Gödel's Ontological Proof

[Cure of Ars]

I found this while adding to the reference section.


[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%f6del's_ontological_proof"]Gödel's ontological proof[/url]



It sounds really cool but I do not really understand it. Can anyone explain it to me in laymen’s terms .

[phatcatholic]

it seems to be based on too many assumptions, but then again its probably over my head too

[Theoketos]

My philosophy degree will become usefull tonight, but right now I do not have the time...Next bat evening, same bat time, same bat channel.

[phatcatholic]

i'll be looking forward to your post!

[Cure of Ars]

me too

[Theoketos]

Ok I read the whole thing, it was pretty good, but not original, and there might be a slight flaw.

Yeah so I know I said I would post someting awesome, but then a tsunami of homework swelled up from the various syllabi, and it is all that I can do but do homework and count on God so as to not drown. Save me Lord when I am in trouble!

Any whoo

Begin to consider the deference in the [i]order of knowing[/i] and the [i]order of being[/i], and you will begin to undestand this proof a little better.

I will write more on it later, I owe it to you all, but work and school come first, because I am sure that you demand greatness from me.

[phatcatholic]

theoketos............can you write more on what this proof is all about?

[Theoketos]

Yeah, Expect a Response before midnight tonight~

[phatcatholic]

Apotheoun..............do you have any thoughts on this, while we're waiting for theoketos?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Godel's Argument really isn't substantially different from that of St. Anselm of Canterbury, is it?

[Cure of Ars]

What I don’t understand is how can an idea of something be a basis of proving it?

[Theoketos]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 20 2004, 08:13 PM'] Godel's Argument really isn't substantially different from that of St. Anselm of Canterbury, is it? [/quote]
Imagine Anslem with a twist of lime...

I am writting the post, although I think that it might be anti-climatic.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' date='Sep 20 2004, 08:55 PM'] What I don’t understand is how can an idea of something be a basis of proving it? [/quote]
You have pointed out the flaw. The Idea of something Being, is different and previous to knowing this being.

Basically the ontological argument proves that a Theist can not talk about God as if he does not exist.

[Theoketos]

I really should have asked for more specific questions, and I fully intend to answer any that spawn, most assurdly, from this hastily written response. Please forgive anything that seems random, in my mind all the steps are there, but some times squezzing them through my hands to the keyboard into Phatmass is not always easy.
First we must undsertand St. Anslem.
[quote]1.God exists in the mind as being such that no greater being can be imagined
2.All other things being equal, a being existing in the mind and reality is greater than a being existing in the mind
3.Thus God exists in the mind and reality. [/quote]

Basically, the most perfect being must exist in both mind and reality for it to really be the most perfect Being. A god that does not exist is not a most perfect Being. Part of my understanding is that this is the order of knowing something. Thus an atheist and theist can never really be talking about the same sort of God, as one is perfect and the other is not. This argument also considers the idea of perfection can not be separated from God.

Next I quote the biggest argument against St. Anslem. Pay attention to what is necessary and what is contingent.
[quote]One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo. Gaunilo invited his readers to think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island. As a matter of fact, it is likely that no such island actually exists. However, his argument would then say that we aren't thinking of the greatest conceivable island, because the greatest conceivable island would exist, as well as having all those other desirable properties. Since we can conceive of this greatest or most perfect conceivable island, then it must exist. While this argument seems absurd, Gaunilo claims that it is no more so than Anselm's.
Defenders of Anselm's argument answered that the idea of an island does not include the notion of perfection, the perfection is merely tacked on, while the concept of God cannot be separated from the notion of perfection. This explains their claim that there is an explanation for the failure of Gaunilo's argument – [b]namely the fact that the island's perfection is contingent -- which doesn't affect the Ontological Argument.[/b][/quote]
Next, we must understand Liebnez answer to the problem of evil: which was this world is simply the best of all possible worlds. Volitare really takes this to task, and in one sense I would agree. Liebnez posits that God is simply the closest to perfect, not prefection. This comes from the modern natural theological idea that God simply has to be greater then all of creation, being the greatest, not perfect. This leads to all kinds of problems, but still God is a necessary being and we are contingent beings, which is harmonious with orthodox philosophy. However, this does not answer the question of evil, for several reasons, read Volitare. But it does attempt to solve the problem of God being able to stop all evil and not by say this is the best world because God is only most powerful.
Godel’s equation using that Idea that God contains necessary properties in every contigent realities, if there are any, and these necessary properties would make sense in any alternate reality, is something, I must admit new to me, but similar to the answer St. Anselm would give to Gaunilan. It relates to Liebnez in that God is still necessarily the most powerful and not all powerful, but only all powerful contingently.
Baisically “that God is” is a truth that works in any possible senerio, where are my cat being black does not matter either way in many of them. God’s existence is a necessary property.
Translation of Finally,
[quote]
we assume:
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm's argument.
Now we define a new property G: if x is an object in some possible world, then G(x) is true if and only if P(x) is true in that same world for all positive properties P. G is called the "God-like" property. An object x that has the God-like property is called God.
[/quote]
Over simply, the property of God, so long as it most and all God~like, is true in all possibilities, because, no contingent possibility affects the necessary possibilities of God's existence. In other words: God creates the best possible world no matter how bad or good it is: no matter what colour my cat is.

Um, I am not sure if that will make sense to any, please ask me questions and I will answer them.