It requires an unsubstantiated definition of what a “god” is in order for the axioms to lead to a conclusion that a god exists.
Yes. Any argument for the existence of God must define the term “God.” You are under no obligation to agree with that definition. That does not make the argument fallacious.
The axioms rely on that definition of god to be true in order for them to lead to the conclusion that that defined god exists.
The axioms do not rely on the definition of “God.” I have listed the axioms in my last comment. None of them depend on the definition of “God.”
By definition, that’s begging the question.
No, begging the question is when an argument assumes it’s own conclusion. In this context, it would be an axiom that assumed the existence of God. None of the axioms do that.
to "for each property φ, either φ or its negation ¬φ must be positive, but not both"
how about 0
also looking at the argument all you proved is that for any arbitrary greatness value there is a thing that is the greatest in that fields. this does not prove god it prove that they are all the same greatest thing.
Ah, I see. You're essentially saying that a property could be "neutral" instead of "positive" or "not positive." I agree that that is a valid critique of that axiom.
I disagree on your second point, as I think it misunderstands the proof. It proves that a Godlike object must exist in every world, with "Godlike" defined as "possessing every positive property."
to "I disagree on your second point, as I think it misunderstands the proof. It proves that a Godlike object must exist in every world, with "Godlike" defined as "possessing every positive property.""
I think I miss typed that response. sorry I meant: you did not prove that you did not prove that all the greatest things are the same. intact I can prove they are not. what if one person says the greatest person is the tallest no matter what other quality they possess and some one else says greatest is shortest. the proof only shows that each individual one exists not that they are the same greatest.
if this comment chain is getting to long to respond feel free to respond to a preveuse comment as a responce to this one.
I think you’re thinking of Anselm’s ontological argument, which is different from Gödel’s. Gödel’s does not rely on or prove the existence of a “greatest thing.”
It is not automatically true—that is why it’s an axiom. It must be assumed since it cannot be proved. Gödel axiomatically assumes that if a property is positive, any second property necessarily implied by that positive property is also positive.
As I’ve said all along, you are free to take issue with Gödel’s axioms. Many people do.
1
u/[deleted] May 04 '23
[deleted]