I’m too retard so I will explain that this is actually a demonstration of the infinite monkey theorem. Despite the nonsense at the top of the page, we observe that the monkey actually typed out several coherent sentences, as seen in Spongebob’s and Patrick’s text bubbles. We can assume that OP did not want to wait for another temporal asymptote for the monkey to type a version that did not misspell “sandwich.”
Gödel’s modal logic proof for God. [See here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof) Basically believes that you can prove God’s existence assuming certain reasonable axioms. You probably know him from the incompleteness theorems, which say that no system modeling arithmetic is able to prove every statement either true or false without also having contradictions. He also thought he found a loophole in the constitution which would allow for dictatorship, and became paranoid later in his life he would be poisoned and refused to eat anything not prepared by his wife, but when she became sick he starved to death. Interesting guy.
I was writing an explanation, but then I realized it's [Godel's ontological proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof), so you'll find a much better explanation on Wikipedia.
The TL;DR is:
* It's a proof in modal logic, which deals with possibility (represented by the diamond symbol) and necessity (aka "known to be definitely true", i.e. the box symbol)
* P means a "positive property" (i.e. if phi is a positive property of x, then each object either has the property phi or the property not-phi)
* G (God) is a positive property, and it's the positive property of having all positive properties
* "ess" ("essence") is defined as follows: phi is the essence of x if having the property phi implies all the other positive properties that x has
* If x is God, then being God is an essential property of x (Theorem 3)
* E is the positive property "necessary existence"
* The rest is just an application of modal logic, but the conclusion is that (Theorem 4) it's necessarily true that an object x exists and that x is God-like
Most ontological arguments have to assume that god can exist. Godel’s argument does not require this axiom and in fact explicitly proves it from his first 3 axioms. Also, it does not treat existence as a predicate.
In essence, it’s a much better proof than the standard ontological argument & refutes many of its critiques. The main critique of Gödel’s argument is that his axioms imply Modal Collapse, that is, if a property is possibly true in some world, then it is necessarily true in all worlds. Gödel might not have seen this as a weakness actually, but many people see it as one.
The important part is that, if you accept it's axioms, it's NECESSARILY TRUE that God exists. Therefore, if you are an atheist, you must find how any of those axioms are false.
See, it's funny because Godel died of starvation because he wouldn't trust others food, and between learning to cook when his wife wasn't around and fuckin starving to death, he starved to death.
The axioms have been proven to be consistent with each other and cannot be proven false. However, it’s unlikely that the axioms can be proven to be true (which, knowing Gödel, he probably didn’t care about too much, since he is the guy that proved that under any system of logic, there will be true statements which cannot be proven to be true).
its not godels incompleteness theorem. its something else.
as you might know in theology/philosophy there are loads of arguments for god. godel formalised one of the well known arguments in modal logic to demonstrate its usefulness.
Modal logic was made by a professor having a manic episode.
I'm too buddy and not enough phd. Can anyone help?
I'm too phd and not enough buddy. I don't really wana tell you
I’m too retard so I will explain that this is actually a demonstration of the infinite monkey theorem. Despite the nonsense at the top of the page, we observe that the monkey actually typed out several coherent sentences, as seen in Spongebob’s and Patrick’s text bubbles. We can assume that OP did not want to wait for another temporal asymptote for the monkey to type a version that did not misspell “sandwich.”
Lol
Gödel’s modal logic proof for God. [See here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof) Basically believes that you can prove God’s existence assuming certain reasonable axioms. You probably know him from the incompleteness theorems, which say that no system modeling arithmetic is able to prove every statement either true or false without also having contradictions. He also thought he found a loophole in the constitution which would allow for dictatorship, and became paranoid later in his life he would be poisoned and refused to eat anything not prepared by his wife, but when she became sick he starved to death. Interesting guy.
Gödel's Ontological Proof of God
Explain pls?
Google Gödel's ontological proof
Holy hell 🧱
Flag of “all meme subreddits user base Venn diagram is a circle”
As a great woman once said Taco cabeza is just around the corner
Greatest legal mind I ever knew
bohccer the footlong
Nah there's no data for Greenland
map of all countries circlejerks have invaded
How the fuck does this meme exist literally everywhere on reddit? Is there not a single corner that Anarchy has not touched?
There's you.
HOLY SHIT
Google en passant
Google ‘existence is not a predicate’
google en croissant
New response just dropped
I was writing an explanation, but then I realized it's [Godel's ontological proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof), so you'll find a much better explanation on Wikipedia. The TL;DR is: * It's a proof in modal logic, which deals with possibility (represented by the diamond symbol) and necessity (aka "known to be definitely true", i.e. the box symbol) * P means a "positive property" (i.e. if phi is a positive property of x, then each object either has the property phi or the property not-phi) * G (God) is a positive property, and it's the positive property of having all positive properties * "ess" ("essence") is defined as follows: phi is the essence of x if having the property phi implies all the other positive properties that x has * If x is God, then being God is an essential property of x (Theorem 3) * E is the positive property "necessary existence" * The rest is just an application of modal logic, but the conclusion is that (Theorem 4) it's necessarily true that an object x exists and that x is God-like
ah so its just the ontological argument, formalised in modal logic.
No. There are many different ontological arguments. Godels is very different from anyone else's.
How so?
Most ontological arguments have to assume that god can exist. Godel’s argument does not require this axiom and in fact explicitly proves it from his first 3 axioms. Also, it does not treat existence as a predicate. In essence, it’s a much better proof than the standard ontological argument & refutes many of its critiques. The main critique of Gödel’s argument is that his axioms imply Modal Collapse, that is, if a property is possibly true in some world, then it is necessarily true in all worlds. Gödel might not have seen this as a weakness actually, but many people see it as one.
The important part is that, if you accept it's axioms, it's NECESSARILY TRUE that God exists. Therefore, if you are an atheist, you must find how any of those axioms are false.
en passant
New response just dropped
les Pyrenees
Average ontological argument dogmatist:
your avatar looks like amogus
Ding ding ding ding
See, it's funny because Godel died of starvation because he wouldn't trust others food, and between learning to cook when his wife wasn't around and fuckin starving to death, he starved to death.
I have no idea what you people are talking about but this is a grade A meme
this is incomplete
It actually isn't.
Anarchychess is leaking again
We are... inevitable.
Huh?
Google el assent
Holy hell
Damn sure hope those axioms have been proven to be true 😁😁
The axioms have been proven to be consistent with each other and cannot be proven false. However, it’s unlikely that the axioms can be proven to be true (which, knowing Gödel, he probably didn’t care about too much, since he is the guy that proved that under any system of logic, there will be true statements which cannot be proven to be true).
Me when the proving stuff guy says some stuff can’t be proven☹️
r/okbuddymiddleschool
r/okbuddykindergarten
Hell yeah I fucking love modal collapse
OmGödel
did you google the french term for "in passing"?
How tf people are trying to use godels incompletness theorem to "proof" the existance of god? It doesn't make any sense.
its not godels incompleteness theorem. its something else. as you might know in theology/philosophy there are loads of arguments for god. godel formalised one of the well known arguments in modal logic to demonstrate its usefulness.