Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Gödel's ontological proof is a formal argument by the mathematician Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) for the existence of God. The argument is in a line of development that goes back to Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109). St.
He offered a further criticism of Anselm's ontological argument, suggesting that the notion of God cannot be conceived, as Anselm had asserted. He argued that many theists would accept that God, by nature, cannot be fully comprehended. Therefore, if humans cannot fully conceive of God, the ontological argument cannot work. [69]
The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by appealing to the necessary conditions for the possibility of experience and knowledge. [1] A version was formulated by Immanuel Kant in his 1763 work The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence ...
Gödel believed that God was personal, [47] and called his philosophy "rationalistic, idealistic, optimistic, and theological". [48] He formulated a formal proof for the existence of God known as Gödel's ontological proof.
In the context of philosophy, the term is commonly used in critiques of ontological arguments for the existence of God and the principle of divine simplicity. [1] [3] For example, Gödel's ontological proof contains as a theorem, which combined with the axioms of system S5 leads to modal collapse. [4]
Employing a diagonal argument, Gödel's incompleteness theorems were among the first of several closely related theorems on the limitations of formal systems. They were followed by Tarski's undefinability theorem on the formal undefinability of truth, Church 's proof that Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable, and Turing 's theorem that ...
Morewedge referred to the argument as "Ibn Sina's ontological argument for the existence of God", and said that it was purely based on his analytic specification of this concept [the Necessary Existent]." [28] Steve A. Johnson and Toby Mayer said the argument was a hybrid of the two. [25] [28]
The vagueness with which he defines positive is probably your best counterargument (maybe tied with the fact that Godel's conception of God isn't necessarily that of any particular religion, though Godel may not have been interested in describing the standard Christian God but rather something more akin to the Platonic or Neoplatonic conception ...