This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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"?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

my view the idea of God — JuanZu

Pardon, but I'm concerned with a social "view of the idea of God" preached in religious traditions and actually worshipped (i.e. idolized) by congregants. It's this totalitarian "view of idea of God" that significantly affects cultures and politics and pacifies collective existential angst (e.g. excuses social scapegoating, martyrdom, holy warfare, missionary imperialism, etc) rather than anyone's speculative "view of the idea of God" (such as yours, JuanZu, or my own ).

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)).

I urge people first to go and read their actual field manuals here: if you are Christian, read the Bible, if you are a Muslim, read the Quran or if you are a Jew, read the Torah. Now, do any of these Holy Scriptures insist and demand that in order for to find God you just have "really think it through" or "reason it out"?

He's assumed to exist. To be the ultimate cause behind natural events -- often misfortunates such as snakes and plagues entering the Israelite camp or the STD outbreak that resulted when the Israelite men went after the women of another tribe (Midianite, IIRC?) There seems to be a formula behind it: Irresponsible/bad behavior -> Misfortunate, which is a manifestation of divine displeasure/disfavor. This link is established early in the OT and leads to a certain self-reflective attitude and caution of the divine. On the flip side, good/moral behavior is generally linked with progeny and abundance -- divine favor. This a general trend in the OT but there are works that buck this trend - see book of Job.

From reading the Bible one gets the sense that there is a divine plan unfolding through history - reminds me of Heidegger in a way.

He's assumed to exist. To be the ultimate cause behind natural events — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, that's magical thinking (e.g. "The Great OZ" behing the curtain), or the cross-cultural god-of-the-gaps (i.e. appeal to ignorance) fallacy. More than "assumed", such a "God" is worshipped (ritually mass-deluding). Bronze & Iron Age religious traditions consecrated their naturalistic and moral ignorance by magically denying it and naming that supernatural denial "God". :sparkle: :eyes: :pray:
.