Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Gödel (who is considered the greatest logician after the founder of Logic, i.e. Aristotle), formulated a mathematical logical proof for the existence of God.
It seems that believing in God can be based on logic.
The main question is NOT however concerning this specific "proof". There are many mathematician who have talked in favor or against that proof. The main question is: IS there any "OBJECTIVE" criterion on which one can talk about the credibility of the logic of another person? If the logic of Godel tells him that God exists, can you say that his logic is "illogical"?
Logic is illogical when it can be proven to be contridictory.
EX:
I don't believe in anything that I can't see or touch, so I don't believe in God.
Yet I believe in love, in the testimonies of people I don't know that have said things happened that can't be proven ( history), I believe in aliens, I believe in luck, etc, etc
His claim has overstepped the bounds of 'pure' mathematics and logic and has tried to make existential claims. Maths are a strange thing in that they never really necessarily correlate to existence. This leads some to wonder where maths come from if not reality. Now as for his proof.. of course it was logical. There's never a discussion on the logic amongst reasonable people, it's always a discussion of the premises. He will have a harder time coming up with logical justifications for his premises.
"IS there any "OBJECTIVE" criterion on which one can talk about the credibility of the logic of another person?" And the answer is NO.
'Logic' is one of those very slippery words that sound both credible and rational on the surface but surface is all that exists. 'Proofs' that are measured by language and argument are no proof at all except the proof of hubris for which reason is so capable. The only proof worthy of meaning is the 'logic' that leads to demonstration and evidence and can be reproduced. The tragedy is that history has convinced virtually all sides of the God question that such a literal proof is not possible. I would expect God to one day make fools of all who hold to that opinion and presumption.
skakos wrote:The main premise which is in question in this proof is whether "existence" is a positive quality.
Would you disagree with that?
I disagree with almost every premise. Namely:
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
kla2 wrote:"IS there any "OBJECTIVE" criterion on which one can talk about the credibility of the logic of another person?" And the answer is NO.
'Logic' is one of those very slippery words that sound both credible and rational on the surface but surface is all that exists. 'Proofs' that are measured by language and argument are no proof at all except the proof of hubris for which reason is so capable. The only proof worthy of meaning is the 'logic' that leads to demonstration and evidence and can be reproduced. The tragedy is that history has convinced virtually all sides of the God question that such a literal proof is not possible. I would expect God to one day make fools of all who hold to that opinion and presumption.
That is true.
So whoever refers to the "belief in God being illogical" should think twice.
Especially when the two greatest logicians of all times have stated (with THEIR logic) otherwise...
skakos wrote:The main premise which is in question in this proof is whether "existence" is a positive quality.
Would you disagree with that?
I disagree with almost every premise. Namely:
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
