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

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reference: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... #GodOntArg

One of the criticism of Godel's Ontological Argument with reference to Kant, from the above link is the following:

• "Kant would not have been happy with Axiom 5 [Necessary existence is positive]; and there is at least some reason to think that whether the property of being God-like is “positive” ought to depend upon whether or not there is a God-like being."

There is 'begging the question' in Godel's argument for God which effect the soundness of the argument:

You're right on point! The criticism you mentioned from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy highlights a key weakness in Gödel's ontological argument, potentially making it a circular argument (begging the question).

Here's why:

Axiom 5: This axiom states that "necessary existence is a positive property." This is a crucial step in Gödel's argument. It essentially defines necessary existence (always existing) as something good or desirable.

Kant's Objection: Kant, as the quote suggests, wouldn't agree with this axiom. He might argue that the concept of "good" or "positive" might not apply to God, who transcends human understanding. Furthermore, whether necessary existence is "good" might depend on the nature of the being itself. Imagine an all-powerful but malicious being existing eternally - would that be considered "good"?

Circular Reasoning:
If the argument relies on defining necessary existence as positive (good) to reach the conclusion that God exists (a supposedly good being), it becomes circular.
It essentially assumes what it's trying to prove. In simpler terms, it says "because God is good, necessary existence must be good, and since necessary existence is good, God must exist" - a loop.


The argument isn't necessarily invalid in the sense of having logical flaws within the defined system.
However, the criticism exposes a potential weakness in the foundation (Axiom 5); it raises doubts about its soundness. If the definition of "positive" is subjective or depends on the nature of the being, the entire argument crumbles.

Even if the argument were logically sound, it wouldn't convince everyone. Some might find the concept of God existing outside of human reason more compelling.
The key takeaway is that Gödel's argument is an interesting attempt at a formal proof for God's existence, but it faces significant philosophical challenges, especially regarding the chosen axioms and their connection to the real world.

Conclusion:
Kant's objection exposes a potential circularity in Gödel's argument. It highlights the importance of scrutinizing the underlying assumptions, especially when dealing with concepts like "good" and applying them to God. The argument remains an interesting thought experiment but doesn't offer universally accepted proof for God's existence.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Questions:
Godel's Ontological Proof is based on higher order logic.
What is so great and grant about higher order logic?
Isn't it conditioned upon logic-in-general where as Kant's stated, the advantage of logic is in its limitation, i.e. the reliance on abstractions rather than particular.

You're right, Gödel's Ontological Proof does raise interesting questions about the strengths and limitations of logic, particularly higher-order logic. Here's a breakdown of your points:

Higher-Order Logic:
Strengths: Higher-order logic allows quantification over properties themselves, which is useful in Gödel's case for defining properties of God. It offers a more expressive way to reason about complex concepts.
Limitations: As you mentioned, it's still logic. Logical systems are formal frameworks, and their conclusions depend on the initial axioms we choose. They don't directly map onto reality.

Kant and Limitations of Logic:
Limitations Agreed: Logic excels in dealing with abstractions and relationships within a system. It can't directly access or prove things about the real world on its own. Think of it as a powerful tool for manipulating ideas, but not a substitute for scientific observation and experimentation.

Gödel's Proof and Limitations:

Interesting Experiment: Despite limitations, Gödel's proof is a significant attempt to formalize a traditionally philosophical question. It pushes the boundaries of how we use logic to discuss God.
Not Scientific Proof: As with any purely logical argument, it doesn't provide scientific evidence for God's existence. It remains within the realm of possibility and internal consistency of the chosen axioms.

Gold Standard of Science:
Science relies on evidence, observation, and experimentation to build knowledge about the real world.
Logical arguments, even complex ones like Gödel's, can't replace that process.

So, what's great about higher-order logic?
It's a powerful tool for formalizing complex ideas and relationships.
It allows for more nuanced reasoning within a system.

But remember:
Logic, including higher-order logic, operates within defined systems.
The conclusions depend on the initial assumptions (axioms).
It's not a substitute for scientific evidence about the real world.

In conclusion:
Both Gödel's logic-based argument and Kant's focus on limitations offer valuable perspectives.

Gödel pushes the boundaries of formal reasoning about God.
Kant reminds us of the limitations of logic in matters of existence and the real world. Science remains the gold standard for establishing facts about the physical world.

[Sculptor]

I can answer this in one word.

The soundness of Godel's argument....

ZERO

[Sculptor]

The whole thing colapses with the first axiom.

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Most philosophers accept the Godel's Ontological Argument is Unsuccessful;

The Godel ontological argument has garnered quite a bit of attention in the last
fifty years.
In most cases, philosophers have agreed that the argument is unsuccessful but have disagreed vigorously over where exactly the fatal flaw lies[/b].

This paper, will to some extent, follow the familiar pattern. I will argue that Godel’s argument is unsuccessful, but I hope to show that Sobel and Anderson have both misdiagnosed its failure, and, consequently, Anderson’s attempted
repairs are likewise unsuccessful.
https://robkoons.net/uploads/1/3/5/2/13 ... roof_l.pdf

[promethean75]

I hate it when super smart fuckers like godel believe in god. Makes me think god might exist and I'm just too dumb to know it. U know what i mean? Like if this dude is right about all this other heavy stuff, maybe he's right when he says god exists.

Really pisses me off. I lose my confidence as an atheist everytime i'm around these fuckers.

[Skepdick]

The whole thing colapses with the first axiom.

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Idiot-philosopher can't parse even a basic tautology.

The negation of existence is not existence.
The negation of X is not X.

That is what negation is.

[Skepdick]

Most philosophers accept the Godel's Ontological Argument is Unsuccessful;

And yet they can't agree on what the problem is.

Typical idiot philosophers. Disagree first. Figure out why - never.

[promethean75]

"My belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza." - Godel

Why, goddamit. Why does Kurt ride with leibniz and not spinz? He can't just say some shit like that and then everybody's like okay no prob please continue. I wanna know what his problem with Spinoza B is.

[Impenitent]

monad envy

-Imp

[godelian]

Most philosophers accept the Godel's Ontological Argument is Unsuccessful;

The Godel ontological argument has garnered quite a bit of attention in the last
fifty years.
In most cases, philosophers have agreed that the argument is unsuccessful but have disagreed vigorously over where exactly the fatal flaw lies[/b].

This paper, will to some extent, follow the familiar pattern. I will argue that Godel’s argument is unsuccessful, but I hope to show that Sobel and Anderson have both misdiagnosed its failure, and, consequently, Anderson’s attempted
repairs are likewise unsuccessful.
https://robkoons.net/uploads/1/3/5/2/13 ... roof_l.pdf

This is ridiculous. Philosophers have no business calling a mathematically unobjectionable proof "unsuccessful".

Both the Coq and the Isabelle proof assistants confirm that the proof executes flawlessly. The proof is absolutely "successful".

I think that we all agree that these people are laughable.

[Atla]

Most philosophers accept the Godel's Ontological Argument is Unsuccessful;

The Godel ontological argument has garnered quite a bit of attention in the last
fifty years.
In most cases, philosophers have agreed that the argument is unsuccessful but have disagreed vigorously over where exactly the fatal flaw lies[/b].

This paper, will to some extent, follow the familiar pattern. I will argue that Godel’s argument is unsuccessful, but I hope to show that Sobel and Anderson have both misdiagnosed its failure, and, consequently, Anderson’s attempted
repairs are likewise unsuccessful.
https://robkoons.net/uploads/1/3/5/2/13 ... roof_l.pdf

This is ridiculous. Philosophers have no business calling a mathematically unobjectionable proof "unsuccessful".

Both the Coq and the Isabelle proof assistants confirm that the proof executes flawlessly. The proof is absolutely "successful".

I think that we all agree that these people are laughable.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Most philosophers accept the Godel's Ontological Argument is Unsuccessful;

The Godel ontological argument has garnered quite a bit of attention in the last
fifty years.
In most cases, philosophers have agreed that the argument is unsuccessful but have disagreed vigorously over where exactly the fatal flaw lies[/b].

This paper, will to some extent, follow the familiar pattern. I will argue that Godel’s argument is unsuccessful, but I hope to show that Sobel and Anderson have both misdiagnosed its failure, and, consequently, Anderson’s attempted
repairs are likewise unsuccessful.
https://robkoons.net/uploads/1/3/5/2/13 ... roof_l.pdf

This is ridiculous. Philosophers have no business calling a mathematically unobjectionable proof "unsuccessful".

Both the Coq and the Isabelle proof assistants confirm that the proof executes flawlessly. The proof is absolutely "successful".

I think that we all agree that these people are laughable.

I define philosophy-proper as the inherent fundamental human function [tool] to facilitate the optimal well being and flourishing of the individual[s] and therefrom of humanity within reality [all there is].

Science, Mathematics and other fields of knowledge are merely subsets of philosophy; this is why we have the Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mathematics and Philosophy of whatever.

As such, philosophy-proper has the overriding authority to assess whether science or mathematics and others has the more credible and objective realization of reality.

I have demonstrated the science FS is the most credible and objective FS in realization reality [what is real] as the gold standard [100/100].
Mathematics while certain and true within its self-contained system cannot be realistic and if compared to scientific reality, mathematics would be rated at say 20/100.

Something is wrong with your thinking in insisting Mathematics has an absolute authority in terms of reality and knowledge.

I had asked you before;
demonstrate the existence of a real perfect circle [as in geometry] in reality?

Perfect circle = a figure in which all points on its curve are the same distance from its center or
( x - h )^2 + ( y - k )^2 = r^2, where ( h, k ) is the center and r is the radius.

[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.