Ontological Proof Question?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof


Can anyone explain what is meant by "positive properties"? In the article it states:

"Gödel defines a positive property rather vaguely: "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995"

However this doesnt make much sense to me. A more clear, down to earth explanation would help a lot.

Also, what is Necesarry Existance as refered to in the proof? Is it something that HAS to be? Its hard for me to speculate what NE may be because it states it is positive property and I am unclear as to what that is.

Thanks for any help.

Ok, then how about this:

"Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense "

Hes using the word positive to define the word positive. I dont get it.


Also: "It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)."

I dont even know what those words mean.

"Anselm's ontological proof is actually quite a bit simpler than Gödel makes it seem, so I suggest that you start at the source.
"

Thanks for the tips. Ive already read this and understand it pretty well. I understand most of Godel's up to a point... I just get confused on the terms in my details. If anyone could address those it would be great.

Answer 1

Part of the reason why you're unclear about what exactly 'positive' means in this proof is because it's fairly unclear. This has even been used as a criticism of the proof - because it's possible to formulate a number of sets of positive properties and not just one, by the argument there must be a number of gods and not just one.

What Gödel seems to be trying to imply is that a positive quality is one that is good to have. This jibes with the kind of God that Christians try to prove the existance of: an all-powerful and all-good being. There's another point in the argument that backs this up, too - when he says that if any property is positive then its negation is not positive, and that the essence of godlike is to have every positive property. He is basically asserting that God is all-good and nothing bad. (This is another criticism - some positive properties would seem to be mutually exclusive)

Necessary existance is not one term but two. Gödel's assertion that existance is positive follows Anselm's: the greatest concievable real being is obviously greater than the greatest concievable imaginary being. Therefore the greatest concievable being of any kind must necessary be real, since it is the greater of the two. Gödel tucks that into 'positiveness' so his whole essence thing works better, but this could be another argument against it.

All in all, I don't see Gödel's proof as a very substantial development on Anseln's, other than formulating it in logical terms. That formulation does make it easier to attack, since it's more clear what the assumptions are, but it seems to me there was really no dearth of disproofs for the earlier argument, too.

Hope that helps! (Here's a link to an alternate explanation of the proof, which may help if you compare the two)

Answer 2

...if you're having trouble with Gödel's ontological proof, don't worry about it. Gödel was a brilliant logician, but you wouldn't be expected to understand this proof without having taken at least one class in formal logic. Anselm's ontological proof is actually quite a bit simpler than Gödel makes it seem, so I suggest that you start at the source.

If you're really set on understanding Gödel, you should learn first-order logic.

Answer 3

yanno, i've tried very hard to 'break it down' for you (or anyone) to understand.. but to be honest, it's all right there for you to get. if you cannot understand the logic equations, then certainly you can make (relatively close) generalizations about certain aspects of the equation from the derivation section beneath.

that article is set up to be read in a certain order with the premise that a person reading it could easily understand it with some background in logic.

as much as i'd like to make it a bit easier to understand, i honestly feel that the article is pretty self-explainatory.

my apologies for not being able to do better. if you revise your question (beyond my answer), naturally i won't be able to respond. however, i do hope someone else might attempt to help on this one.

.