No, Kant is out of the game now. His arguments can no longer participate because they are not specifically directed at Gödel's axioms. Furthermore, Kant's main argument, i.e. the purported undefinability of existence, is simply unsubstantiated.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:11 am In addition of my critique of the failure of Godel's argument, here is one with reference to Kant:
The entire domain has now been annexed by mathematics, while Kant's views are mathematically objectionable.
Well, that is the nature of the game. So, at least this author is seemingly willing to accept to play by the rules of the game:Can God Be Proved Mathematically? wrote: Gödel was indeed able to prove that the existence of something, which he defined as divine, necessarily follows from certain assumptions. But whether these assumptions are justified can be called into doubt.
If you want to criticize a mathematically unobjectionable proof, then you must direct all criticism at its axioms.
Here the author is already in violation of the rules. You cannot use mathematics to prove anything about the physical universe. There is no axiomatic foundation available for that. So, if I assume that all cats are tricolored can never be a valid axiom because cats are not abstract, Platonic objects. They are part of the physical universe. Therefore, they cannot be axiomatized.Can God Be Proved Mathematically? wrote: For example, if I assume that all cats are tricolored and know that tricolored cats are almost always female, then I can conclude: almost all cats are female. Even if the logical reasoning is correct, this of course does not hold. For the very assumption that all cats are tricolored is false.
Yes, Gödel's proof is mathematically unobjectionable. Hence, he needs to criticize its axioms and nothing else.Can God Be Proved Mathematically? wrote: From a mathematical point of view, however, these thought experiments became really serious only through Gödel’s efforts.
As it turns out, Gödel’s logical inferences are all correct—even computers have been able to prove that.
The author vaguely discusses the axioms but he actually does not manage to criticize them. In fact, he doesn't even really try. Therefore, his conclusion does not follow from anything, really.Can God Be Proved Mathematically? wrote: This does not settle the final question of the existence of one (or more) divine beings.
This conclusion also does not follow from anything that he has discussed. Seriously, this author is just another intellectually dishonest mainstream media word-salad charlatan.Can God Be Proved Mathematically? wrote: Whether mathematics is really the right way to answer this question is itself questionable—even if thinking about it is quite exciting.
Wait a minute! Atheists do not even have a mathematically unobjectionable claim. Hence, there is nothing that Gödel would need to "disprove". It is Gödel who has produced mathematically unobjectionable work and not the atheists. The rules of the game say that atheists must now successfully criticize Gödel's axioms. Where exactly can we find their mathematically legitimate criticism?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:11 am Has mathematics now finally disproved the claims of all atheists?
As you probably already suspect, it has not.