[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 530x286, ab47f643c7918fda58089c7f5129a183.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16631036 No.16631036 [Reply] [Original]

god exists and kurt godel simply proved it.

>> No.16631115

>>16631036
Somebody PLEASE explain this to me in a way I can actually understand

>> No.16631130

>>16631036
>simply
not sure about that

>> No.16631150

>>16631115
It's a rehash of the ontological argument made by St. Anselm. Nothing new here.

>> No.16631160

>>16631036
If i can't see it with my eyes then it doesn't exist.

>> No.16631184

>>16631160
You cant see your conscience with your eyes therefore youre an npc

>> No.16631246

Lol why prove anything when you can just add another axiom

>> No.16631254

STEM bugs so BTFO they simply pretend this doesn't exist.

>> No.16631285 [DELETED] 
File: 37 KB, 740x724, 1553661385193.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16631285

>>16631184
>conscious real!!! my favorite popsci books said so!!!!!

>> No.16631291

>>16631184
you can see your consciousness shimmering in every object around you ya dingus

>> No.16631294

>>16631036
What are all those weird symbols?

>> No.16631310

>>16631285
All books on science are popsci.

>> No.16631329

>>16631160
so uranus doesn't exist?

>> No.16631474

>>16631294
It's gods language

>> No.16631491

>>16631036
In this logic with the axioms he used, yes. Doesn't say anything about our reality, though.
If I set the axiom that one shared quality is the same as identity, I can prove you're the pope, since you're both human.

>> No.16631499

>>16631491
*being identical

>> No.16631517

I feel intimidated by that language :(

>> No.16631525

>>16631036
>proof built on axioms that presuppose skydaddy prove skydaddy

>> No.16631532

>>16631525
it does prove it, does it not? :)

>> No.16631550

>>16631491
> reality
logic IS reality. when you see the "broken" oar under the water it's by logic you realize the oar isn't really broken but that appearance is due to the infraction of light. you are not a dog running after its own tail, you build your empirical world through logic, otherwise it wpuld be just a bunch of meaningless colours.
by logic, god exists and that's all.

>> No.16631564

>>16631550
And how do you know logic is reality? By logic?

>> No.16631575

>>16631564
the definition of reality is "logically consistent". logic and real are synonyms.

>> No.16631578

Godel proves God, that math is a religion, that no system can be both complete and consistent, then starved himself to death to join his wife in heaven -_-

>> No.16631588

>>16631575
What the fuck is logic, exactly? Logic is reality is logic?

>> No.16631603

>>16631588
logic is a set of symbols endowed with rules which distinguish what is objective from what is subjective

>> No.16631624

>>16631575
You are so wrong. There are many illogical things in reality e.g. the nature of light breaks the law of noncontradiction

>> No.16631644

>>16631603
Reality is a set of symbols. Gotcha

>> No.16631646

>>16631036
Explain it to me without the symbols

>> No.16631656

>>16631624
It doesn't. You don't understand duality

>> No.16631713

>>16631656
Explain then. How can a quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave? How can both be true in the same sense at the same time?

>> No.16631721

>>16631550
No it's not. There isn't just ONE logic. And that one deduction about something is consistent with reality (which we have to observe to confirm that) doesn't mean it's identical with it.

Also, goedel literally uses axioms that have no ground in reality in this proof.

>> No.16631741

>>16631656
I think I get how you're trying to describe logic and reality together, but it doesn't make epistemological sense to me. Could you be more clear?

>> No.16631750

>>16631644
it is.
even in physics, the laws of the empirical world are math, which is a set of symbols and a subgenre of logic. einstein didn't discover the law of relativity in a lab, but just with math and a pencil. THEN the experiments proved his theory.

>> No.16631776

>>16631713
A particle is a localized wave.

>> No.16631806

>>16631474
Doesn't look like Latin to me.

>> No.16631811

>>16631750
And you said that through this view, god must exist. How does that come in?

>> No.16631825

>>16631811
because god is logically proven

>> No.16631841

>>16631825
And you're expecting me to ask, by what definition of god?

>> No.16631868

>Implying anyone on here can read philosophical logic.

>> No.16631881

>>16631806
*greek

>> No.16631886

>>16631868
Why would you want to?

>> No.16631887

>>16631825
Your refusal to acknowledge that Gödel used a specific form of logic that has no importance for reality at all has been noted. Stop lying.

>> No.16631890

>>16631150
This is actually true, you are not an american are you?

>> No.16631906

>>16631887
>specific form of logic
wtf lol

>> No.16631915

>>16631906
You don’t know that there is not only one type of logic? Maybe get off of /lit/ and read some philosophy

>> No.16631918

EXISTENZ UNDNOTWENDIGKEIT355Erstes Axiom.Jede Eigenschaft ist entweder positiv oder negativ:P¬X¬PX,(A1.1)¬PXP¬X.(A1.2)Zweites Axiom.Was eine positive Eigenschaft notwendig einschließt, istselbst eine positive Eigenschaft:(A2)PX∧∀x(XxYx)P Y.Definition »göttlich«.Etwas ist genau danngöttlich, wenn es alle positivenEigenschaften besitzt:(D1)Gx∀X(PXXx).Drittes Axiom.Göttlichkeit ist eine positive Eigenschaft:(A3)P G.Erster Satz.Positive Eigenschaften sind konsistent:(S1)PX∃x Xx.Beweis.Angenommen,Xist eine positive Eigenschaft,(∗)PX,und angenommen,Xseinichtkonsistent, d.h.¬∃x Xx, also (nach Umfor-mung von∃xin¬∀x¬, vonin¬¬und dem Streichen so entstandenerdoppelter Negationen):∀x¬Xx.WennXxfalsch ist, dann impliziertXxeinen beliebigen Widerspruch, alsoz.B.(∗∗)∀x(Xx¬x=x).Wenn wir nun die Eigenschaft vonxbetrachten, nicht mitxidentisch zu sein(und diese mit¬x=andeuten4), dann sehen wir, daß aus (∗) und (∗∗)4Die Notation¬x=für die Eigenschaftnicht mitxidentisch zu seinist suggestiv und infor-mell und ersetzt hier einen formal korrekteren Abstraktionsausdruck wieλy.¬x=y. Fürdie formal korrektere Notation bedarf es der zusätzlichen Vereinbarung, daß der Ausdruckλy.¬x=ygleichbedeutend sein soll mit dem Ausdruck¬λy.x=y. Diese Vereinbarung istharmlos, da wir aufgrund der Regel derλ-Konversionλy.Xy.xXxso schließen dürfen:λy.¬x=y.x¬x=x¬λy.x=y.x
356ANDRÉFUHRMANNnach (A2) folgt, daß diese Eigenschaft selbst positiv sein muß:P(¬x=)–woraus nach (A1.1) folgt, daß(†)¬P(x=).Es gilt aber rein logisch, daß∀x(Xxx=x), woraus wie oben (aus (∗)nach (A2)) wiederum folgt, daß die Eigenschaft der Selbstidentität auch posi-tiv sein muß:(‡)P(x=).Aber (†) und (‡) widersprechen einander. Also muß unsere Annahme, daßpositive Eigenschaften inkonsistent sein können, falsch sein.Da nach (A3) Göttlichkeit eine positive Eigenschaft ist, folgt unmittelbardas folgendeKorollar zum Ersten Satz.Ein göttliches Wesen ist möglich:(S1*)∃x Gx.Damit ist der Möglichkeitsnachweis, der Leibniz so sehr beschäftigte, er-bracht. Benötigt wurden dazu nur die Axiome (A1.1), (A2) und (A3), ferner,im Hintergrund, elementare Schlußweisen der Logik der zweiten Stufe so-wie die Annahme, daß Selbstidentität und Selbstverschiedenheit Eigenschaf-ten sind.Aus dem nächsten Axiom sowie der Definition einer wesentlichen Eigen-schaft werden wir beweisen, daß es höchstens ein göttliches Wesen gebenkann.Viertes Axiom.Positive Eigenschaften sind notwendig positiv:(A4)PXPX.Definition »wesentliche Eigenschaft«.Xist genau dann einewesentliche Ei-

>> No.16631927

>>16631906
Are you seriously unaware that there isn't just one logic? Holy shit.

Logic is a system to make deductions based on axioms. Those axioms can be whateverthefuck. Like I explained earlier with the example of the pope.

Gödel set some Axioms and made a deduction, that was correct. That's all. That has nothing to do with reality. You can choose whatever axioms you want.

>> No.16631930

>>16631915
Don't tell people to read philosophy

>> No.16631931

>>16631915
I am just going to let your statement kneel in it's own vomit.

>> No.16631947

>>16631927
>unaware that there isn't just one logic?
Please master your terminology before making assumptions.

The natura of the axiomatics are not a part of the logical operations.

Which is basic computing.

>> No.16631952

>>16631776
Be more specific or explain things better because it is like you are not addressing both questions

>> No.16631961

>>16631952
Only a cretin wouldn't understand me.

>> No.16631962

>>16631887
godel's logic is formal logic you mad retard.

>> No.16631963

>>16631961
Good job man you used the word cretin. Really got them there

>> No.16631964

>>16631962
Stop feeding the troll.

>> No.16631969

>>16631947
Semantics.
The logic which we use in our everyday life is different than formal logic, for example. They have their own rules, things that can be described and deduced in them and things that can't.

What Gödel did is constructing a system around the ontological proof.

>> No.16631976

>>16631962
which isn't some sort of godly language in which reality is written.

>> No.16631977

>>16631969
Semantics my ass.

>> No.16631980

>>16631976
Of course it is.

More so than even mathematics and physics, which loan from it.

>> No.16631981

>>16631961
>>16631977
This thread went down the toilet really fast

>> No.16631985

>>16631980
the logical operations seem pretty godly to me, yeah

>> No.16631991

This discussion is not even on the level on a first semester german philosophy student.


Go back to Lotr.

You are never gonna make it.

>> No.16631994

>>16631980
Yeah, no. It's a useful language for a lot of things, but it has its limitations. One of which gödel proved, ironically.

>> No.16631997

>>16631927
>Those axioms can be whateverthefuck.
Not if they want to be cogent
Aristotle emphasized that the premises of a cogent argument must be supported by evidence
This brainlet of cope saying logic has nothing to do with reality is demented

>> No.16632000

>>16631991
>Lotr
Lord of the rings?

>> No.16632006

>>16631985
It went down with the statement "not only one way of logic computing"

>> No.16632010

>>16632000
No, lord of the flies.

I mistyped.

>> No.16632012

>>16631721
>>16631927
>>16631947
>>16631969
>>16631991
> that cringe retarded spacing
go back to plebbit

>> No.16632015

>>16631994
I would literally slap you in the face right now. I am not even going to explain why your statement is so very much wrong.

Keep paddling in you own filth streetfolk.

>> No.16632016

>>16631997
it can have something to do with reality. But, as gödel himself did, you can really set axioms however you see fit. As you can define logical operations.

The fact that gödels proof works in the way he did it just says nothing about the actual existence of god.

>> No.16632021

>>16632006
I compute using informal logic all the time. That's the best way of proving stuff that you want to be true.

>> No.16632024

>>16632015
Retards often get mad when they get confronted with the truth. Sorry to hear you having so much problems with your emotions.

>> No.16632028

>>16632010
>>16632015
>>16632016
> 20+ posts in 15 minutes
imagine being this butthurt

>> No.16632032

>>16632012
boring person

>> No.16632034

>>16632006
who said that?

>> No.16632040

>>16632024
baka desu senpai

>> No.16632042

>>16632032
nigger

>> No.16632048

>>16632016
You get it, one of the few people that have actually learned basic formal logic.

>> No.16632050

>>16632042
boring person

>> No.16632054

>make up some rules of deduction
>make up some axioms
>deduce something
>computer built according to those rules says i got it right
>hooray i proved the existence of smth

Do people really...?

>> No.16632055

>>16632050
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGANIGGU

>> No.16632081

>>16632054
>>16632055
> keeps repeating the same retarded, emotional chatter
> single ip count is still 21
how many posts did you write 25? 30?

>> No.16632082

>>16632054
>>make up some rules of deduction
godly laws
>>>make up some axioms
What does axiom mean exactly
>deduce something
godly laws
>computer built according to those rules says i got it right
godly laws
>>>hooray i proved the existence of smth
godly laws

Have you even finished high school? You should go to /a/ or something. Stop trying to talk to humans like me ape.

>> No.16632089

>>16632081
Stop trying to use formal logic.

>> No.16632099

>>16632082
>godly laws
>what is an axiom?
>i'm the smart one here

>> No.16632103

>>16632099
If it starts with law, it ends with law. The only issue is their insistence on the word godly

>> No.16632104

>>16632099
>>what is an axiom?
That whats I asked you, because you obviously do not know.

>> No.16632109

>>16632103
Godly just means all the things it means, no transcedence.

>> No.16632111

>>16632109
Fuck off

>> No.16632113

>>16631291
You can see god shimmering in everything too

>> No.16632118

>>16632111
babbling toddler

>> No.16632123

>>16631776
It doesn't refute anything though

>> No.16632132

>>16632118
Are you godly?

>> No.16632144

>>16631713
Saying x has the property of a particle and x has the property of a wave is not the same as saying x is y and ~y.

>> No.16632151

>>16632016
>But, as gödel himself did, you can really set axioms however you see fit. As you can define logical operations.

Yes, thats a "logically valid" argument with false premises, however, the point youre making is nonsensical, as I understand youre trying to use this type of argument to say ANY logical argument has nothing to do with reality, EVEN when the premises are all supported by empirical evidence, that is utter bullshit

"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, Rhetoric

"The truth or falsity of a statement depends on facts, not on any power on the part of the statement itself of admitting contrary qualities". - Aristotle, Categories

Cogent (logical) reasoning, reasoning designed to strongly appeal to the intellect rather than the emotions, should meet 3 conditions:
1. It must be derived from premises that "you know" are true. (These are true propositions that are either; (a) "self-evident"; (b) verified by your own personal direct experience; or (c) well supported by solid verifiable evidence. There is no fourth way to "know" that a premise is true.).
2. It should contain all of the known relevant evidence. (The suppression, or improbable absence, of relevant evidence is a good indication of deception. Relevant evidence is any evidence that would tend to make an argument more likely or less likely to be true.)
3. It should be properly structured, so that it comes to a conclusion which logically follows from the premises. (In the case of valid deductive arguments this conclusion would "necessarily" follows from the premises. In the case of very strong inductive arguments it would follow "beyond a reasonable doubt". In both cases it would be free of contradiction and consistent with the facts.)

When an argument meets these conditions (ie. verifiably true premises, all relevant evidence, and properly structured) it is said to be sound or cogent, and very likely to be true. When an argument does not meet these conditions it is said to be fallacious (faulty/deceptive reasoning).

>> No.16632174

>>16631036
I can read the logic, but hard to understand the argument without knowing what the statements are. Anyone know?

>> No.16632176

>>16632151
Good comment. Not everyone is illiterate or a Nietzschetard on this board.

>> No.16632184
File: 94 KB, 2400x2132, Chi_Rho.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16632184

I think I have an axiom that we all can agree on.

>> No.16632197

on god's side: newton, leibniz, gauss, boole, cantor, godel.
on science! 's side: degrasse tyson, dawkins, hitchens, dennet, harris.

>> No.16632198

>>16631721
>Also, goedel literally uses axioms that have no ground in reality in this proof.
What are tha axioms he uses? I dont know how to read those symbols

>>16632151
>the point youre making is nonsensical, as I understand youre trying to use this type of argument to say ANY logical argument has nothing to do with reality, EVEN when the premises are all supported by empirical evidence, that is utter bullshit
I reread his posts
>>16632016
>it can have something to do with reality
I was talking at straws, forgive me for that
The rest is still valid

>> No.16632213

>>16632176
Its hard to read thousamds of pages and post on this board regularly, 4chan appeases to opinators and hunchers that have a lust for mindless discussion

>> No.16632221

I have learned my knowledge of formal logic by Hoyningen-Huene

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hoyningen-Huene

>> No.16632222

>>16632197
>on god's side: newton, leibniz, gauss, boole, cantor, godel
there is euler, galileo and aquinas too

>> No.16632230

>>16632151
It makes sense to construct logic such that it models our empirical evidence. But, I don't know if it then makes sense to use that system to prove the existence of trancendent elements (god).

>> No.16632233

According to my math-u-Matics 1x0=0 therefor god could not have existed without there being something else to work with

Checkmate goodle

>> No.16632253
File: 34 KB, 850x400, FB_IMG_1603277181719.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16632253

>>16632213
>reads thousands of pages

>> No.16632259

>>16632253
Better than thinking yourself stupid

>> No.16632267

>>16631036
What is p of phi in this context? And what is that symbol at the end of the first axiom, left of the parenthesis, looks like a u with a line through it?

>> No.16632279

>>16632259
Cope

>> No.16632296

>>16631806
>The god of Isreal speaks a European language.
Sure, why not.

>> No.16632330

>>16632279
I don't understand what you mean

>> No.16632385

>>16632230
>It makes sense to construct logic such that it models our empirical evidence.
>But, I don't know if it then makes sense to use that system to prove the existence of trancendent elements (god).

I think at least its worth the try, isnt that what metaphysics is about anyway? There are self evident premises you can derive an entire philosophy from, like what Mario Ferreira dos Santos did
>He created a philosophical system called "concrete philosophy." His system was based on the méthode des démonstrations géométriques, with no possibility of disagreement from its assumptions – which he called "theses". The first thesis is the very foundation of his philosophy: "There is something whilst there isn't the absolute nothing", from which he draws other theses through the methods of geometry

Im still nowhere near capable of understanding Mario's work enough to give a summary of everything, but maybe you will be interested in it so I thought it was worth mentioning
https://marioferreirainenglish.wordpress.com/

>> No.16632410

>>16632253
Schopenhauer is right but I think youre taking him ou of context
The thousands of pages are meant to be read throughout the decades, and obviously you need to medidate upon what you Reading is like food, thinking is digesting the food
Not to mention if you read enough, one point or the other the authors you read will diverge, then you could compare both opinions to your real experience and arrive at a conclusion

>> No.16632468

>>16632253
>>16632410
Reading thousands of pages is a requirement to collect all the prevalent opinions of the wise men, which Aristotle said was the precondition to the investigation of philosophical subjects, and its something that most if not all philosophers also always did (after all, how do you know if someone before you didnt arrive at great ideas you would come up with by yourself after decades of solitary thinking? its better to not reinvent the wheel)
This isnt restricted to philosophy, in sciences and mathematics you would do good if you collected all the previous relevant opinions on the problem youre working on before thinking about it

>> No.16632469

Define God

>> No.16632492
File: 39 KB, 564x564, 1572379894732.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16632492

>>16632222
>2222

>> No.16632527

>>16632469
Define"define"

>> No.16632528

>>16632222
Exactly that.

>> No.16632544

>>16632527
Define "define" ""define""

>> No.16632610

>>16632385
I just don't see how I could have meaningful beliefs about something trancendental without a revelation (something that breaks the bounds of my knowledge, and thus logic). It's tautological.
More strangely, I don't think I can even have meaningful beliefs about this abstract notion of trancendence given that it is constructed through very much non-trancendental logic. Really, the only thing I know is my experience, and it doesn't seem like I can think my way into knowing something greater.
I'll take a look at that out of interest, but these discussions always lead nowhere imo. That's epistemology for ya

>> No.16632616

>>16632184
This party requests the removal of chi-rho. This party accepts, however, the inclusion of Alpha and Omega.

>> No.16632637

>>16632132
Am I, passerby anon, godly?
>yes

>> No.16632681

>>16632637
What an absolute chad!

>> No.16632689

>>16632184
Nice I need that on a T-shirt. Its just the right amount of edgy.

>> No.16632698

>>16632637
you better speak in gods language then, fuckhead

>> No.16632718

>>16632544
*Define "define 'define'"

>> No.16632721

>>16631036
possibly the worst proof of god's existence ever proposed; this thread makes me want to renounce my faith
why are so many christians retarded

>> No.16632746

>>16632718
(((Define)))

>> No.16632752

>>16632721
Learn some english.

>> No.16632885

>>16632721
Dunning kreuger affect

>> No.16632926

>>16632721
> greatest logician ever existed on par with aristotle (btw another theist)
vs
> illiterate ape shitposting on a japanese animeboard
choose carefully my son

>> No.16633019

>>16632926
>appeal to authority

Cute

The proof is bullshit

>> No.16634509

>>16631150
Thank you!

>> No.16635324
File: 556 KB, 423x634, 1453925370077.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16635324

>>16631036

There's a lot of COPE in this thread, but I don't see any actual criticisms of the argument. Another basic version of this is given by Plantinga. If you are going to address either, you have to first understand the modal logic and what it's meant to capture (there's actually nothing very controversial in those 'axioms').

>> No.16635476

modal collapse

>> No.16635492

>>16631036
>analytic philosophy
Why can’t Anglos into prose?

>> No.16635500

>>16631644
Yes. Take the objectivist pill

>> No.16635515

>>16632222
Hey, don't forget Paul. That guy was extraordinarily intelligent

>> No.16635558

>>16631646
you have a tool to build some shit. then you use that first tool to build other tools to build some more shit. But you don't have the tools to build that first tool , not only you dont have the way to build the first tool, but somehow is imposible to have that tool.

>> No.16635806

>>16632197
Appeal to authority fallacy.

>> No.16635817
File: 124 KB, 1093x1600, lemaitre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16635817

>>16635806
cry more fedora faggot.

>> No.16635822

>>16635806
that is not a fallacy because this is not a logical conversation since no one is providing any refutation of goedel's proof. that post is meant as a hint.

>> No.16635830

>>16635492
> complaining with god's language
why humans can't into grunts?

>> No.16635831

how do abrahamists go from >>16631036 to "god gave a book to a middle eastern tribe in which he revealed the truth"?

>> No.16635850
File: 181 KB, 1251x585, 1448772459279.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16635850

>>16635831
thousand of years of wisdom.

>> No.16635870

>>16635850
this doesn't answer the question

>> No.16635877

>>16631036
He could have just said "Ax. 1 God exists" and save us all the trouble.

>> No.16635922

>>16635831
>how do abrahamists go from >>16631036 (OP) # to "god gave a book to a middle eastern tribe in which he revealed the truth"?
>>16635870
Miracles and faith
Sometimes archeology and history

>> No.16636018

>>16631532
Yes if you presume god exists

>> No.16636024

>>16631918
>Presumes every action is either positive or negative
>Other stupid assumptions
It only works when the world is based on his weird starting axioms and even then god is just a being of "all positive properties"

>> No.16636055
File: 366 KB, 500x434, 1600125902570.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16636055

>>16631036
>Ax. 1. if phi is a P and necessarily for all x, if x is phi then phi is psy, then psy is a P
>Ax. 2. 'not psy' is a P if and only if not 'psy is a P'
>Th. 1. if phi is a P then possible there exists an x such that x is a phi
>Df. 1. x is a G if and only if for all phi, if phi is a P then x is a phi
>AX. 3. G is a P
>Th. 2. possibly there exists an x and x is G
>Df. 2. phi is essentially(?) x if and only if x is a phi and for all psy, if x is a psy then necessarily for all y, if y is a phi then y is a psy
>Ax. 4. if phi is a P then necessarily phi is a P
>Th. 3. if x is a G then G is essentially(?) x
>Df. 3. x is an E if and only if, for all phi, if phi is essentially x then necessarily there exists a y and y is a phi
>Ax. 5. E is a P
>Th. 4. necessarily there exists and x and x is a G
I think, but my proposition/first order logic is shit. Presumably G is God, but G knows what the phi, psy, P and E are supposed to be. Or what the 'ess' is.

>> No.16636130

>>16632752
what was wrong in my post?
>>16632885
>affect
learn some english

>> No.16636219

>>16631036
Oh fuck off already
The board is about literature, not some toilet for your wankfantasies

>> No.16636291

>>16631550
>logic IS reality.
No, it isn’t. It’s just a tool for describing reality

>> No.16636321

>>16636291
I hate posts like these. I always smell a hidden "well, according to [philosopher]" lurking below the surface. The implication of an argument is not an argument. Stop shitposting please.

>> No.16636358

>>16636321
This is literally an argument from feelfeels. Logic is a human description of reality. It’s not a divine revelation, and drawing conclusions from a process of logical deduction doesn’t turn those conclusions into inescapable destinies.

>> No.16636593

reminder that Gödel did this proof because he was a huge Leibniz fanboy, not because he was such a devout christian or thought this would actually proof anything.

>> No.16636607

>>16631294
The square and diamond are modal logic iirc

>> No.16636608

>>16631624
The lnc isn't present in all logic languages. Logic is the essence of all those languages

>> No.16636619

>>16636321
Logic isn't reality it's a subset of it. Semantics is taught how to maintain truth in a system (and what can't be proven but just accepted). Logic is concerned with truth-satisfiability or that the system can map truth if it's assumed and that it can carry over into any derivative of its structure.
Example is assume A, B are both true. A can mean only animals can fly and B means dogs can fly.
So if A is true
And B is true
Then from our logic language (syllogistic logic per Aristotle) C is true (dogs are animals).
You just say it's valid and move on. You need ontology to test it.

>> No.16636881

bump

>> No.16636888

>>16636024
True

>> No.16636932

Best thread currently on /lit/

>> No.16637367

>>16631578
His wife died after him, though.

>> No.16637395

>>16631115
It's already written as simply as possible

>> No.16637468

>>16631254
Godel was a mathematician

>> No.16637638

>>16637468
He was a heavy platonist tho tbf

>> No.16637693

>>16631115
It's perfectly simple, just go to this wiki and piece it together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

>> No.16637702

>>16637693
That's brutal anon lol

>> No.16637707

Amazing how a post without even the pretense of connection to literature can stay up on /lit/ so long.

>> No.16637716

>>16637707
Godel is lit

>> No.16637719

>>16637716
No, he isn't. He's math or philosophy.

>> No.16637736

>>16637367
What a cunt

>> No.16637737

>>16636291
It's not even that I'd argue. It's more of a codification of the human mind's innate rules for interpreting reality. I forget what physicist said it, but "nature is under no obligation to make sense to you." Indeed the law of the excluded middle is inapplicable to qubits, where a computing state can be simultaneously true and false within the superposition. Generalizing Godel's theorems to the entire world assumes that the entire world is conformable to first order predicate logic which is false.

>> No.16637762

>>16631160
based

>>16631329
as far as i care, it doesn't.

>> No.16637796

>>16637719
Which is lit if it's analytic and considering he's a platonist it's lit

>> No.16637811

>>16631550
Logic is not reality, paradoxes exist to prove this fact.

>> No.16638051

>>16637811
when antinomies occour, they prove the axioms are either false or undecidable. for instance, russell's paradox is a paradox only in cantor's set theory. russell's set of all sets which are not member of themselves is self-contradictory therefore it doesn't exist.

>> No.16638073

>>16631115
this is stuff you could learn in a semester or two of undergrad symbolic logic courses. honestly shameful they waste years of students' lives on rote algebra bullshit and most people aren't aware symbolic logic exists

>> No.16638093

>>16637719
>philosophy
that's lit my friend. check the sticky

>> No.16638164
File: 291 KB, 547x800, Wittegenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16638164

>>16637811
Actually this is incorrect. The world is the totality of elementary propositions, not of things. What you should have said is that not all words refer to things. Then you could start to pick apart Godel's axioms by questioning if P, phi, x or psi really refer to actual things. (I don't know what concepts Godel is using here, but P, G, phi, x and psi are his elementary concepts, G I assume is God, but as for the rest, they may or may not exist).

I assume though that if Godel found this convincing, he would have made sure that the atomic facts in his axioms are highly plausible.

>> No.16638166

>>16631115
>God is the greatest thing in existence
>If God is only thought of as the greatest thing in existence (aka, it's all bullshit and made up and exists only in the mind) then he isn't the greatest thing in existence
>This means that there can be a greater thing in existence, which is a God that is imagined as the greatest thing ever AND actually exists
>Therefore, God must be real
There, summed it up for you.

>> No.16638174

>>16631036
God wouldn't allow Himself to be expressed in such foreign symbols nigger.

>> No.16638232

>>16638164
>>16637811
Not all words refer to things = not all words refer to elementary propositions. So if P for instance is not an elementary proposition, then perhaps P is being used in an equivocal manner, or another way of using it is being discounted unfairly. Logical symbolism is supposed to clear up these kinds of difficulties by looking at the logical value of words without regard to their symbolic value. It's supposed to be a way of fact-checking natural language.

There is a consensus that Godel's ontological proof is correct. Whether it means anything to you is really an entirely different matter better suited to continental philosophy.

>> No.16638267

>>16638174
Literally the first criticism of the argument.
>Humans cannot comprehend God, so we can't actually imagine him as this as he is unimaginable. Words and ideas aren't enough.

>> No.16638317

>>16638166
Or you could just look up Godel's ontological argument, demonstrating to yourself that you are thick-skulled, know-nothing, retarded monkey.

>> No.16638328

>>16638317
I'm not writing out his axioms and shit when he can find it elsewhere. Godel literally just reworked Anslems ontological argument. Sorry.

>> No.16638340

G*d is dead

>> No.16638358

>>16638317
Godel conveniently leaves what he means by 'positive' as undefined. Quite useful when people criticise you so you can go
>Nuh-uh that isn't what positive means
He only suggested what it might mean, not what it is.

>> No.16638397

>>16638232
>There is a consensus that Godel's ontological proof is correct
Fucking where? Godel doesn't even explain what he means by 'positive' and railroads you into what he wants it to mean, which is completely fucking thought defeating. The only interesting part of his argument is that if these positives exist and form a set, there is no reason for these sets to exist or proof (in other words, God doesn't exist because Godel's positives don't exist) or, if they do exist, why is there only one set of them (in other words, if God is the only one who posses these positive sets, then why is it only him?). Which isn't really relevant to the existence of God, but more of a thought on what God is. In other words, Godel didn't do anything that Anslem didn't already do. He just tried to use 'universal make up' aka maths to force something people attribute as a religious or spiritual thing into something much firmer.

>> No.16638510

>>16631115
explaining God is heretical

>> No.16639089

>>16638510
t. protestoid scum

>> No.16639148

>>16637638
Like most mathematicians

>> No.16639224

Since it came up, what are some good books to get deeper into formal logic?
I know some basic stuff (propositional calculus and some very basic modal logic) but I want to learn more. Any reccs?

>> No.16639225

>>16638073
Can you me recommend books on logic? I made thread asking recs for books about logic, but none posted anything interesting.

>> No.16639876

>>16639225

>> No.16639887

>>16631150
based

>> No.16639897

>>16631036
Reality is not mathematical.

>> No.16639960

>>16639897
heh

>> No.16640804

>>16639897

It better be or we can't understand it.

>> No.16641066

>>16638397

"i'm confused" the post

>> No.16641081

>>16631036
ok and does that change anything for me or can i just proceed as usual?

>> No.16641637

>>16631115
"If I can think it, it's real. Therefore unicorns and God and such are real."
ultra-retardo-tier

>> No.16641806

>>16639089
go smell teen girl genitals and tell me what they taste like
sole soul
house horse
magic making
what is a gic
what is a chick
matching machick
machine magining
gini chick
chick genius (jinn)

>> No.16641809

>>16640804
>or we can't understand it
bingo

>> No.16641932

>>16641637
unicorns and god are acceptable themes of children's fiction

>> No.16641956
File: 187 KB, 725x483, sun.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16641956

>>16631036
It is nonsensical to ask whether God exists or not. There could be a reality where things exists, like ours, or there could be reality where nothing exists. But you don't very well ask if reality exists. God is reality! The transcendental cause behind everything that is.

>> No.16641958

>>16641956
*God is reality itself

>> No.16641965

>>16641958
how long does that last

>> No.16641993

>>16641965
How long does what last?

>> No.16642016

>>16641066
"i'm retarded" the post

>> No.16642037

>>16631036
What the name of this piece? How can I find it?

>> No.16642042

>>16639224
Second this. Pls help anons.

>> No.16642298

>>16639224
>>16639225
Jean van Heijenoort - From Frege to Godel

>> No.16642520

bump

>> No.16642734

>>16631036
Great, but I preferred Leibniz's presentation of the argument.

>>16635831
>>16635870
First of all there are no "Abrahamists" so fuck off with that term. God also didn't gave a book, unless you talk about Muslims who claim the Quran to be dictated by God.
If you mean Christians, we know the absurdity of believing the Incarnation (which is the endgame of revealing himself to some goatfuckers). We still do it. Prophecies, miracles and behavioral changes are secondary helpers into this but at its core there is an unavoidable leap.

>> No.16642806

>>16642734
this. muslims and jews are the only "abrahamists". no christian ever took his sacred texts as a treatise of physicis. chirstians , like and more perfectly than platonists, know that there is one God endowed with all the "higher" qualities. 90% of the enilightenment followers believed that too. all the rest is symbolic language.
we christians love science, we love the natural world, we love truth and logic. since ever. we do not like the mystical mumbo jumbo from india and such nonsense. we believe in God because it is logical, and in any case no people whatsoever gave more to science than the european christians, surely not the american nu-atheists. there is a difference between your local fanatic 60IQ imam and blaise pascal or c.s. perirce.

>> No.16643391

>>16639897
based

>> No.16643690
File: 455 KB, 1622x2045, 1599264491542.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16643690

>>16636024
But isn't a being with all positive properties a contradiction?

>> No.16643930

>>16642806
>we christians love science, we love the natural world, we love truth and logic.
You sure about that? Modern science dictates that there is no real beginning to the universe and that the underlying reality is incomprehensible.

>> No.16644296

>>16643930
Just like the scripture.

>> No.16644637

>>16641637
only if you label god as a unicorn

>> No.16644667

>>16637395
>>16637693
>>16638073
You are complete retards. The pic in the OP is pure logical syntactics. Unless you specify what the G, P and E mean NOBODY will understand that this is talking about God. It's just a symbol pushing.
Your retardation is analogous to if I gave you an array of numbers and told you that's a picture of a dog, you ask me where is the dog I link you to a wikipedia page on arrays of numbers and say it's encoded. I need to tell you how it's encoded so you understand what it is.

>> No.16645156

>>16631036
if you can prove that it exists, then it isn't God
in this language
P(inability to prove that it exists)

>> No.16645162

>>16632544
t. pumpoid

>> No.16645171

>>16632527
define
verb
to kill or reduce the power of something with homosexual flourish

>> No.16645183

>>16632469
>he doesn't know that defining God is a heresy
defining (binding) Satan on the other hand is fun and educational
we should be teaching kids witchcraft
lesson 1 is binding the Devil

>> No.16645205

>>16639897
Good thing OP's pic isn't mathematics then