Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Math and God
03-26-2010, 03:40 PM
Post: #1
Math and God
Since everyone ignored it when I posted it in thread, I offer it up again.

[Image: icon.godel.gif]

Is this mathematical proof that God or gods could exist? Critique.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-26-2010, 04:11 PM
Post: #2
RE: Math and God
Can you explain this for folks who've been away from mathematics for awhile?

http://www.biblicaltraining.org/ --- http://www.ntwrightpage.com/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-26-2010, 05:42 PM
Post: #3
RE: Math and God
(03-26-2010 04:11 PM)Stereophonic Wrote:  Can you explain this for folks who've been away from mathematics for awhile?

Sorry, this is the Ontological Proof, courtesy of Einstein's BFF, Kurt Godel.

To use wiki's breakdown of it, which is a little flawed, but easiest way to understand it --

Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property rather vaguely: "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995)

We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying "the positive properties form an ultrafilter"):

Axiom 2: If P is positive and P entails Q, then Q is positive.
Axiom 3: If P1, P2, P3, ..., Pn are positive properties, then the property (P1 AND P2 AND P3 ... AND Pn) is positive as well.
Axiom 4: If P is a property, then either P or its negation is positive, but not both.
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm's argument.

Now we define a new property G: if x is an object in some possible world, then G(x) is true if and only if P(x) is true in that same world for all positive properties P. G is called the "God-like" property. An object x that has the God-like property is called God

Basically it's the mathematical proof for Gottfried Leibniz's version of St Anselm's ontological argument.

...Did that make sense to anyone but me? I'm trying, I really am.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-26-2010, 09:31 PM
Post: #4
RE: Math and God
Is there any entity that necessarily exists? I don't think so. In order for something to necessarily exist, its non-existence must be a contradiction. This idea is suspect on its own, but even then -- if something does necessarily exist, you can call it God but you must independently show that is has attributes other than necessary existence. It still is simply an entity whose non-existence is a contradiction, nothing else specified. It could be a banana, for all we know.

And God said unto John: "Come forth and receive eternal life!"
...But John came fifth and won a toaster.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-26-2010, 09:39 PM
Post: #5
RE: Math and God
(03-26-2010 09:31 PM)The Hanged Man Wrote:  Is there any entity that necessarily exists? I don't think so. In order for something to necessarily exist, its non-existence must be a contradiction. This idea is suspect on its own, but even then -- if something does necessarily exist, you can call it God but you must independently show that is has attributes other than necessary existence. It still is simply an entity whose non-existence is a contradiction, nothing else specified. It could be a banana, for all we know.

Interesting hypothesis, although what the proof is saying is that if the rest are met, then something defined as God must exist or the rest wouldn't be so.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-28-2010, 12:41 AM
Post: #6
RE: Math and God
I understand, but what I am saying is that the 'rest' are all basically the existence of the property of necessary existence. You defined something that necessarily exists as God-like. At the end of it, all you have is an entity that necessarily exists. Why call it God?

And God said unto John: "Come forth and receive eternal life!"
...But John came fifth and won a toaster.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-28-2010, 01:12 AM
Post: #7
RE: Math and God
(03-28-2010 12:41 AM)The Hanged Man Wrote:  I understand, but what I am saying is that the 'rest' are all basically the existence of the property of necessary existence. You defined something that necessarily exists as God-like. At the end of it, all you have is an entity that necessarily exists. Why call it God?

Hey, it's not my theorem. I just thought it was interesting bit of discussion. It doesn't quite fit my view either.

As for why to call it god, why not? God is just an invented term, and no one really agrees on all said properties of god or gods.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-28-2010, 01:13 AM
Post: #8
RE: Math and God
(03-28-2010 01:12 AM)Aingeal Wrote:  
(03-28-2010 12:41 AM)The Hanged Man Wrote:  I understand, but what I am saying is that the 'rest' are all basically the existence of the property of necessary existence. You defined something that necessarily exists as God-like. At the end of it, all you have is an entity that necessarily exists. Why call it God?

Hey, it's not my theorem. I just thought it was interesting bit of discussion. It doesn't quite fit my view either.

As for why to call it god, why not? God is just an invented term, and no one really agrees on all said properties of god or gods.

This is completely pointless.

We would be 1,500 years ahead if it hadn't been for the church dragging science back by its coattails and burning our best minds at the stake
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-28-2010, 01:18 AM
Post: #9
RE: Math and God
(03-28-2010 01:13 AM)Secular Hobbit Wrote:  
(03-28-2010 01:12 AM)Aingeal Wrote:  
(03-28-2010 12:41 AM)The Hanged Man Wrote:  I understand, but what I am saying is that the 'rest' are all basically the existence of the property of necessary existence. You defined something that necessarily exists as God-like. At the end of it, all you have is an entity that necessarily exists. Why call it God?

Hey, it's not my theorem. I just thought it was interesting bit of discussion. It doesn't quite fit my view either.

As for why to call it god, why not? God is just an invented term, and no one really agrees on all said properties of god or gods.

This is completely pointless.

What is completely pointless? Discussion of advanced mathematics in relation to theism? My, and I thought we were on a religion board.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-28-2010, 01:33 AM
Post: #10
RE: Math and God
Yes, the discussion of advanced mathematics in relation to theism is pointless. Especially when you say something along the lines of "Why not call it God?" I could place two parallel lines along side each other and say: "These two lines run infinitely along side each other and never intersect. Why not call this God?"

We would be 1,500 years ahead if it hadn't been for the church dragging science back by its coattails and burning our best minds at the stake
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Math and God(s) StarStuff 31 3,243 02-24-2012 11:39 PM
Last Post: janus



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)