Proof of God?

[gar3555]

Proof of God's existence?

I read the article, but couldn't follow the proof very well.

Here is a more complicated explanation

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-ontological-argument/the-modal-ontological-argument/

Just thought it was interesting hope this doesn't turn into a flame war.


haha...j/k this is ATOT I know it will.

 

[Kadarin]

From TFA (first link):

He was clear that the entire proof was simply an exercise in modal logic, derived from a certain set of assumptions. Those assumptions can be questioned. For example, Gödel's definition of God didn't have anything to do with the behavior of a deity, it was just a variation on St. Anselm's 'greatest imaginable being'. In other words, it was an axiom specifically chosen for both a vague sense of religion and the ability to make the rest of the proof work. If someone defined God differently - the being that made the world in seven days, for example - then the proof no longer applies.

So no, not proof.

 

[Alone]

Wow, that was the most retarded thing I've ever read.

 

[Murloc]

 

[piasabird]

Quite interesting but only a Phylosiphy major could even understand this kind of logical reasoning.

In other words this goes off the end of my goofy-meter.

 

[Tweak155]

Its not a solid proof because it contains at least 1 assumption that can't be proven true or false.

 

[zinfamous]

Quite interesting but only a Phylosiphy major could even understand this kind of logical reasoning.

In other words this goes off the end of my goofy-meter.

according the article, this is Theosophy, sir.

 

[KeithTalent]

I saw God on the basketball court a few times. He was decent in College.

KT

 

[Jaepheth]

Lets assume there must be a God.

Therefore, God exists.

QED

Yup, it's airtight... guess I'll resume going to church next Sunday.

 

[AstroManLuca]

This is why people with philosophy degrees are unemployed.

 

[roguerower]

I asked god for nice weather this weekend for skydiving. It's gonna be windy as shit. Therefore there is no god.

Yep, that argument makes as much sense as that mathematicians.

 

[gar3555]

This is why people with philosophy degrees are unemployed.

LOL...agreed.

 

[DivideBYZero]

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I can use modal logic also to "prove" that God doesn't exist. The short answer is that modal logic is inconsistent.

 

[JS80]

It's called faith for a reason.

 

[Malak]

It's called faith for a reason.

Faith doesn't have anything to do with belief that God exists. Faith as described in the bible refers to having faith in God's character.

 

[zerocool84]

Faith doesn't have anything to do with belief that God exists. Faith as described in the bible refers to having faith in God's character.

That only holds true if you already have faith that he already exists.

 

[JS80]

Faith doesn't have anything to do with belief that God exists. Faith as described in the bible refers to having faith in God's character.

I meant it as implication that you can't prove/disprove God's existence, hence it is called faith. Anyone who claims he can is an idiot/quack/scammer.

 

[Taughnter]

Quite interesting but only a Phylosiphy major could even understand this kind of logical reasoning.

In other words this goes off the end of my goofy-meter.

As someone who studied Philosophy I can assure you that many Philosophy majors have trouble with this argument. I remember it from my 17th Century Philosophy course where it was attributed to Descartes. Of course, Descartes version is a bit simpler. The basic idea:

1. God is a perfect being/the greatest being.
2. A necessary attribute of being perfect is existing.
Therefore, God exists.

The problem, which seems almost too obvious to point out, is that we're under the assumption that an attribute of perfection is existence.

There are really a few problems with this argument:
1. It's possible that God is not a perfect being and therefore doesn't have to exist. (The argument in the link is more complicated and tries to avoid this problem, but it gets caught up on the next point and the idea that God either "necessarily exists or necessarily does not exist", there's no good reason to think those assumptions are true.)
2. It's possible that existing is not a necessary attribute of a perfect being.
3. Even if existence is a necessary attribute, it's not clear that it means actual existence as compared to conceptual existence.

There are more, but I don't want to bore you guys more than I already have. I think the main thing is that, as others have pointed out, some of the assumptions that are necessary for this argument to be logically sound are not necessarily true.

 

[Jaepheth]

We measure greatness by one's ability to overcome hardships and obstacles.

Overcoming non-existence is the greatest obstacle one could overcome.

Therefore, a God that doesn't exist is greater, and therefore more perfect, than a God who does exist.

 

[Malak]

Philosophy is for discussing concepts, not actual things. You don't prove existence of a thing with philosophy, you discuss existence in itself instead.

 

[FDF12389]

As someone who studied Philosophy

Location: New Jersey

Which one is it!?

 

[Ns1]

this is why people with philosophy degrees are unemployed.

caps

 

[Taughnter]

Which one is it!?

I'm not sure which one of us is more confused right now. Are you not aware that both Princeton and Rutgers Universities are considered to be very prestigious Philosophy programs? They're both generally ranked in the top 5 Philosophy programs in the country and last time I checked both were well within the NJ borders.

 

[Jaepheth]

I'm not sure which one of us is more confused right now. Are you not aware that both Princeton and Rutgers Universities are considered to be very prestigious Philosophy programs? They're both generally ranked in the top 5 Philosophy programs in the country and last time I checked both were well within the NJ borders.

And lets not forget Silent Bob.