Kurt Godel and religion

Fremen

The famous logician Kurt Godel was a devout believer in god. In fact, he came up with a formal proof of the existence of god.
Here it is:



Enlightening, huh?

dvpower

Fremen wrote: »

Enlightening, huh?

I haven't heard a peep from him since he died 30 years ago.

5uspect

Well if you provided a link to what the varibles are meant to be...

We can't all use the Spice to see such things.

EDIT: here is teh source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

robindch

5uspect wrote: »

Well if you provided a link to what the varibles are meant to be...

The fancy pantaloons of modal logic don't hide Anselm's argument all that well -- FWIW, Gödel loses the plot on line one when he proposes the existence of a function which maps things of unknown quality to "better" things and uses this subjectively-assessed function to infer the existence of a deity. Whose existence is presumably subjective too.

Sam Vimes

"God, by definition, is that than which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore God must exist"

Wow, just wow. Do we even need to point out the.....apparent flaws in this argument?

When you think about it, wouldn't the ability to create the universe despite not existing make God even greater? :P

Galvasean

I remember someone tried to use this argument on me at a party (why alcohol fuels religious debate is beyond me).
My response: "That's frickin' retarded logic."
I stand by my stance.

Fremen

robindch wrote: »

The fancy pantaloons of modal logic don't hide Anselm's argument all that well -- FWIW, Gödel loses the plot on line one when he proposes the existence of a function which maps things of unknown quality to "better" things and uses this subjectively-assessed function to infer the existence of a deity. Whose existence is presumably subjective too.

There are certainly flaws in the argument but I don't think that's one of them. Does he really propose the existence of such a function?

Flamed Diving

Why do people attempt to use maths for subjective nonsense?

robindch

Fremen wrote: »

There are certainly flaws in the argument but I don't think that's one of them. Does he really propose the existence of such a function?

Kind of. It's been a while since I've done modal logic, but if my memory's right, the first line reads "Assume there exists a functor P which operates upon state-descriptor phi, such that there exists a consistent mapping for every object x from state phi to state psi, and call that P a functor of state-descriptor psi", where the mapping is defined in the accompanying text as involving a state change from "worse" to "better"".

Frankly he could have made it clearer by writing "Let's assume that it's possible that there's something out there which can make everything better".

I'd certainly hesitate to call it, as Gödel seems to have thought it was, a clarification of Anselm's distinctly friable ontological argument.

Fremen

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Why do people attempt to use maths for subjective nonsense?

Maths it ain't, logic it am.
Formal logic most certainly has a place in philosophy.

Zillah

Wait, is this just a fancier looking version of the whole "existing is more perfect than not existing" argument?

Flamed Diving

Fremen wrote: »

Maths it ain't, logic it am.
Formal logic most certainly has a place in philosophy.

Ok, pseudo-maths, then. The notion of proof, dressed in the clothes of maths. It's laughable.

Fremen

Zillah wrote: »

Wait, is this just a fancier looking version of the whole "existing is more perfect than not existing" argument?

Yup.

pH

Enough with the Godel hate! Flawed theist he may have been, but he did prove that if God exists he can't be all powerful (in maths anyway)!

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory

Dades

So what you're saying is... Internal Affairs were in on it all along? :pac:

Fremen

pH wrote: »

Enough with the Godel hate! Flawed theist he may have been, but he did prove that if God exists he can't be all powerful (in maths anyway)!

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory

Just because it's not decidable within the given axiomatic framework doesn't mean it's not knowable by god.
Hosanna in the highest.

pH

Fremen wrote: »

Just because it's not decidable within the given axiomatic framework doesn't mean it's not knowable by god.
Hosanna in the highest.

Still, he can't prove it, Godel said so.

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

So what you're saying is... Internal Affairs were in on it all along? :pac:

Sometimes I try this joke in person. It is always either hilarious with laughs all round, or a complete failure as I realise the reference went over their heads and I look like a lunatic.

Fremen

Dades wrote: »

So what you're saying is... Internal Affairs were in on it all along? :pac:

Isn't it "the cops knew internal affairs set them up"?

Dades

Fremen wrote: »

Isn't it "the cops knew internal affairs set them up"?

Dude, that's from a totally different formal proof.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

I realise the reference went over their heads and I look like a lunatic.

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what you're referring to, you will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

nesf

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok, pseudo-maths, then. The notion of proof, dressed in the clothes of maths. It's laughable.

Not really. Maths is just a specific logical system, as we presently understand it. Formal Logic in Philosophy is just an attempt at argument that gets around problems of varying definitions of words. It's unfortunately quite limited in applicability but valid nonetheless.

Strictly, Maths is a subset of Formal Logic rather than Formal Logic a subset of Mathematics if one felt inclined to link them (personally I think they're quite independent of one another in most ways).