Kurt Godel, in his theorem for the existence of something godlike...?

Question

proposes that to be godlike would require all positive or "morally aesthetic" properties. Is it possible to agree upon a universal definition of these "moral aesthetic" qualities

Answer 1

Actually, no, we can't--by virtue of Kurt's completeness theorem that demonstrates ANY set of symbolic relationships, e.g. mathematics, thought, is incomplete. So, no, we could never know all of what morality is, e.g. apprehend it in an absolute sense (it would be awesome if we could, I'd never make a mistake again!) let alone agree with everyone about it.

Answer 2

different than that maximum human beings view the Universe incorrectly. the excellent worded definition of the Universe is "The Universe is the totality of life". That being pronounced, then there is not any longer something outdoors of it. additionally, it fairly is extra desirable than area and the mass/remember/potential interior of it, so the so-talked approximately as great Bang (if it got here approximately) would not be the start of the Universe. The Universe is all of life for the period of what's recognized as Time and all dimensions and such. there is not any incompleteness to the Universe, then, the two, because of the fact the Universe is completed in being all.

Answer 3

I doubt it.

I'm assuming you have read Plato, and the great debate over what truly constituted justice, or Theatetus stumbling over a definition of true wisdom.

We can go around in circles trying to come up with a universal definition, and though it probably would be good exercise that would help us become wiser and more humble, I doubt very much that it would be possible to agree on a universal definition.

Answer 4

We say power corrupts.
And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
We say God is absolutely powerful.

.... and then we say He's completely moral and incorruptible.

I think Godel is whistling in the dark.