That is classical non sequitur. Again some word-salad nonsense. — Tarskian

Me accusing you of not reading what you yourself linked, which you haven't, is a "non-sequitur" and "word-salad"? Are you a bot?

Godel flawlessly proved the equiconsistency between his theorem and the axioms from which it follows. Godel's proof is therefore mathematically unobjectionable. Of course, Godel did not prove the axioms themselves. But then again, he is not even supposed to. — Tarskian

Why are you using "equiconsistency" when referring to a set of theorems and their axioms? Gödel did not prove anything "mathematically" but using higher-order logic. Gödel's proof is inconsistent stemming from D2, it took other people to fix the inconsistency in his proof just to then generate further issues in these updated proofs. It is not "unobjectionable".
Who has issues with Gödel here is you, misrepresenting the work not only of Gödel but of the field.

it took other people to fix the inconsistency in his proof just to then generate further issues in these updated proofs. — Lionino

Modal collapse is not an inconsistency. Who told you that?

It just means that the proof reverts to standard non-modal logic.

Since non-modal logic is the default logic anyway, does that mean that pretty much all proofs in mathematics are inconsistent?

In modal logic, modal collapse is the condition in which every true statement is necessarily true, and vice versa; that is to say, there are no contingent truths, or to put it another way, that "everything exists necessarily".

Since standard logic does not even distinguish between necessary and contingent truth, what is supposedly the big problem?

Furthermore, Anderson has fixed the issue and removed the modal collapse. This is not essential at all. It is just nice to have and not more than that.

In fact, it may even be a good thing. It means that the proof works, even without using modal modifiers. So, the proof would be valid, even in plain, standard logic.

How is the world without God?
From a thoughtful and philosophical perspective
From a personal and psychological perspective
From the collective and sociological perspective

The world with God and the world without look exactly the same. And it doesn't look good in either version. Make of that what you will...

:100: :up:

Modal collapse is not an inconsistency. Who told you that? — Tarskian

Nobody, because I know it is not.

You still don't realise that it has been proven that Gödel's version of the proof is inconsistent. I am not talking about modal collapse.

Furthermore, Anderson has fixed the issue and removed the modal collapse. This is not essential at all. It is just nice to have and not more than that. — Tarskian

Anderson himself along with Gettings argued in 1996 that his version can be defeated using the same arguments as Gaunilo against Anselmo.

We suggest that the Gόdelian Ontological Arguer should simply admit that neither the possibility of God nor the truth of the axioms used to "prove" that possibility are self-evident. And he might just maintain that the less evident axioms, for example that a conjunction of positive properties is positive, is an assumption which he adopts on grounds of mere plausibility and is entitled to accept until some incompatibility between clearly positive properties is discovered. — Anderson and Gettings

You still don't realise that it has been proven that Gödel's version of the proof is inconsistent. — Lionino

For a starters, the alleged inconsistency detected by Christoph Benzmüller and Bruno Woltzenlogel-Paleo cannot be duplicated with automated provers. Secondly, Melvin Fitting's reformulation addresses this concern anyway.

You are merely haphazardly copying excerpts from the ongoing investigation and conversation on Gödel's proof.

Of course, there are concerns about the nitty-gritty details in the proof. You are desperately fishing for evidence that there would be something wrong with Gödel's work without being a constructive participant in any shape, way, or fashion.

The people that you quote mention possible concerns with a view on improving the original and making progress, while you are sitting on the fence, overhearing fragments of their conversation, with only negativity and foregone conclusions in mind. If you were physically present in the meeting room, they would tell you to leave the room because you are not adding any value with your non-constructive negativity.

There is something interesting that arises from considering the possible proof of God: Why do we believe that God is something that can be proven?

A Proof belongs to a context of interpretation that delimits its conditions of possibility. But isn't that precisely a form of conditioning? For example, when we understand God as the creator of the universe, as a kind of origin of everything that exists, aren’t we subjecting His concept to linear causality, to His physical intervention in the creation of matter and energy? Isn't it paradoxically a subsumption of God to physical causation rules that He does not dominate? The same can be said of a logical proof or a moral proof: Can God not be contradictory? Can God not do evil?

In each case, the nature of God is subordinated to a context that betrays His nature by conditioning Him. This is the old issue of how a finite being can access the infinite and even relate to it. Or how the unconditioned can relates the conditioned. It is the issue of why it seems that the idea of God is problematic in itself as it relates to the ineffable and that which is unconditioned. Ironically, according to the above, it can be said that if God exists, He cannot be proven. God would be beyond reason and will always be a mystery.

It is the issue of why it seems that the idea of God is problematic in itself as it relates to the ineffable and that which is unconditioned. Ironically, according to the above, it can be said that if God exists, He cannot be proven. — JuanZu

God cannot be proven from the theory of the physical universe (ToE), simply because we do not even have a copy of that theory.

But then again, we can certainly replace the logic sentence denoting God by five axiomatic expressions in higher-order modal logic. That is what Gödel did. Hence, God is not ineffable. Where is the proof that God would be ineffable? Furthermore, God can be proven from carefully chosen axioms because that is exactly what Gödel did.

The rhetoric about "there is no proof for God" basically keeps ignoring Gödel's mathematically unobjectionable work. So, even when the greatest mathematician of all times gives a proof, an atheist will still reject it.

In fact, there is nothing -- no argument whatsoever -- that could ever convince an atheist that God exist. You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. That is the real value of Gödel's proof. In the end, he was not even trying to prove something about God. He was trying to prove something about atheists.

Why do we believe that God is something that can be proven? — JuanZu

I suppose this is reasonably assumed whenever "God" is ascribed (according to tradition, scripture, doctrine, testimony) properties, or predicates, which entail changes to the observable universe: those "God"-unique changes either are evident or they are absent, ergo "God" so described either exists or does not exist, no?

What question is not begged (is not fallaciously answered) by "a mystery"? None. — 180 Proof

Naturalists offer explanationsi nterms of natural laws, but the laws themselves are taken to be brute and inexplicable, no? A mystery that answers questions.

So, again, no proof, even if perfect would change a thing. — Sam26

I don't think that's entirely right. Reason does change people's views, but slowly, and very occasionally quickly. The rationale lodges in some deep recess of the brain, and slowly starts rearranging neurons around it I reckon, although may never reach a critical mass. Admittedly there are much quicker ways to influence the beliefs on another.

Can anyone prove a god, I enjoy debates and wish to see the arguments posed in favour of the existence of a god. — CallMeDirac

If cosmopsychism is true (panpsychism with an emphasis on the macro rather than the micro), and at the moment I think it probably is, then we have a very large (possibly infinite) and powerful conscious blob. Should we call it God? Who knows. But it's a possible candidate for Goddishness. Does it mean we should believe in miracles, hate fags, give it a name and then stone people who say the name out loud, start wars in its name, try to make out that it is really really bothered about which ethnic group should have rights to a piece of land on one tiny planet in an infinite universe, use it to explain odd things that sometimes happen, and otherwise make up stories (that coincidentally happen to align with our interests) about what it wants? Probably not.

[physical] laws themselves are taken to be brute and inexplicable, no? — bert1

No. Physical laws are mathematical (computable) generalizations of precisely observed regularities or structures in nature and they are only descriptive (constraints), not themselves explanatory (theories).

Yes, but they are still used in explanations. And the regularities are describable but inexplicable.

Scientists and scientifically literate persons do not misuse (misinterpret) physical laws that way – and obviously, bert, you're neither a scientist nor scientifically literate if you believe nature's regularities / structures are "inexplicable" (akin to supernatural mysteries ... miracles, woo-of-the-gaps, etc).

Scientists and scientifically literate persons do not misuse (misinterpret) physical laws that way – and obviously, bert, you're neither a scientist nor scientifically literate if you believe nature's regularities / structures are "inexplicable" (akin to supernatural mysteries ... miracles, woo-of-the-gaps, etc). — 180 Proof

If you keep asking 'Yes but why?' eventually even scientifically literate people like yourself, will say 'That's just how it is'. That's a mystery. I make no claim to it being akin to 'supernatural mysteries ... miracles, woo-of-the-gaps, etc'

What is the need for God?
Is God a legacy of the past that remains to this day? Or is it a natural concept that will remain with humans forever?
Is man able to solve the "problem of God"?

You are merely haphazardly copying excerpts from the ongoing investigation and conversation on Gödel's proof. — Tarskian

Hilarious coming from the individual quoting Wikipedia to falsely claim "Godel proved God's existence" and realising only 5 posts in that I am not talking about modal collapse when saying "inconsistency".

You are desperately fishing for evidence that there would be something wrong with Gödel's work without being a constructive participant in any shape, way, or fashion. — Tarskian

Taking the accusation I correctly raised against you twice and putting a "no u" spin on it. Boring.

Secondly, Melvin Fitting's reformulation addresses this concern anyway. — Tarskian

It is not Fitting's reformulation that addresses that. Fitting's addresses the modal collapse, the inconsistency had been solved before people were ever aware of a modal collapse.

And the fact some reformulations avoid modal collapse and are valid does not matter for the crankery you are trying to push.

without being a constructive participant in any shape, way, or fashion. — Tarskian

There is no "constructive participant", the people providing solutions to Gödel's proof themselves do not commit to the argument.

You do not know what you are talking about.

If there is any such proof of God, it would not be the case that across the globe philosophers (outside of “philosophy of religion”) are overwhelmingly atheists, and that the more prestige a scientist in the physical sciences has the more likely he is to be an atheist. It is also not a coincidence that IQ is a useful predictor of atheism and religious attendance. But yet the crank thinks he has stumbled upon something that everybody else is ignorant of. Here we see how the religious crank manipulates information to push his pathological dogma:

So, even when the greatest mathematician of all times gives a proof, an atheist will still reject it. — Tarskian

In fact, there is nothing -- no argument whatsoever -- that could ever convince an atheist that God exist. — Tarskian

It is even more telling when the crank abuses the work of people who themselves do not think the argument even in its valid shape proves anything — the delusion that tautologies within one logical language among many others is able to prove something metaphysical.

He then pretends to be humble and be "participating" in a discussion he is thoroughly abusing and misuing:

the ongoing investigation and conversation on Gödel's proof. — Tarskian

If he cared about any investigation, he would not be spilling nonsense such as:

The rhetoric about "there is no proof for God" basically keeps ignoring Gödel's mathematically unobjectionable work. — Tarskian

He did not know that Gödel's proof is not consistent until I informed him of such. It is visible when he kept thinking of modal collapse when I used the word "inconsistency".

Then, we have more abuse and lies about scholars long dead:

That is the real value of Gödel's proof. In the end, he was not even trying to prove something about God. He was trying to prove something about atheists. — Tarskian

Being established that the sophist is doing exactly what I described or what he used for “no u”, and up to reasonable people to see through it, I am removing this thread from my browser to not provide any more ammunition to the crank.

Hilarious coming from the individual quoting Wikipedia to falsely claim "Godel proved God's existence" and realising only 5 posts in that I am not talking about modal collapse when saying "inconsistency". — Lionino

There is no inconsistency in the version tested by Christoph Benzmüller and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/141495131.pdf

Science and Spiritual Quest 2015

Experiments in Computational Metaphysics:
Gödel’s Proof of God’s Existence

The findings from these experiments on Scott’s variant were manifold (they were
obtained on a standard MacBook):

i. The axioms (and definitions) are consistent. This was confirmed by
Nitpick, which presented a simple model within a few seconds.
ii. Theorem T1 follows from Axioms A1 and A2 in modal logic K (and hence
also in stronger modal logics such as KB, S4 and S5). 3 This was proved
by LEO-II and Satallax in a few milliseconds. In fact, the left to right
direction of the equivalence in A1 is sufficient to prove T1.
iii. Corollary C follows from T1, D1 and A3, again already in modal logic K.
This was proved by LEO-II and Satallax in a few milliseconds.
iv. Theorem T2 follows from A1, D1, A4 and D2 in modal logic K. Again, the
provers got this result quickly, Satallax within milliseconds and LEO-II
within 20s.
v. Theorem T3, necessary existence of a God-like entity, follows from D1, C,
T2, D3 and A5. Again, this was proved by LEO-II and Satallax in a few
milliseconds. However, this time modal logic KB was required to obtain
the result. KB strengthens modal logic K by postulating the B axiom
scheme. In modal logic K, theorem T2 does not follow from the axioms
and definitions. This was confirmed by Nitpick, which reported a counter
model.

You keep nonsensicalizing about inconsistencies that are not there.

There is no inconsistencyin the version tested by Christoph Benzmüller and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo: — Tarskian

that Gödel's version of the proof is inconsistent — Lionino

More narcissistic manipulation and lying. I urge all honest persons to look up "taqiyya":

So, my sympathies are definitely much more Muslim nowadays. — Tarskian

One can also go to the "Mathematical proof is not orderly" thread to see how OP does not know what he is talking about, as other posters show.

For heaven's sake, who even cares that some past draft version of the proof, that had not even gone through peer review, contained an inconsistency? The people who actually worked on the proof are very different from you. When there is a problem, they fix it. You, on the other hand, you are incessantly looking for reasons to dismiss Gödel's work on futile details instead of doing constructive work. You excel in obstructive negativity!

But then again, we can certainly replace the logic sentence denoting God by five axiomatic expressions in higher-order modal logic. That is what Gödel did. Hence, God is not ineffable. Where is the proof that God would be ineffable? Furthermore, God can be proven from carefully chosen axioms because that is exactly what Gödel did. — Tarskian

I think you are misleading my argument. A proof like Gödel's continues in this step of enclosing God through logic. Again, can't God be contradictory? When we talk about an incapacity, aren't we betraying the nature of God? What happens is that by trying to conceptualize God [whether through Gödel's axiomatic expressions] we enclose the very concept within a context that conditions it [Gödel's proof does not prove the moral God, nor the creator God].

For me, the important thing is to show how our proofs, precisely because they are proofs, miss the mark, thereby showing that the concept of God is so plural that it is difficult to see how a valid proof can even be conceived. If I choose unconditionality as an attribute of God [why shouldn't I choose it?], the matter is practically closed. Then there is no proof sufficiently exhaustive that could work.

I would like to show that the idea of God is closely related to the idea of limit. And that because of this relationship, a huge problem arises that overwhelms the capacity of any proof. However, the idea of God is necessarily linked to the idea of limit. This is the reason why God, in my view, is related to the ineffable, as philosophies like those of Levinas or Kierkegaard have done. But then it is not a moral God, not a physical God, not a logical God, etc. God would be the limit of his own definitions.

Well, according to my view the idea of God is located at de limits of the reasonable. Just because is a limit-idea which overflows any context of a posible proof.

Gödel's proof does not prove the moral God, nor the creator God — JuanZu

Indeed, he didn't. But then again, he doesn't have to. Gödel did not seek to give a complete description of God. He merely defined an object to be Godlike if it has all positive properties. A proof of God does not seek to be a complete description of God.

Since this was in one of my browser tabs, I will make one last post.

As if it hadn't been proven that OP does not care about the discussion around Gödel's ontological proof, and only abuses it to prove "atheists are in denial", the source he himself quotes contradicts him.

It is true that it says:

i. The axioms (and definitions) are consistent. This was confirmed by
Nitpick, which presented a simple model within a few seconds.

OP however still does not understand that we are talking about Gödel's original axioms — which are inconsistent. The fragment he quotes however is not talking about Gödel's original axioms. The very paper he quotes in fact includes a quote stating, again, that Gödel original axioms are inconsistent (he would know if he read (past tense) past page 6):

To study the consequences, we have replayed the experiments as reported above, but this time for the varied definition D2. Interestingly, the model finder Nitpick failed to report a model. To assess the situation, we subsequently tried to use the HOL theorem provers to prove the inconsistency of the modified set of axioms and definitions. To our surprise, the prover LEO-II indeed succeeded (in about 30 seconds) in doing so. We have both not been aware of this inconsistency. In fact, related comments in philosophy papers often classify Scott’s modification only as a ‘cosmetic’ change to what is often addressed as a minor oversight by Gödel.

d. Axiom A5 “Necessary existence is a positive property”, theorem T1 and Lemma 2 now imply falsehood.

If Gödel's axioms are inconsistent, it cannot be that Gödel provided a valid proof of a God-like being. The ones who did are those that display consistent axioms. Therefore, Gödel did not prove, "objectionably" or not, that there is a God-like being.

Once again, he is maliciously putting words into the mouths of serious scholars.

Furthermore, in the discussion of the paper, the scholars themselves say:

In philosophical circles, the debate is not yet settled and the allurement of ontological arguments seems far from fading.

However, the media writers are also to be blamed, because of their apparent interest in creating ‘headline stories’, and in copying, nitpicking and obfuscating text passages from each other instead of presenting unbiased, properly investigated and individually prepared information.

However, when the news subsequently made its way to the US, some intentionally (and very naively) obfuscated headlines appeared such as “Researchers say they used MacBook to prove Gödel’s God theorem” or “God exists, say Apple fanboy scientists”.

Moreover, there clearly are theologically and metaphysically relevant objections, including the modal collapse, which are not yet fully settled

There are consistent axiomatizations that non-trivially entail the necessary existence of a God-like being. As for any axiomatization, and not only those with a religious theme, it often remains a ’matter of faith’ to believe in the truth of the proposed axioms in the actual universe.

Our core contribution is a technological approach and machinery that, as has been well demonstrated here, can fruitfully support further logical investigations in this area

Extremely ironic for the sophist, to say the least.

OP does not address any of the contradictions I point out in his insipid posts. He zeroes in on one single point where he may be able to wiggle out and throw smoke screens and goes with it. He did not care at all to address the fact that Anderson himself, one of the people whose work he abuses, defended that the consistent form of the argument is refutable. He also does not care that Fitting's proof reformulates Gödel's argument to talk about extensional properties, while it is believed that Gödel had intensional properties in mind. He does not care about any of that because he does not argue in good-faith.

What is the need for God? — Ali Hosein

Fear of the unknown (ergo 'god-of-the-gaps'), or uncertainty (i.e. angst).

Is God a legacy of the past that remains to this day?

It is atavistic like ghosts (or shadows), "a legacy" of every human's infancy: magical thinking.

Or is it a natural concept that will remain with humans forever?

"God" is a supernatural fantasy (i.e. fetish-idol ... cosmic lollipop) that many, clearly not all, thoughtful and/or well-educated humans outgrow.

Is man able to solve the "problem of God"?

I suppose solving the problem of mortality (or scarcity) will consequently dissolve "the problem of God" (i.e. this may be the meaning of humans expelled from "Eden" in order to keep us from eating from the "Tree of Life" so that we "know death" and "fear God" (re: Genesis 3:22)).