http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof
2006-09-20 16:55:48 · 10 answers · asked by Easy B 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Spam (guy on the beach), Russell never attacked this work of Godel, as it was unpublished. You might be thinking of Leibniz. With his incompleteness theorem, Godel did undermine much work by Russell, though.
2006-09-20 17:14:10 · update #1
I don't have to. There are several reasons Gödel's axioms may not be realistic, including the following:
It may be impossible to properly satisfy axiom 3, which assumes that a conjunction of positive properties is also a positive property; for the proof to work, the axiom must be taken to apply to arbitrary, not necessarily finite, collections of properties. Moreover, some positive properties may be incompatible with others. For example mercy may be incompatible with justice. In that case the conjunction would be an impossible property and G(x) would be false of every x.
Gödel's axioms are too strong: they imply that all possible worlds are identical. He proved this result by considering the property "is such that X is true", where X is any true modal statement about the world. If g is a Godlike object, and X is in fact true, then g must possess this property, and hence must possess it necessarily. But then X is a necessary truth. A similar argument shows that all falsehoods are necessary falsehoods.
2006-09-20 17:10:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well no. And the reasons are as follows:
1. For atheists god doesn't exist. You cant attempt to prove 'something doesn't exist' if you know that it doesn't exist. So a true atheist will never try this. This argument may be good for believers who are sitting on the fences of being converting to atheism and are looking for a rational reason for that.
2. For believers this is false because they know that God exist and that God is a not a rationality or a theorem to be proved. They feel god and you cant disprove anything to them
2006-09-20 16:56:59 · answer #2 · answered by Mash 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Existence of God arguments have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, and other thinkers. In philosophical terminology, existence of God arguments concern schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God.
There are many philosophical issues concerning the existence of God. Some definitions of God's existence are so nonspecific that it is certain that something exists that meets the definition; while other definitions are clearly logically impossible since the definition contradicts itself. Epistemological problems such as the "problem of the supernatural" cause no end to the misunderstandings involved in arguments for and against the existence of God
Arguments for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective. Arguments against the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive. Conclusions reached include God exists and this can be proven; God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven; God does not exist; and no one knows.
NEWS FLASH-----NO ONE REALLY KNOWS so WHO CARES?
not me and the belief or lack of belief surrounding the existance of GOD is irrelevant. Those that believe can not be convinced otherwise, those that chose not to believe have their own reasons for their beliefs. It is a matter of FAITH not PROOF.
RELIGION-THE GREAT DIVIDER
2006-09-20 17:07:16 · answer #3 · answered by rwl_is_taken 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Whatever logic you may use even if it 100% proves it doesn't change the fact that there is God. God's existence is not a fact, it is a faith. I believe my doctor can help me. I believe my driver can take me there. That is why you go or sit in the first place. Do you need calculations to prove that it is risk free with your driver? It doesn't change it. Bible says that the whole world awaits in eager expectation for the manifestation of the sons of God. Will you be part? I am just saying that logic is not important be it an atheist or agnostic. It's not about them, it's about you
2006-09-20 17:03:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Simple. I will not agree that god is the greatest thing you can think of.
BTW, sorry but I've no idea what modal logic is. I'm an unbeliever, not a philosopher. But this argument is flawed from the beginning. It's written from a Christan-biased point of view.
2006-09-20 16:58:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Change "it is possible god exists" to "it is possible god does not exist", and the rest of the proof follows the exact same form, except that you end up proving god does not exist.
There is no basis on which to claim that it is possible god exists while also claiming it is not possible god does not exist. The modal ontological argument is an interesting exercises in semantics, which Russell shredded to pieces.
2006-09-20 17:00:55 · answer #6 · answered by lenny 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
His underlying argument appears to rely on people believing God exists
If people believe God exists, why bother with meaningless formulas that rely on believing God exists?
2006-09-20 17:04:22 · answer #7 · answered by Left the building 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Most atheists are willing to wait and see who wins the argument. In the end, we all will know the truth, so what's your point?
2006-09-20 16:58:30 · answer #8 · answered by tjnstlouismo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think links are fun too...
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
2006-09-20 16:59:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
what?
2006-09-20 18:30:14 · answer #10 · answered by lnfrared Loaf 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋