God proof models

[magnifier661]

It's proven wrong all over the place. You won't admit it if you see it.

I've already debunked it a few times in this thread. So did barfo, without really trying. It's that obviously wrong.

God doesn't exist. Therefore, the axioms he proposes are not undoubtable facts, or intuitive ones.

His argument is not a mathematical model, either.

Lmao of course you did because you believe it did. And barfo didn't talk about this "model". Now show me the link that explains this model does not work?

 

[Denny Crane]

Lmao of course you did because you believe it did. And barfo didn't talk about this "model". Now show me the link that explains this model does not work?

He did talk about the model. He shot it full of holes with only a cursory glance at it. It's that blatantly bogus.

 

[magnifier661]

He did talk about the model. He shot it full of holes with only a cursory glance at it. It's that blatantly bogus.

Show me where it proves the math wrong. Stop trying to argue something else

 

[magnifier661]

Lmao Denny says Bogus!

http://m.spiegel.de/international/g....wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

The math is perfectly accurate and can be retested over and over again with the same results. Try and keep up

 

[magnifier661]

Here is the Denny argument:

"Assume singularity existed". Now let's make a model that can identify this probability. Oh shit there isn't?!?! Well fuck it "it is because Denny says he read it!"

 

[magnifier661]

I can see Denny now

<rapidly clicking link after link to try and find proof>

 

[Denny Crane]

It's not math, it's logic. Apparently you don't know the difference, or what the latter is. His proof is specifically "modal logic."

barfo has done a perfectly fine job of debunking the logic argument Godel made.

It starts with "assume there is a god" and ends up with "therefore there is a god."

The logic relies on the axioms ("agreed upon" facts) that aren't actually agreed upon.

It doesn't prove what you think it does anyway. Otherwise, prove it does

 

[magnifier661]

It's not math, it's logic. Apparently you don't know the difference, or what the latter is. His proof is specifically "modal logic."

barfo has done a perfectly fine job of debunking the logic argument Godel made.

It starts with "assume there is a god" and ends up with "therefore there is a god."

The logic relies on the axioms ("agreed upon" facts) that aren't actually agreed upon.

It doesn't prove what you think it does anyway. Otherwise, prove it does

Key point when you know Denny is in over his head is when he sides with barfo! Lmao!

Bro, it is 100% math... Stop trying to cling on a semantic argument! Hahahhaa

 

[Denny Crane]

It took me 5 seconds to find someone else who may explain it to you better.

I give barfo credit when it's due.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive112013.html

So, what exactly did Gödel prove? The proposition in question really was proven, so the headlines are right to say so. However, it was proven from the premisses given by Gödel, and it's in the interpretation of those premisses that the problem of what to make of it all lies. In fact, since all five of the "axioms" make use of an undefined predicate, it's not even clear what they mean. Calling it a proof of the existence of God is one interpretation, and it was presumably Gödel's interpretation, but it's not the only possible interpretation, nor is it forced on the skeptic. The premisses are not at all like the axioms of logic or mathematics, that is, they're not self-evidently true nor does denying one lead to self-contradiction. All that anyone who doubts the existence of a god needs to do is reject one or more of the axioms.

-- I reject them. So did barfo.

Duh.

 

[Denny Crane]

Bro, it is 100% math...

You are still 100% wrong, it's 100% modal logic.

Debunked, too.

 

[magnifier661]

It took me 5 seconds to find someone else who may explain it to you better.

I give barfo credit when it's due.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive112013.html

So, what exactly did Gödel prove? The proposition in question really was proven, so the headlines are right to say so. However, it was proven from the premisses given by Gödel, and it's in the interpretation of those premisses that the problem of what to make of it all lies. In fact, since all five of the "axioms" make use of an undefined predicate, it's not even clear what they mean. Calling it a proof of the existence of God is one interpretation, and it was presumably Gödel's interpretation, but it's not the only possible interpretation, nor is it forced on the skeptic. The premisses are not at all like the axioms of logic or mathematics, that is, they're not self-evidently true nor does denying one lead to self-contradiction. All that anyone who doubts the existence of a god needs to do is reject one or more of the axioms.

-- I reject them. So did barfo.

Duh.

Once again, you haven't proven this isn't a mathematical model. And once again, you flip flop your arguments. Being "bogus" as you claim would mean the model can't be retested over and over again.

As I mentioned from the beginning, this isn't "end all argument of God's existence" but it is definitely scientific and still used even today for other systems.

But keep up the good fight Denny, but don't pop that blood vessel! We need to still talk about Blazer basketball!

 

[magnifier661]

You are still 100% wrong, it's 100% modal logic.

Debunked, too.

As I said, show me where the math is debunked?

 

[MarAzul]

Never thought I would see the day, one of the most significant logician in history, right there with Aristotle is now supplanted by Denny and Barfo.

All recorded on S2, for posterity.

 

[magnifier661]

Never thought I would see the day, one of the most significant logician in history, right there with Aristotle is now supplanted by Denny and Barfo.

All recorded on S2, for posterity.

Yeah it's pretty sad. But consider the sources.

 

[Further]

The math works but it's based on flawed assumptions. The math works, the model does what it is supposed to, but the flawed assumptions make the conclusion worthless.

Assume thee is equal to five. What is three plus two? The answer is 7. But that's only the answer you get if you accept the flawed assumption that three equaled five.

As far as KG believing in God, I do t think any of us know, he left clues that could lead to either interpretation. Did he mean to obscure his beliefs? Very likely since he had more than enough time and stage to fully explain his view. My guess is that he was very interested in the question, but unsure regarding the answer. But that's just my guess based on reading between the lines. But I'm dyslexic, so I could be reading between the lines backwards.

 

[MarAzul]

The math works but it's based on flawed assumptions. The math works, the model does what it is supposed to, but the flawed assumptions make the conclusion worthless.

Assume thee is equal to five. What is three plus two? The answer is 7. But that's only the answer you get if you accept the flawed assumption that three equaled five.

As far as KG believing in God, I do t think any of us know, he left clues that could lead to either interpretation. Did he mean to obscure his beliefs? Very likely since he had more than enough time and stage to fully explain his view. My guess is that he was very interested in the question, but unsure regarding the answer. But that's just my guess based on reading between the lines. But I'm dyslexic, so I could be reading between the lines backwards.

It kind a blows my mind that we have people in this forum with the temerity to stand and say
Gödel is wrong.

 

[Further]

It kind a blows my mind that we have people in this forum with the temerity to stand and say
Gödel is wrong.

67 Nobel award recipients are known to be athiest or agnostic. So you are telling me those 67 are wrong?

And nobody is saying KG is wrong with regards to his math, just the logic leading into the math. There are many brilliant people who excell in one area and yet fall short in others. And there is a good chance KG wasn't even believing his model, but simply trying to demonstrate that there may be mathematical or scientific ways to assess the God issue. We just don't know.

 

[magnifier661]

67 Nobel award recipients are known to be athiest or agnostic. So you are telling me those 67 are wrong?

And nobody is saying KG is wrong with regards to his math, just the logic leading into the math. There are many brilliant people who excell in one area and yet fall short in others. And there is a good chance KG wasn't even believing his model, but simply trying to demonstrate that there may be mathematical or scientific ways to assess the God issue. We just don't know.

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_christians_have_won_the_nobel_prize

400 christians are nobel prize winners. So you are telling me they are wrong?

http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/nobelistsgod.htm

Albert Einstein believed in God. Are you saying the most brilliant mind in science is wrong?

 

[Cryptkeeper]

Nobel prizes prove nothing of how truthful or proven one's work or belief is. A Nobel prize is simply a high recognition of hard work to better the world.

 

[Cryptkeeper]

Albert Einstein believed in God. Are you saying the most brilliant mind in science is wrong?

Two things here: Scientists arent right about everything. Einstein was wrong about a lot of things, perhaps more often than he was right.

Also, "AtheismExposed" is hardly a viable source...

 

[magnifier661]

Two things here: Scientists arent right about everything. Einstein was wrong about a lot of things, perhaps more often than he was right.

Also, "AtheismExposed" is hardly a viable source...

Absolutely correct. That's why I posted this. Further used "nobel prizes" as an argument of a scientist being right or wrong. I think you and I both can agree that winning that prize is not the reason why someone is right or wrong don't you agree?

Also, the source of the website doesn't take away the quotes. They said what they said regardless of the source that quotes it. If they quoted them wrong, then I challenge you to find the misinterpretation.

 

[Further]

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_christians_have_won_the_nobel_prize

400 christians are nobel prize winners. So you are telling me they are wrong?

http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/nobelistsgod.htm

Albert Einstein believed in God. Are you saying the most brilliant mind in science is wrong?

You missed my point. MarAzul was shocked that anyone could disagree with Göbel since he was brilliant and I was simply showing that MarAzul also disagreed with brilliant minds. It's not a pissing match, but just pointing out that disagreeing with a Nobel laureate on something he did not win the Nobel for is not foolhardy.

 

[magnifier661]

You missed my point. MarAzul was shocked that anyone could disagree with Göbel since he was brilliant and I was simply showing that MarAzul also disagreed with brilliant minds. It's not a pissing match, but just pointing out that disagreeing with a Nobel laureate on something he did not win the Nobel for is not foolhardy.

I think the point wasn't the concept of "God existing", but calling his model "bullshit". Because one can point out that you could use a "unicorn" as input source, but that wouldn't make the model work with the certain parameters.

The axioms they said "I refute", which makes it false does not work. You can't refute "God being the highest level", because logically he or it would be. Hence the term "being God". So just applying "I don't believe in God, therefor it doesn't apply" is not logical. If God exists, like Denny has arrogantly called out isn't the argument. The logical part of the model is "If God exists, then obviously he is the highest level".

As another tried to argue "well let's add a unicorn to the model". Well that doesn't work because the unicorn wouldn't be a logical "highest being that can control the universe" because, by definition of the concept of the unicorn, they aren't the creator of the universe. By default, using shotty concepts like that is just explaining what one doesn't know about logic.

And as I pointed out earlier, adding "singularity" to this equation would not work, because the model is using axiom parameters that wouldn't apply that model. In fact, there is no model that can suggest "singularity" would even work, yet most atheist will believe in that concept.

So if Denny wants to debunk this model by using "If God exists": then he would have to provide the proof that God absolutely cannot exists. And because he can't, using that parameter in the axiom is completely logical.

 

[Further]

Well I'm not going to go far into it, but axiom 3 assumes there is a god and assumes that God is positive. That just seems like two flaws right there. See, it's not that the math is wrong, but some of us don't start from a place of believing God exists or don't ascribe positive functions to God. For me personally, I believe there is a remote chance of some force (God) that Iniatiated the Big Bang but that's totally unknowable and not connected to that force being positive or negative.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node46.html

You can make variants of this argument that apply it to anything you like. Books, coffee tables, bottles of fine wine, sex godpersons of whatever gender you prefer. No matter what X you can imagine, you can at least claim to imagine the greatest possible X (I spend a fair bit of time contemplating the greatest possible sex goddess, for example). In all cases, greatness in real existence of a sex goddess is clearly superior to greatness in imagination. Furthermore, greatness in real existence of a sex goddess who has made herself my humble slave is better still!

So where is she? Why isn't a bottle of the finest wine at my elbow, why aren't my feet propped up on the most perfect coffee table? Ontology clearly demands that all conceivable superlatives be real just as I imagined them but on steroids, right?

A big pile of cow-flop, that's what this is. Actually, the biggest conceivable pile of cow-flop! Now that's ontology!

Still, because of the focus in both of these counterexamples is on the argument instead of the premises and structure, the argument (in any given real philosophical forum) invariably ends in a draw. The kind of ``draw'' that exists only in bad western movies and in children's back yards, that is. A crackle of caps simulating gunfire, and then the eternal: ``I shot you first.'' ``Did not.'' ``Did too.'' ``Did not.'' with neither side ever conceding defeat and with both sides utterly irrational as they both embrace a prior, unstated and utterly indefensible premise the question itself can be meaningfully addressed with logic either way.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well I'm not going to go far into it, but axiom 3 assumes there is a god and assumes that God is positive. That just seems like two flaws right there. See, it's not that the math is wrong, but some of us don't start from a place of believing God exists or don't ascribe positive functions to God. For me personally, I believe there is a remote chance of some force (God) that Iniatiated the Big Bang but that's totally unknowable and not connected to that force being positive or negative.

Bingo.

He's stubbornly wrong and either doesn't get it (like the difference between math and logic, or that Stephen Hawkings is an atheist), or he's trolling you.

 

[magnifier661]

And remember this modal

Isn't this exactly what theorem 1 states though? I read Th. 1 as "If a property is positive then in some possible world there exists an object with that property."

What does that mean? If something positive exists here, then it's entirely possible that positive exists everywhere. And since it does, then God exists.

So the baseline argument that Denny is trying to use is not logical. He would have the burden of proof that the positive doesn't exist.

And let's flip this and say "well if negatives exists" then negatives exist everywhere, which proves God doesn't exist. Problem with that axiom is that isn't the parameters of what makes God. That could apply to Zeus, for example, because the definition of this God is one with very humanistic values. The Concept of the biblical God is described as a omnibevelant God, which is all Good. And applying that logic "good being everywhere in this universe" would proof the concept of God is completely logical

 

[magnifier661]

Well I'm not going to go far into it, but axiom 3 assumes there is a god and assumes that God is positive. That just seems like two flaws right there. See, it's not that the math is wrong, but some of us don't start from a place of believing God exists or don't ascribe positive functions to God. For me personally, I believe there is a remote chance of some force (God) that Iniatiated the Big Bang but that's totally unknowable and not connected to that force being positive or negative.

That is a subjective argument. And with that subjective ness, you would need to prove that the axiom 3 does not exist. Also, the proof needs to establish that the described God is not positive.

 

[Denny Crane]

And remember this modal

Isn't this exactly what theorem 1 states though? I read Th. 1 as "If a property is positive then in some possible world there exists an object with that property."

What does that mean? If something positive exists here, then it's entirely possible that positive exists everywhere. And since it does, then God exists.

So the baseline argument that Denny is trying to use is not logical. He would have the burden of proof that the positive doesn't exist.

And let's flip this and say "well if negatives exists" then negatives exist everywhere, which proves God doesn't exist. Problem with that axiom is that isn't the parameters of what makes God. That could apply to Zeus, for example, because the definition of this God is one with very humanistic values. The Concept of the biblical God is described as a omnibevelant God, which is all Good. And applying that logic "good being everywhere in this universe" would proof the concept of God is completely logical

What if there exists no object with that property. There doesn't.

debunked.

Trivially.

 

[Denny Crane]

smashed on the ground. stomped on. nothing left but fools who confuse its meaning.