the "mathematical proof of god's existence" debunked.

[notfred]

I sent the author of the book (Melvin Fitting) and email yesterday. Here's his response, and my original email.

There is a centuries long history of so-called ontological proofs for
the existence of god. They are often logically subtle and, though they
contain errors, they are worth studying. Attempting to analyze them can
lead to deeper understanding of formal logic itself. This is what I do
in my new book.

On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 05:22 PM, Tyler David Karaszewski
wrote:

>
> An acquaintence of mine has said that your new book contains a
> mathematical proof for the existence of god. I'm extremely skeptical
> that even if there IS a god, that such a proof would be possible to
> make. I can't claim to understand all of the topics covered in your
> book, so I thought I'd ask you, the author, if your book does in fact,
> mathematically prove that a god exists. If so, what are are the
> characteristics of this god, as pertain to the proof.
>
> Sorry to disturb you, and many thanks for your time,
> - Tyler Karaszewski.
____________________________________________
Web Page: comet.lehman.cuny.edu/fitting
____________________________________________

As you can see, the author uses previously existing *flawed* proofs of god's existence to study logic. The book is a study of logic, not a case for or against the existence of a god.

 

[Joemonkey]

But what about the Pi and hemoglobin arguments?! will your precious email save you from them too?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

AT is full of flaming trolls :|

If you're interested in debunking the book, READ THE GODDAMN BOOK. :|

nik

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
AT is full of flaming trolls :|

If you're interested in debunking the book, READ THE GODDAMN BOOK. :|

nik

Why is it that you've been so irratable recently?

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
AT is full of flaming trolls :|

If you're interested in debunking the book, READ THE GODDAMN BOOK. :|

nik

I guess the AUTHOR of the book saying that the book doesn't prove the existence of god isn't as good as if I had read it and said the same thing?

 

[Tom]

It's better.

 

[virusag11]

Why care what another persons religious beliefs are? Treat him like you would treat any other person regardless of religion, sex, blah blah blah.

 

[JupiterJones]

If you're interested in debunking the book, READ THE...BOOK.

Very good advice. The author says that the purpose of his book is to "lead to deeper understanding of formal logic itself". In doing so, he has formalized Gödel?s Ontological argument for God's existence. I would suggest you take a look at that argument. I don't know anything about Prof. Fitting, but I am reading his book. It sounds as if he is trying to be considerate toward your implied beliefs. He is, after all, a mathematician rather than an apologist.

Preface. Part I: Classical Logic. 1. Classical Logic - Syntax. 2. Classical Logic - Semantics. 3. Classical Logic - Basic Tableaus. 4. Soundness and Completeness. 5. Equality. 6. Extensionality. Part II: Modal Logic. 7. Modal Logic, Syntax and Semantics. 8. Modal Tableaus. 9. Miscellaneous Matters. Part III: Ontological Arguments. 10. Gödel's Argument, Background. 11. Gödel's Argument, Formally. References. Index.

The book is about logic.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: PastorDon
The book is about logic.

Precisely. Not about proving the existence of God via a flawed mathematical perspective - but about analyzing said flawed proof to further understand logic.

- M4H

 

[Keego]

Like I said in the other thread.. I don't need a book to tell me that God exists.

 

[JupiterJones]

Precisely. Not about proving the existence of God via a flawed mathematical perspective - but about analyzing said flawed proof to further understand logic.

I don't see the flaw. Why don't you explain it to me? You can get the book thru ILL.

 

[Dedpuhl]

Originally posted by: LeRocks

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
AT is full of flaming trolls :|

If you're interested in debunking the book, READ THE GODDAMN BOOK. :|

nik

Why is it that you've been so irratable recently?

Women tend to change men...

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: PastorDon
Precisely. Not about proving the existence of God via a flawed mathematical perspective - but about analyzing said flawed proof to further understand logic.

I don't see the flaw. Why don't you explain it to me? You can get the book thru ILL.

Or I can just quote the response notfred got from the author:

Originally posted by: notfred
I sent the author of the book (Melvin Fitting) and email yesterday. Here's his response, and my original email.

There is a centuries long history of so-called ontological proofs for
the existence of god. They are often logically subtle and, though they
contain errors, they are worth studying. Attempting to analyze them can
lead to deeper understanding of formal logic itself. This is what I do
in my new book.

As you can see, the author uses previously existing *flawed* proofs of god's existence to study logic. The book is a study of logic, not a case for or against the existence of a god.

Thanks NF.

- M4H

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: PastorDon
Precisely. Not about proving the existence of God via a flawed mathematical perspective - but about analyzing said flawed proof to further understand logic.

I don't see the flaw. Why don't you explain it to me? You can get the book thru ILL.

I don't want to spend $75 on a book so I can restate the author.

I quote: "ontological proofs for the existence of god ... contain errors" - Melvin Fitting

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: LeRocks

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
AT is full of flaming trolls :|

If you're interested in debunking the book, READ THE GODDAMN BOOK. :|

nik

Why is it that you've been so irratable recently?

Who the hell are you, and why are you talking to me?



j/k

I hate trolls. I hate hate HATE trolls.

 

[Tom]

How is this for a logical argument for why people can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist ?

1.In order to prove or disprove something we have to first define what it is we are trying to prove or disprove.

2.Which means we have to define what God is.

3.What is a definition-it's both what something is and what it isn't. The extent of something. The limits within which something exists.

God doesn't exist-Obviously you can't define what God is if you don't think he exists so we are already finished with the non-believing part of our question.

God does exist-If an entity is capable of completely defining God, knowing everything he knows, understanding everything he understands, and the full extent of his abilities, then that entity must also be God. If human beings cannot truly define God, they can't prove or disprove his existence.