The Soundness [???] of Godel's Argument for God

[Atla]

The proof may execute flawlessly, but it's just meaningless word salad when we try to make sense of it philosophically. It doesn't mean anything.

History keeps repeating itself. None of this is new:

Say, “Indeed, I bring a flawless proof from my Lord—yet you have denied it. I do not have that for which you are impatient. The decision can only be made by Allah. He relates the truth, and He is the best of judges."

You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. Moreover, no effort that I make will produce any effect upon him if he is merely pretending sleep. Last but not least, it is not even my job to wake you. That decision can only be made by our beloved Master.

You are fundamentally confused. When the symbols in your mathemathical proof don't refer to anything intelligible in the natural world, you haven't proven anything in the natural world.

[godelian]

The proof may execute flawlessly, but it's just meaningless word salad when we try to make sense of it philosophically. It doesn't mean anything.

History keeps repeating itself. None of this is new:

Say, “Indeed, I bring a flawless proof from my Lord—yet you have denied it. I do not have that for which you are impatient. The decision can only be made by Allah. He relates the truth, and He is the best of judges."

You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. Moreover, no effort that I make will produce any effect upon him if he is merely pretending sleep. Last but not least, it is not even my job to wake you. That decision can only be made by our beloved Master.

You are fundamentally confused. When the symbols in your mathemathical proof don't refer to anything intelligible in the natural world, you haven't proven anything in the natural world.

There is no evidence or proof possible that could ever convince you because you have axiomatized your conviction. Therefore, no effort that I or Gödel or anybody else would ever make, will produce any effect. This is an old and well-known problem. There is no information possible that could convince you, because you do not want to be convinced. That is why I am not even trying.

But then again, your conviction is one that requires omniscience while it simultaneously denies the very possibility of omniscience. Your contradictions will inevitably take control over everything you believe.

You have learned your stubborn certainty from individuals with a hidden agenda who are almost surely already burning in hell. These are people who insist that someone's sex is just a social construct. The idea that there are biologically men and women is merely imaginary and fictitious. According to them, there are women with a penis. There are men with womb. They are convinced of this, not because it is true, but because it serves the goals and greater purpose of their Satanic master.

[Veritas Aequitas]

History keeps repeating itself. None of this is new:

Say, “Indeed, I bring a flawless proof from my Lord—yet you have denied it. I do not have that for which you are impatient. The decision can only be made by Allah. He relates the truth, and He is the best of judges."

Did your God bring some sort Godel's Mathematical Argument in his holy texts to prove Himself exists as real?

What your holy book refers to as proofs of God are merely 'signs'.
These signs are pseudoscience.
There are loads of exposures out there that your God's signs are pseudoscience, maybe do not even has anything to do with science at all but mere guesses. Some of the claims of reality are are so absurd.

[godelian]

History keeps repeating itself. None of this is new:

Say, “Indeed, I bring a flawless proof from my Lord—yet you have denied it. I do not have that for which you are impatient. The decision can only be made by Allah. He relates the truth, and He is the best of judges."

Did your God bring some sort Godel's Mathematical Argument in his holy texts to prove Himself exists as real?

What your holy book refers to as proofs of God are merely 'signs'.
These signs are pseudoscience.
There are loads of exposures out there that your God's signs are pseudoscience, maybe do not even has anything to do with science at all but mere guesses. Some of the claims of reality are are so absurd.

The Quran warns us that there is no information that can possibly exist to convince someone who simply does not want to be convinced. So, don't waste your time, because it is pointless. In fact, I do not want to convince you that God exists. Seriously, I am not interested in that.

I just want to see how you will go about trying to attack Gödel's proof. Up till now, your counterarguments have been laughable. All the while, there is definitely serious criticism possible, which is even mathematically unobjectionable. I actually even agree with it. You can find this kind of serious criticism in the wiki page on Gödel's proof. The thing that strikes me the most, is that you are not capable of serious criticism, not even after reading the wiki page. You don't easily learn, do you? Instead, you keep repeating the same debunked bullshit, over and over again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

History keeps repeating itself. None of this is new:

Did your God bring some sort Godel's Mathematical Argument in his holy texts to prove Himself exists as real?

What your holy book refers to as proofs of God are merely 'signs'.
These signs are pseudoscience.
There are loads of exposures out there that your God's signs are pseudoscience, maybe do not even has anything to do with science at all but mere guesses. Some of the claims of reality are are so absurd.

The Quran warns us that there is no information that can possibly exist to convince someone who simply does not want to be convinced. So, don't waste your time, because it is pointless. In fact, I do not want to convince you that God exists. Seriously, I am not interested in that.

That leaves room for believers to be delusional.

I just want to see how you will go about trying to attack Gödel's proof. Up till now, your counterarguments have been laughable. All the while, there is definitely serious criticism possible, which is even mathematically unobjectionable. I actually even agree with it. You can find this kind of serious criticism in the wiki page on Gödel's proof. The thing that strikes me the most, is that you are not capable of serious criticism, not even after reading the wiki page. You don't easily learn, do you? Instead, you keep repeating the same debunked bullshit, over and over again.

You are unable to see the big picture.

Generally, it is accepted that Godel's proof is valid within his defined axioms within mathematics.
Despite being valid, Godel's proof is not sound to be realistic as I had demonstrated.

[Skepdick]

You are fundamentally confused. When the symbols in your mathemathical proof don't refer to anything intelligible in the natural world, you haven't proven anything in the natural world.

That's not even a word salad. It's a word salad that's gone in the blender.

Letting the referent for the term "world" slide for a second.
What are you refering to with the term "natural"?

[Skepdick]

History keeps repeating itself. None of this is new:

Say, “Indeed, I bring a flawless proof from my Lord—yet you have denied it. I do not have that for which you are impatient. The decision can only be made by Allah. He relates the truth, and He is the best of judges."

Did your God bring some sort Godel's Mathematical Argument in his holy texts to prove Himself exists as real?

Arguments were never enough for the sceptic. That's the whole point! No argument - even a flawless argument - can convince a sceptic.
Their skepticism is a priori - axiomatic - unfalsifiable.

Skeptics claim that arguments are (ultimately) abstract and they want concrete evidence.

So then Christianity makes Jesus concrete. Parlour tricks. Doxastic commitment. Dies for his convictions.
So now you have a flawless proof AND empirical evidence.

Thus you have the abstract reified as concrete (which is the main point of Godel's ontological argument!)

Oh no wait, that's not enough either.

[Skepdick]

Despite being valid, Godel's proof is not sound to be realistic as I had demonstrated.

Dumb empiricist.

The necessary conditions for the existence of reality are necessarily NOT real.

[Atla]

History keeps repeating itself. None of this is new:



You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. Moreover, no effort that I make will produce any effect upon him if he is merely pretending sleep. Last but not least, it is not even my job to wake you. That decision can only be made by our beloved Master.

You are fundamentally confused. When the symbols in your mathemathical proof don't refer to anything intelligible in the natural world, you haven't proven anything in the natural world.

There is no evidence or proof possible that could ever convince you because you have axiomatized your conviction. Therefore, no effort that I or Gödel or anybody else would ever make, will produce any effect. This is an old and well-known problem. There is no information possible that could convince you, because you do not want to be convinced. That is why I am not even trying.

But then again, your conviction is one that requires omniscience while it simultaneously denies the very possibility of omniscience. Your contradictions will inevitably take control over everything you believe.

You have learned your stubborn certainty from individuals with a hidden agenda who are almost surely already burning in hell. These are people who insist that someone's sex is just a social construct. The idea that there are biologically men and women is merely imaginary and fictitious. According to them, there are women with a penis. There are men with womb. They are convinced of this, not because it is true, but because it serves the goals and greater purpose of their Satanic master.

I see you went crazy and somehow ended up connecting what I said with Satan and gender ideology.

But that doesn't change the fact that Gödel's proof is useless if it doesn't refer to intelligible things in the natural world. Take "necessary existence" for example. That's just gibberish, word salad. It's just not something that makes any sense in the natural world, as far as we can tell. Necessary for what? Why? How? According to whom, or for what technical reason? I'm not aware of any fundamental "necessity".

And then necessary existence is also positive. Why not negative or neutral or none of those? That's gibberish squared.

[godelian]

You are unable to see the big picture.

Which so-called "big picture"?

Generally, it is accepted that Godel's proof is valid within his defined axioms within mathematics.

So, then where is the problem?

Despite being valid, Godel's proof is not sound to be realistic as I had demonstrated.

Concerning "Godel's proof is not sound", soundness (i.e. "provable" implies "true") is not a property at the level of the individual theorem but at the level of the entire axiomatic theory. This means that you believe that soundness theorem is not provable from higher-order modal logic. After Googling for this, I could not immediately locate a publication that weighs in on exactly this issue.

Plain modal logic in itself does not seem to be a problem:

https://mally.stanford.edu/notes.pdf

Chapter Five:
Soundness and Completeness
In this chapter, we assemble the results of the previous two chapters
so that we may show that certain normal modal logics are sound and
complete with respect to certain classes of models and classes of frames

Concerning higher-order logic, Gödel's proof uses definitions that make use of quantification over properties and are therefore seemingly of second-order logic. However, the steps in the proof could further increase the logic's order by dealing with more deeply nested properties of properties of properties ... ad nauseam. Figuring that out would require inlining the definitions into the steps, but that is a lot of work. Therefore, limiting the problem to the soundness of second-order logic may not even be sufficient. Furthermore, quite a few publications seem to switch their analysis from second-order logic to set theory (which is more popular) or higher-order logic to type theory (which is more popular).

It is not simple to locate a publication that deals with the soundness of exactly "higher-order modal logic".

If there is a soundness issue with higher-order modal logic, I wonder why nobody else has mentioned this in the discussion of Gödel's proof? On what grounds do you believe that soundness theorem is not provable from higher-order modal logic?

[promethean75]

Four of the fourteen points made by Godel in his notebook regarding his ontological prewf for God:

4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.

5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.

13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.

14. Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.

[promethean75]

now they droppin and yellin, it's a tad bit late. Albert Dogg and Kurt G had to regulate

1000001754.jpg (28.97 KiB) Viewed 135 times

[promethean75]

Atla if u wanna take out Kurt's ontological prewf u gotta either put his axioms in question or call him out becuz of his modal collapse*.

* Gödel's ontological proof contains a theorem which when combined with the axioms of system S5 leads to modal collapse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_collapse

Busted.

[Atla]

Atla if u wanna take out Kurt's ontological prewf u gotta either put his axioms in question or call him out becuz of his modal collapse*.

* Gödel's ontological proof contains a theorem which when combined with the axioms of system S5 leads to modal collapse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_collapse

Busted.

My main beef is with axiom 5 "necessary existence is a positive property". I find it difficult to say how many fallacies are packed into it. For a start, what the hell is "necessity" in the natural world?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are unable to see the big picture.

Which so-called "big picture"?

Generally, it is accepted that Godel's proof is valid within his defined axioms within mathematics.

So, then where is the problem?

Despite being valid, Godel's proof is not sound to be realistic as I had demonstrated.

Concerning "Godel's proof is not sound", soundness (i.e. "provable" implies "true") is not a property at the level of the individual theorem but at the level of the entire axiomatic theory. This means that you believe that soundness theorem is not provable from higher-order modal logic. After Googling for this, I could not immediately locate a publication that weighs in on exactly this issue.

Plain modal logic in itself does not seem to be a problem:

https://mally.stanford.edu/notes.pdf

Chapter Five:
Soundness and Completeness
In this chapter, we assemble the results of the previous two chapters
so that we may show that certain normal modal logics are sound and
complete with respect to certain classes of models and classes of frames

Concerning higher-order logic, Gödel's proof uses definitions that make use of quantification over properties and are therefore seemingly of second-order logic. However, the steps in the proof could further increase the logic's order by dealing with more deeply nested properties of properties of properties ... ad nauseam. Figuring that out would require inlining the definitions into the steps, but that is a lot of work. Therefore, limiting the problem to the soundness of second-order logic may not even be sufficient. Furthermore, quite a few publications seem to switch their analysis from second-order logic to set theory (which is more popular) or higher-order logic to type theory (which is more popular).

It is not simple to locate a publication that deals with the soundness of exactly "higher-order modal logic".

If there is a soundness issue with higher-order modal logic, I wonder why nobody else has mentioned this in the discussion of Gödel's proof? On what grounds do you believe that soundness theorem is not provable from higher-order modal logic?

As with any logic, there is no issue with higher-order modal logic per se if all the premises are valid and sound, e.g. from AI;

• Premise 1: In every world, there's a property of being knowable (□∃P ◇P(x))
  This means in every possible world (□), there exists a property (∃P) such that something (x) can be known according to that property (◇P(x)).
  Premise 2: Everything that is necessarily knowable is necessarily true. (□Knowable(x) -> □True(x))
  This says if something is known in every possible world (necessarily knowable, □Knowable(x)), then it must be true in every possible world (necessarily true, □True(x)).
  Conclusion: Everything is necessarily true. (□True(x))
  
  Why this is valid and sound:
  The argument is valid because the conclusion follows logically from the premises. If something can be known in every world according to some property (Premise 1), and anything necessarily knowable must be true in all worlds (Premise 2), then everything must be necessarily true.
  This argument is also sound because the premises are intuitively true. It seems reasonable that there's something knowable in every world (maybe basic facts about the world itself) and that anything known for sure must be true.

You seem to claim that just because higher-order modal logic is used it must be absolutely authoritative with a sound conclusion.

I linked this earlier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfXAs66GW70
(this is a good explanation of the problem with Godel's Argument)
where all of Godel's Axioms are problematic, especially the one related to 'positive'.
Deductively, if his axioms are problematic, his conclusion cannot be sound.