretty much anything.
ianstallings 13y ago
I wouldn't worry, Gödel himself was only trying to prove that mathematics could be used to determine if God existed and he himself did not publish it until he was near death because people would think he believed in God. If anything it was a more formal approach to the Ontological Argument put forward by Anselm of Canterbury, and he was trying to show how modal logic can be used as language in proof theory, and "the study of what can and cannot be proved in mathematical systems of deduction. Issues of completeness of mathematical systems, the independence of axioms from other axioms, and issue of the consistency of formal mathematical systems are all part of proof theory." http://sas.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html http://sas.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury

As an atheist, I have mixed feelings about it. I like it as a training in logic, yet I feel it is of no theological value...

by netrus 13y ago

As an atheist, I have mixed feelings about it. I like it as a training in logic, yet I feel it is of no theological value...

pmelendez 13y ago

From the paper: "Gödel defines God as a being who possesses all positive properties. He does not extensively discuss what positive properties are, but instead he states a few reasonable (but debatable) axioms that they should satisfy" I'm not an atheist, but for truth's sake you would notice that Gödel definition of God is very wide and not necessarily aligned with any mainstream religion.

Shorel 13y ago

Reading the Wikipedia version of that, it is full of HUGE assumptions: > Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property That's in total disagreement with evolution. No being is really necessary. > Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent. Now that's in huge disagreement with any religious book, as all of them are full of inconsistencies. Any proof lacks any value if the starting axioms lack value by themselves. Newton wasted years of his life studying the bible. We shall simply view all this as the waste of time it was and simply expect future genius to not do the same.

bsullivan01 13y ago

"God" doesn't necessarily mean one that cares what you ate on Friday.....or if you pushed the elevator buttons on Shabbat.

astrodust 13y ago
Replace "God" with "burrito" and it's the same thing.

dragonwriter 13y ago

I am a Christian, and I think this argument (and more simple ones of the same general form -- notably St. Anselm's) are good examples of the limitations and abuses of logic; they are superficially attractive in isolation, but if you accept the basic form (and, particularly -- as pointed out Kant's critique of Anselm's argument, which is equally applicable to Godel's -- accept the erroneous idea that existence can be treated as a predicate) you can "prove" the existence of pretty much anything.

ianstallings 13y ago

I wouldn't worry, Gödel himself was only trying to prove that mathematics could be used to determine if God existed and he himself did not publish it until he was near death because people would think he believed in God. If anything it was a more formal approach to the Ontological Argument put forward by Anselm of Canterbury, and he was trying to show how modal logic can be used as language in proof theory, and "the study of what can and cannot be proved in mathematical systems of deduction. Issues of completeness of mathematical systems, the independence of axioms from other axioms, and issue of the consistency of formal mathematical systems are all part of proof theory." http://sas.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html http://sas.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury