Home  FAQ  Search  Memberlist  Usergroups  KDR  Register  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Reasoning (For) The Existence of God

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
ScoutsHonor

avatar

Posts : 1360
Join date : 2009-10-20

PostSubject: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Tue 29 May 2012, 8:10 pm

An Excellent Presentation
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mike lewis



Posts : 190
Join date : 2012-03-22

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Sat 21 Jul 2012, 8:44 pm

This is an excerpt from the famous BBC Radio debate between Father Frederick C. Copleston and Bertrand Russell. In this section, they discuss Leibniz's Argument from Contingency, which is a form of the Cosmological Argument. It differs from other Cosmological arguments (e.g. Kalam) in that it is consistent with an eternal universe, as it doesn't appeal to first causes, but rather the principle of sufficient reason. It can be summarized in this way:

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.







Quote :
The principle of sufficient reason states that anything that happens does so for a reason: no state of affairs can obtain, and no statement can be true unless there is sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise. The principle is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz, although the first person to use it was Anaximander of Miletus. Also Alexander R. Pruss argued the principle of sufficient reason relating with "ex nihilo nihil fit".

The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:

For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why x exists.
For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why e occurs.
For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why p is true.

A sufficient explanation may be understood either in terms of reasons or causes for like many philosophers of the period, Leibniz did not carefully distinguish between the two. The resulting principle is very different, however, depending on which interpretation is given.

Note that the principle of sufficient reason can't be applied to Axioms within a logic construction like a mathematical or a physical theory. Axioms are propositions accepted as having no justification possible within the system. The principle declares that all propositions considered to be true within a system should be deducible from the set axioms at the base of the construction (with some theoretical exceptions: see Godel theorem).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficient_reason
Back to top Go down
View user profile
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Sat 21 Jul 2012, 9:17 pm

I'm really diggin where this forum is headed. Things are starting to get interesting Smile

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
anonymously email me by clicking here
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
ScoutsHonor

avatar

Posts : 1360
Join date : 2009-10-20

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Sun 22 Jul 2012, 1:42 pm

C1 wrote:
I'm really diggin where this forum is headed. Things are starting to get interesting Smile

Seems like its heading towards a mathematics orientation, is it not? Ah well!...."SIGH" --
(just not my particular strength)..

Well, I can always read and learn, right? Smile

Back to top Go down
View user profile
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Mon 23 Jul 2012, 3:13 pm

I'd say that math, science, philosophy, metaphysics, and God are inextricably linked.

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
anonymously email me by clicking here
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
ScoutsHonor

avatar

Posts : 1360
Join date : 2009-10-20

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Mon 23 Jul 2012, 5:58 pm

C1 wrote:
I'd say that math, science, philosophy, metaphysics, and God are inextricably linked.

I think, I do wholeheartedly agree, C1. Very Happy

Kinda an exciiting world, isn't it!! pirat
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mike lewis



Posts : 190
Join date : 2012-03-22

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Mon 06 Aug 2012, 11:46 am

The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a First Cause for the universe. Its origins can be traced to medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most directly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition. Its historic proponents include John Philoponus, Al-Kindi, Saadia Gaon, Al-Ghazali, and St. Bonaventure. A prominent contemporary Western proponent is William Lane Craig.

The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and this First Cause must be God. It is also applied by the Spiritist doctrine as the main argument for the existence of God.

The Kalām argument was named after the Kalām tradition of Islamic discursive philosophy through which it was first formulated. In Arabic, the word Kalām means "words, discussion, discourse."

The cosmological argument was first introduced by Aristotle and later refined by Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). In Western Europe, it was adopted by the Christian theologian and Saint of the Roman Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas. Another form of this argument is based on the concept of a prime-mover; this Aristotelian form of the argument was also propounded by Averroes. The premise is that every motion must be caused by another motion, and the earlier motion must in turn be a result of another motion and so on. The conclusion thus follows that there must be an initial prime-mover, a mover that could cause motion without any other mover. One of the earliest formations of the Kalām argument comes from Al-Ghazali, who wrote, "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."

Two kinds of Islamic perspectives may be considered with regard to the cosmological argument. A positive Aristotelian response strongly supporting the argument and a negative response which is quite critical of it. Among the Aristotelian thinkers are Al-Kindi, and Averroes. In contrast Al-Ghazzali and Muhammad Iqbal may be seen as being in opposition to this sort of an argument.

The argument has several forms, the basic first-cause argument runs as follows:
Argument
Classical argument

The Kalām cosmological argument:

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;

Therefore:

The universe has a cause of its existence.

Conceptual analysis of what it means to be the cause of the universe then aims to establish some of the theologically significant properties of this being.

Every event must have a cause, and each cause must in turn have its own cause, and so forth. Hence, there must either be an infinite regress of causes or there must be a starting point or first cause. Al-Kindi (as Aristotle) rejected the notion of an infinite regress and insisted that there must be a first cause, and the first cause must be God.

Another form of this argument is based on the concept of a prime-mover (This is the Aristotelian form of the argument also propounded by Averroes). The premise is that: every motion must be caused by another motion, and the earlier motion must in turn be a result of another motion and so on. The conclusion thus follows that there must be an initial prime-mover, a mover that could cause motion without any other mover.

There are two Islamic perspectives with regard to the cosmological argument. A positive Aristotelian response strongly supporting the argument with thinkers such as Al-Kindi, and Averroes. And a negative response which is quite critical of it with thinkers such as Al-Ghazzali and Iqbal which may be seen as being in opposition to this sort of an argument.

Al-Kindi is one of the many major and first Islamic philosophers who attempt to introduce an argument for the existence of God based upon purely empirical premises. In fact, his chief contribution is the cosmological argument (dalil al-huduth) for the existence of God, in his On First Philosophy.

He presents four different versions of this argument, all are variation of the cosmological argument which require a cause.

The first argument revolves around the principle of determination (tarjjih), that is prior to the existence of the universe it was equally likely for it to exist or not to exist. The fact that it exists implies that it required a determining principle which would cause its existence to prevail over non-existence. This principle of determination is God.

This is similar to Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason Leibniz argues that everything in the world is contingent that it may or may not have existed. Something will not exist unless there is a reason for its existence. This rests on his premise that the actual world is the best possible world, as such we can account for everything in it as being there for a specific reason. But the universe as a whole, requires a further reason for existence, and that reason for Leibniz is God.

A second argument of his draws its inspiration from Islamic and Aristotelian sciences. He argues that only God is indivisible, and everything other than God is in some way composite or multiple. Kindi describes his concept of God, he has no matter, no form, no quantity, no quality, no relation; nor is He qualified by any of the remaining categories (al-maqulat). He has no genus, no differentia, no species, no proprium, no accident. He is immutable… He is, therefore, absolute oneness, nothing but oneness (wahdah). Everything else must be multiple.

This for Kindi was a crucial distinction upon which he rested some of his main arguments for God’s existence. In Kindi’s theory only God’s oneness is necessary whereas that of all others is contingent upon God. Hence all other beings single or multiple must emanate from the ultimate essential being. In addition this first being must be uncaused, since it is the cause of everything else.

The material world cannot exist ad infinitum because of the impossibility of an actual infinite (a concept borrowed from Aristotle). The material world can also not be "eo ipso" eternal, because of the impossibility of an infinite duration of time, since the existence of time is contingent upon the existence of bodies and motion, which have been shown to be finite. As such the world requires a creator, or rather a generator (mudhith) in Kindi’s scheme, who could generate the world ex nihilo.

The third and fourth arguments he presents are similar versions of the first cause argument, and hence are subject to the same criticisms that apply to any cosmological argument. These criticisms come not only from Western scholars but also Islamic ones. Al-Ghazzali is unconvinced by the first-cause arguments of Kindi. In response to them he writes: "According to the hypothesis under consideration, it has been established that all the beings in the world have a cause. Now, let the cause itself have a cause, and the cause of the cause have yet another cause, and so on ad infinitum. It does not behove you to say that an infinite regress of causes is impossible."

Ghazzali thought that it is at least theoretically possible for there to be an infinite regress, and that there is nothing that necessitates a first-cause simply by pure deductive reason. He thus undermines one of the essential premises of the first-cause argument.

Al-Kindi's argument has been taken up by some contemporary Western philosophers and dubbed the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Among its chief proponents today is Dr. William Craig. It proposes to show (contrary to what Ghazzali thought) that the universe must have necessarily had a beginning. A contrast is drawn between two concepts, the “potential infinite” and an “actual infinite.”

Craig's proposal is as follows:
William Lane Craig formulates the argument as follows:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

With two sub-sets of arguments.
First sub-set of arguments

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:

An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Second sub-set of arguments

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:

A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

Discussion

Craig argues that the first premise is supported most strongly by intuition, but also by experience. He asserts that it is "intuitively obvious," based on the "metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing," and doubts that anyone could sincerely deny it. Additionally, he claims it is affirmed by interaction with the physical world. If it were false, he states, it would be impossible to explain why things do not pop into existence uncaused.

The second premise is often supported by philosophical arguments and scientific verification for the finitude of the past. Craig claims that the number of past events cannot be infinite, meaning that the universe must be finite and therefore must have begun to exist. He also cites the Big Bang theory as evidence for the second premise. Craig interprets the Big Bang as the temporal beginning of the universe, and discounts the Cyclic model, vacuum fluctuation models, and the Hartle-Hawking state model which suggest otherwise.

The argument concludes, often through a process of elimination, that the cause of the universe must be a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being, which is God.

Objections and criticism
The argument has been criticized [26] by such philosophers as J. L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, and Quentin Smith, and physicists Paul Davies and Victor Stenger.

Stenger has argued that quantum mechanics dis-confirms the first premise of the argument, that is, that something can not come into being from nothing. He postulates that such naturally occurring quantum events are exceptions to this premise, like the Casimir effect and radioactive decay. Craig responds to this in two different ways: (1) the indeterministic origination of virtual particles in the quantum vacuum is not true creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) since the vacuum contains a sea of fluctuating energy, empty space, and is governed by physical laws; none of which is "nothing." (2) Craig states that the interpretations to which Stenger appeals are indeterministic interpretations which are one of many interpretations, some of which are wholly deterministic and none of which is actually known to be true. Thus, Craig rejects this as a refutation of premise one. However, Stenger continues that "...Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be...something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, he destroys his own case for a predetermined creation."

Ghazali thought that it is at least theoretically possible for there to be an infinite regress, and that there is nothing that necessitates a first-cause simply by pure deductive reason. He thus disputes one of the essential premises of the first-cause argument.

Muhammad Iqbal also rejects the argument stating, “Logically speaking, then, the movement from the finite to the infinite as embodied in the cosmological argument is quite illegitimate; and the argument fails in total.” For Iqbal the concept of the first uncaused cause is absurd, he continues: "It is, however, obvious that a finite effect can give only a finite cause, or at most an infinite series of such causes. To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an un-caused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds."

Kant also rejects any cosmological proof on the grounds that it is nothing more than an ontological proof in disguise. He argued that any necessary object’s essence must involve existence, hence reason alone can define such a being, and the argument becomes quite similar to the ontological one in form, devoid of any empirical premises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mike lewis



Posts : 190
Join date : 2012-03-22

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Mon 06 Aug 2012, 12:00 pm

An ontological argument for the existence of God (or simply ontological argument) is any one of a category of arguments for the existence of God. The exact criteria for the classification of ontological arguments are not widely agreed, but the arguments typically start with the definition of God and conclude with his necessary existence, using mostly or only a priori reasoning and little reference to empirical observation.

It is widely accepted that the first ontological argument was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Seventeenth century French philosopher René Descartes deployed a similar argument. Descartes published several variations of his argument, each of which centered on the idea that God's existence is immediately inferable from any "clear and distinct" idea of a supremely perfect being. In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz augmented Descartes' ideas in an attempt to prove that a "supremely perfect" being is a coherent concept. A more recent ontological argument came from Kurt Gödel, who proposed a formal argument for God's existence. Norman Malcolm revived the ontological argument in 1960 when he located a second, stronger ontological argument in Anselm's work; Alvin Plantinga challenged this argument and proposed an alternative, based on modal logic. Attempts have also been made to validate Anselm's proof using an automated theorem prover. Other arguments have been categorised as ontological, including those made by Islamic philosopher Mulla Sadra.

The first critic of the ontological argument was Anselm's contemporary, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He used the analogy of a perfect island, suggesting that the ontological could be used to prove the existence of anything. This was the first of many parodies, all of which attempted to show that it has absurd consequences. Thomas Aquinas later rejected the argument on the basis that humans cannot know God's nature. David Hume offered an empirical objection, criticising its lack of evidential reasoning and rejecting the idea that anything can exist necessarily. Immanuel Kant's critique was based on what he saw as the false premise that existence is a predicate. He proposed that, as it adds nothing to the essence of a being, existence is not a predicate (or perfection) and thus a "supremely perfect" being can be conceived to not exist. Finally, philosophers including C. D. Broad dismissed the coherence of a maximally great being, proposing that some attributes of greatness are incompatible with others, rendering "maximally great being" incoherent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_proof
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mike lewis



Posts : 190
Join date : 2012-03-22

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Mon 06 Aug 2012, 12:39 pm

Mathematician Kurt Gödel provided a formal argument for God's existence. The arguments were constructed by Gödel but not published until long after his death. He provided a logically valid argument based on modal logic; he uses the conception of properties, ultimately concluding with God's existence.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B

Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

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

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Gödel defined being "god-like" as having every positive property. He left the term "positive" undefined. Gödel proposed that it is understood in an aesthetic and moral sense, or alternatively as the opposite of privation (the absence of necessary qualities in the universe). He warned against interpreting "positive" as being morally or aesthetically "good" (the greatest advantage and least disadvantage), as this includes negative characteristics. Instead, he suggested that "positive" should be interpreted as being perfect, or "purely good", without negative characteristics.

Gödel's listed theorems follow from the axioms, so most criticisms of the theory focus on those axioms or the assumptions made. Some philosophers challenged his acceptance of the underlying modal logic while others criticised his wide conception of properties. Oppy argued that Gödel gives no definition of "positive properties". He suggested that if these positive properties form a set, there is no reason to believe that any such set exists which is theologically interesting, or that there is only one set of positive properties which is theologically interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs in his papers. Points relevant to the ontological proof include

4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
14. Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.


The Proof:


Or:

UoD: Everything. Gx: x is God-like Ex: x has essential properties. Ax: x is an essence of A. Bx: x is a property of B. Px: property x is positive. Nx: x is a General property. Xx: x is Positive existence. Cx: x is consistent.

The final argument by one interpretation (out there on the Internet, publicly accessible) is presented below in 4 parts:

1.

1 │ □Ex ≡ □Px ≡ □Gx A (A is Assumption) 2 │ □Ex A 3 │ ◊Px ≡ □Px A 4 │ ◊Px A

5 │ □Px ≡ □Gx 1, 2 ≡E 6 │ □Px 3, 4 ≡E

7 │ □Gx 5, 6 ≡E

Alt. 1, 1st.

1 │ □Ex ≡ □Px ≡ □Gx A (A is Assumption) 2 │ □Ex A 3 │ ◊Px ⊃ □Px A 4 │ ◊Px A

5 │ □Px ≡ □Gx 1, 2 ≡E 6 │ □Px 3, 4 ⊃E

7 │ □Gx 5, 6 ≡E

Alt. 1, 2nd.

1 │ □Ex ≡ □Px ≡ □Gx A (A is Assumption) 2 │ (□Px ⊃ □Nx) ⊃ □Px A 3 │ □Px ⊃ □Nx A 4 │ □Ex A

5 │ □Px 2, 3 ⊃E 6 │ □Px ≡ □Gx 1, 2 ≡E

7 │ □Gx 6, 5 ≡E

This alternative, nr. 2, takes care of the former line ”6 │ (□Px ⊃ □Nx) ⊃ □Px A” and adds overall description by this!

2.

1 │ □Px ≡ □Gx A (A is Assumption) 2 │ □Xx ⊃ □Px A 3 │ □Xx A

4 │ □Px 2, 3 ⊃E

5 │ □Gx 1, 4 ≡E

3.

1 │ ◊Cx ≡ □Gx A (A is Assumption) 2 │ □Px ∨ ~□Px A 3 │ □Px ⊃ ◊Cx A

4 ││ □Px A 0 ││----------------- 5 ││ □Px 6 R

6 ││ ~□Px A 0 ││----------------- 7 ││ □Px 6 R 8 │ □Px 4, 6-9 ∨E 9 │ ◊Cx 8, 3 ⊃E

10│ □Gx 9, 1 ≡E

4.

1 │ □Bx ≡ □Gx A (A is Assumption) 2 │ ◊Ax ≡ □Bx ≡ (◊Ax ⊃ □Bx) A 3 │ ◊Ax A

4 │ □Bx 3, 2 ≡E

5 │ □Gx 4, 1 ≡E

Note for the 4th part: Consider (◊Ax ⊃ □Bx) as “added explanation”! Also, line 2 of the 4th part is Definition 2 from the original argument of Gödel. Note2: The following lines are taken out for having no use in this interpretation of the argument. x │ □Gx ⊃ □Px A x │ □Gx ⊃ □Cx A x │ □Gx ⊃ □Ax A

From:

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive. 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 Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive. Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified. Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent. Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

The proof uses modal logic, which distinguishes between necessary truths and contingent truths.

In the most common interpretation of modal logic, one considers "all possible worlds". A truth is necessary if its negation entails a contradiction, such as 2 + 2 = 3, and is true in all possible worlds. By contrast, a truth is contingent if it just happens to be the case, for instance, "more than half of the planet is covered by water". If a statement happens to be true in our world, but is false in some other worlds, then it is a contingent truth. A statement that is true in some world (not necessarily our own) is called a possible truth.

A property assigns to each object, in every possible world, a truth value (either true or false). Note that not all worlds have the same objects: some objects exist in some worlds and not in others. A property has only to assign truth values to those objects that exist in a particular world. As an example, consider the property

P(s) = s is pink

and consider the object

s = my shirt

In our world, P(s) is true because my shirt happens to be pink; in some other world, P(s) is false, while in still some other world, P(s) wouldn't make sense because my shirt doesn't exist there.

We say that the property P entails the property Q, if any object in any world that has the property P in that world also has the property Q in that same world. For example, the property

P(x) = x is taller than 2 meters

entails the property

Q(x) = x is taller than 1 meter.

The proof can be summarized as:

IF it is possible for a rational omniscient being to exist THEN necessarily a rational omniscient being exists.

We first assume the following axiom:

Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property thus: "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)

If a property A entails a property B (ie in every possible world if an object has property A it must also have property B), and if A is positive, B must also be positive.

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

Axiom 2: For all properties A, either A is positive or "not A" is positive. Never both.
Axiom 3: The property of "being God-like", G is a positive property.
Axiom 4: If a property A is positive, then it is so in every possible world.

Finally, we assume:

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof


Last edited by mike lewis on Mon 06 Aug 2012, 1:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mike lewis



Posts : 190
Join date : 2012-03-22

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Mon 06 Aug 2012, 12:41 pm

Gödel left in his papers a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs, that are dated around 1960. They show his deep belief in the rational structure of the world. Here are his 14 points:

1.The world is rational.

2.Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).

3.There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.).

4.There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.

5.The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.

6.There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.

7.The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).

8.Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.

9.Formal rights comprise a real science.

10.Materialism is false.

11.The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.

12.Concepts have an objective existence.

13.There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.

14.Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ScoutsHonor

avatar

Posts : 1360
Join date : 2009-10-20

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Fri 10 Aug 2012, 5:41 pm

C1,

Am a little more than half-way through God According to God, Schroeder's book, and wondering if you've read it yet, as I definitely have some ideas I'd like to discuss with you. The book has been more than surprising to me! I am beginning to wonder if my objectivity has been completely impaired somewhere along the way (while reading the output of all the nutcases and power-mad megolomaniacs, like Bertrand Russell & his modern brothers, Ugh) As an indication, I am not too sure Mr. Schroeder is really on "the side of the angels" - not at all! Shocked

But these comments may be premature and I really should wait til I finish the book before being so disturbed -.I have at least half of the book to go! So will write further as I progress in reading, then..

(do U have Any thoughts?)


Cool



Back to top Go down
View user profile
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Mon 13 Aug 2012, 11:37 pm

mike lewis wrote:
Gödel left in his papers a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs, that are dated around 1960. They show his deep belief in the rational structure of the world. Here are his 14 points:

1.The world is rational.

2.Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).

3.There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.).

4.There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.

5.The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.

6.There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.

7.The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).

8.Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.

9.Formal rights comprise a real science.

10.Materialism is false.

11.The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.

12.Concepts have an objective existence.

13.There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.

14.Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.
Somewhere I have 2 PDF which are supposed to contain all of Goedel's notebooks. I'm going to have to look this up.

I think we could start an entire thread on this, as each of the 14 points merits discusion. For example, I'm not sure I understand point 9

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
anonymously email me by clicking here
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
C1
Admin
avatar

Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Mon 13 Aug 2012, 11:42 pm

ScoutsHonor wrote:
C1,

Am a little more than half-way through God According to God, Schroeder's book, and wondering if you've read it yet, as I definitely have some ideas I'd like to discuss with you. The book has been more than surprising to me! I am beginning to wonder if my objectivity has been completely impaired somewhere along the way (while reading the output of all the nutcases and power-mad megolomaniacs, like Bertrand Russell & his modern brothers, Ugh) As an indication, I am not too sure Mr. Schroeder is really on "the side of the angels" - not at all! Shocked

But these comments may be premature and I really should wait til I finish the book before being so disturbed -.I have at least half of the book to go! So will write further as I progress in reading, then..

(do U have Any thoughts?)


Cool
I have not read his book, but you certainly have enough knowledge to determine what side he is on. So, while we might not be able to figure out the specific scam, if there is one, I'm certainly willing to trust your opinion on this. So, I say to you follow your Gut. That's what I would do. We can always figure out later what the specific angle is, as they always seem to become apparant to us with further study.

_________________
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root."
David Thoreau (1817-1862)
anonymously email me by clicking here
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://wwws.forummotion.com
mike lewis



Posts : 190
Join date : 2012-03-22

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Tue 04 Sep 2012, 7:25 am

Quote :
In 2009, Robert G. Brown, a professor of physics at Duke University with a background in philosophy, published a scientific proof asserted to demonstrate the truth of pandeism under information theory. Titled "The Pandeist Theorem", the theorem states that "If God exists, then God is identical to the Universe. That is, the theorem is a statement of conditional pandeism. If God exists at all, God must be absolutely everything that exists." The basic premise is that a being properly defined as God must have absolute knowledge of the universe, and that no method except existing as a real-time map of the whole content of the universe would permit that. Brown's conception does not accept a created "Universe" (he is careful to distinguish the "Universe" to mean all that is, including God, from the "Cosmos" which is simply our physical experience of galaxies and other physical phenomena), but one that is pandeistic without having been created (as "God" can, and indeed must, become the cosmos), although he allows for the possible consciousness of "God" – the universe itself – at n-dimensional levels.



The Pandeist Theorem

Let us now (at last) state the basic theorem:

If God exists, then God is identical to the Universe.

That is, the theorem is a statement of conditional pandeism. If God exists at all, God must be absolutely everything that exists.

We start with what is really just an ontological or semantic observation, something that is immediately obvious from the meanings of the words themselves. We have carefully defined the Universe to be everything that exists, the set consisting of all that has objective existential reality, in accord with common usage. The word literally means ``turned to one'', the union of all that has being.

It is therefore quite obvious that if God exists (has being), God must be either a part of the Universe or the whole Universe9.

God by the property of omniscience must have precisely the irreducible information content of the entire Universe.

http://web2.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/god_theorem/god_theorem/node7.html
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mike lewis



Posts : 190
Join date : 2012-03-22

PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   Tue 04 Sep 2012, 7:36 am

C1 wrote:
mike lewis wrote:


9.Formal rights comprise a real science.

For example, I'm not sure I understand point 9

I think I understand it but I'm not sure it could ever be defined or dictated by science without destroying the essence of the concept of Right. I think Goedel is referring to Berlin's idea of positive and negative liberties. Berlin was extremely critical of applying these concepts prescriptively, he knew it would destroy the individual and inevitably lead to authoritarian tyranny.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Reasoning (For) The Existence of God   

Back to top Go down
 
Reasoning (For) The Existence of God
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
WWWS :: Main Forums :: Religion & Faith-
Jump to: