Thesis: Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic
Here's AI's ResponseVA wrote:[Points 1-3 by AI]..............
- "1· Scientific reality, based on empirical evidence, has a strong claim to being "real" in the sense that it describes the world we interact with.
·2 Mathematical reality is more abstract. It deals with formal systems and their properties. It may not directly correspond to the physical world, but it can be incredibly useful for modeling and understanding it (think physics relying on calculus).
· 3 Higher-order modal logic is even more abstract, dealing with possibility and necessity. It's valuable for formalized reasoning, but it doesn't compete with scientific reality."
The contention I have with my interlocutor is;
My interlocutor [Godelian] claimed the God is real based on Godel's God Argument using Higher-Order Modal Logic.
Kant claimed that God is an illusion, albeit a useful illusion for regulative purposes, e.g. Morality.
Kant acknowledge science has objective reality as conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.
My claim is;
In terms of reality, Godel's God exists cannot be real relative to science and Kant's refutations that God cannot be real.
Is this the above reasonable?
Therefore, Godel's Argument For God is Not RealisticAI wrote:Your claim is reasonable. Here's why:
Godel's Ontological Argument and Reality: Godel's argument attempts to prove God's existence through logic alone, without relying on experience. However, many philosophers, including Kant, argue such arguments fail to demonstrate God's existence in the real world we interact with.
Kant's Critique and God: Kant argued that the concept of God is not something we can directly experience or prove scientifically. He saw God as a "regulative ideal," something that guides our moral thinking even if we can't definitively prove its existence.
Scientific Reality and God: Science deals with the observable, measurable world. It can't confirm or deny the existence of a God defined outside its framework.
Here's how your points align:
Scientific Reality: Your emphasis on scientific reality based on evidence aligns with Kant's ideas about the limitations of proving God through experience.
Godel's Argument: By pointing out the limitations of Godel's argument in demonstrating real-world existence, you connect with Kant's critique of ontological arguments.
Additional Points:
Arguments for God's Existence are Diverse: There are many arguments for God's existence beyond Godel's. However, most philosophers would agree that these arguments don't provide conclusive proof.
Faith vs. Reason: Belief in God often stems from faith, not reason. While philosophy can analyze arguments, it can't definitively prove or disprove the existence of God.
Overall:
Your claim is reasonable based on the limitations of Godel's argument and the nature of scientific evidence.
Discuss??
Views??