tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post3123940912098395081..comments2023-10-29T06:41:23.910-07:00Comments on Halfway There: PZ does RocklinZenohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09058127284297728552noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-43973248746415318202013-02-22T13:37:14.373-08:002013-02-22T13:37:14.373-08:00I'd add the positive attribute "is greate...I'd add the positive attribute "is greater than God".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-50242336550919272742010-02-17T08:25:44.831-08:002010-02-17T08:25:44.831-08:00A better challenge might have been to ask for his ...A better challenge might have been to ask for his best possible proof of the existence of God *and* to explain why it didn't apply to every other deity our imaginative species has conceived.<br /><br />A cogent answer to that question is the bare minimum requirement for a conversation between equals.<br /><br />Godel's argument applies equally well to Zeus, Vishnu etc etc, unless you allow one of positive attributes to be "appeals to my prejudices".Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00060932750731516470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-82402453149783893582010-02-15T22:16:55.061-08:002010-02-15T22:16:55.061-08:00Anonymous, you have it backward. Can the existence...Anonymous, you have it backward. Can the existence of God be proved? It seems that the answer is "no". Belief in God is an act of faith. Atheists, by and large, don't believe in God because there isn't any persuasive evidence for his/her/its existence. The unbelief is not the result of God's proved nonexistence. (Negatives are difficult to prove, you know, except in mathematics.) That causes some people to insist that all nonbelievers are really merely agnostics, but now we're quibbling about the definition of "atheist". Suffice it to say that atheists don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence.<br /><br />The "first existence" argument for God is not very compelling. It reduces quickly to an argument over definitions. You want to define God as the "uncaused first cause"? Then why should he/she/it be the Judeo-Christian version as opposed to something else? Or why even sentient?Zenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09058127284297728552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-43979608831137078472010-02-15T21:48:17.772-08:002010-02-15T21:48:17.772-08:00Just curious- Where is the "proof" that ...Just curious- Where is the "proof" that God DOES NOT exist? Where did first existence come from? Just would like to hear what many on this blog believe in those respects.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-84220821486630148382010-02-07T02:51:34.505-08:002010-02-07T02:51:34.505-08:00@Robert O'Brien
"That is a fine non sequi...@Robert O'Brien<br />"That is a fine non sequitur. Lacking 'sufficient familiarity with which to defend it' has nothing to do with the strength of the argument."<br /><br />It does raise the question of why, when asked for your strongest argument, did you present one that you were unprepared to defend?<br /><br />Regardless, it is not a strong argument. It's just obfuscation. It's the type of argument that relies on most people not having a clue about what it actually says.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-47689174771858678042010-02-05T16:16:49.274-08:002010-02-05T16:16:49.274-08:00I agree that the dependence of Anselm's proof ...I agree that the dependence of Anselm's proof on existence as attribute seems to be a wordgame. It reminds me of this riddle: <br />It is greater than God and worse than the devil. The rich need it, the poor have it, and if you eat it you will die. What is it?<br /><br />As for most riddles, the answer (which I will post in a followup comment, to avoid spoiling it for those who might not already know), depends on the fact that there are multiple concepts tied to the interpretation of a single word.Theo Brominehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14078583453130339726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-74284339107873279592010-02-05T14:50:48.563-08:002010-02-05T14:50:48.563-08:00Late to the party but...
I was told in a philosoph...Late to the party but...<br />I was told in a philosophy class that Russell's criticism of Anselm's argument is that, "existence is not an attribute". I can't say if Russell's right, but if existence IS an 'attribute' it is a mighty strange one that stretches the meaning of the word 'attribute'.<br />BilfredAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-64262051543300649352010-02-02T18:34:16.419-08:002010-02-02T18:34:16.419-08:00llewelly:
"An orgy of over 133 people?"
...llewelly:<br />"An orgy of over 133 people?"<br /><br />Or merely a 133-gon-jerk (as opposed to, say, circle)?<br /><br />Casey:<br />"I'll also say this, as an atheist, seeing Mr. O'Brien shaking and stuttering to get the courage up to even READ a prepared question..."<br /><br />Though O'Brien said it himself, I'd just like to note that his nervousness isn't necessarily indicative of anything. Lots of people don't feel comfortable with public speaking, especially when he knows the audience will not receive him well.<br /><br />As for Gödel's actual argument, it looks like something fun to look into in terms of formal logic. But for the same reasons Zeno expressed already (viz that mathematicians are not nearly uniformly theistic), I suspect that it will ultimately be hollow and unconvincing. If it's really just a formalization of Anselm's ontological argument, I expect nothing more.Escuerdnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-21951351283628132772010-02-01T22:34:55.761-08:002010-02-01T22:34:55.761-08:00Robert, all Godel's ontological argument is is...Robert, all Godel's ontological argument is is a formalization of Anselm's ontological argument. I think it was Kant who figured out what the flaw was in the argument. Anyway, if you define God as one who is "perfect" or has all positive attributes, then that does not mean that God has to exist, as existence is not necessarily an attribute of a perfect object.<br /><br />As always, the Wikipedia article on the ontological argument is rather illuminating.<br /><br />I would not recommend using the ontological argument as a proof of God's existence. Most mathematicians and logicians would agree. Anyway, even if it were true, how does that say anything about why this God should be worshipped, why one should accept that evolution is false and why this God is the God of the bible?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-27797640972241259012010-02-01T15:29:30.228-08:002010-02-01T15:29:30.228-08:00Would it be inaccurate to say that Godel's &qu...Would it be inaccurate to say that Godel's "proof" boils down to a statement that "If a being consisting of only positive properties existed, then that being couldn't not exist"?Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-43209873804095489352010-02-01T14:26:56.349-08:002010-02-01T14:26:56.349-08:00Zeno: Thanks for posting this.
Karen: pinteger s...Zeno: Thanks for posting this.<br /><br />Karen: <i>pinteger</i> sounds like numbers to use to keep track of beer!<br /><br />Casey: I'm an atheist, rabid pro-evilutionist and longtime fan of PZ. But, at the risk of being regarded as a concern troll, I feel compelled to point out that the ad hominem comments attacking Mr O'Brien are at best unhelpful and at worst counterproductive. (not to mention unnecessary).Theo Brominehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14078583453130339726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-22660881794129846292010-02-01T11:19:25.035-08:002010-02-01T11:19:25.035-08:00"You were asked to offer your strongest argum..."You were asked to offer your strongest argument for the existence of God. If you lack sufficient familiarity with which to defend it, then I suggest it is not a very strong argument."<br /><br />That is a fine non sequitur. Lacking 'sufficient familiarity with which to defend it' has nothing to do with the strength of the argument. <br /><br />"I am however very concerned that my comment on Mr. O'Brien forgetting his sippy cup and helmet at home was left out."<br /><br />Ah, Casey, so you are the corpulent toad dressed in black (whose volubility was inversely proportional to his knowledge.) <br /><br />"I'll also say this, as an atheist, seeing Mr. O'Brien shaking and stuttering to get the courage up to even READ a prepared question while insulting PZ's work was very refreshing, especially in Placer County."<br /><br />Public speaking always makes me nervous (to varying degrees). Speaking in front of a crowd of ideological opponents is especially difficult, though.<br /><br />"obviously math was present as all hell"<br /><br />Really? I know of one mathematics instructor, i.e., the author of this blog. I know of no mathematicians who are active in mathematics (as opposed to mathematics education." <br /><br />"The fact that he knew he was in front of a person who was far more intelligent..."<br /><br />You can add that delusion to your stockpile. My degree is in a more intellectually demanding discipline and I am already a coauthor on two papers (currently under review). Prof. Myers has a total of 9, as I recall.<br /><br />"Would you be willing to link to Mr. O'Brien's blog? I'd be curious to check it out."<br /><br />He already linked to it, dim bulb.Robert O'Briennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-15995148152086904502010-02-01T11:00:26.332-08:002010-02-01T11:00:26.332-08:00Ung, this reminds me of an arguement I heard used ...Ung, this reminds me of an arguement I heard used against Hitchens in a debate once. The person phrased it like:<br /><br />- You can imagine another dimension/universe which has a being with the characterists of god. (I forget the actual tortured phrase, "maximally existent being" or some other mush)<br /><br />- If there was a being who had these characteristics, they would also exist in all possible dimensions/universes. <br /><br />- Therefore god exists.<br /><br />It sounds like basically the same thing: a shell game. You can imagine god existing, in another dimension (a magic dimension of fantastical wonders). <br /><br />And since that alone isn't very satisfying, the god you imagineered in magic land (with the power to do anything), has the ability to exist *outside* magic land, because one of his powers in magic land is the existing outside of magic land. With magic. So Peter Pan. <br /><br />UNCONVINCED.<br /><br />Is it just me, or do other people hear a rim-shot in their head every time someone finishes a "proof" of god? Kinda like how you know all knock-knock jokes are going to have a certain form, but instead these jokes all end in <br /><br />... and so god exists! (ba-dum tisk)debaserhttp://slightlyharmless.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-46139718403222083782010-02-01T10:53:47.372-08:002010-02-01T10:53:47.372-08:00Zeno! Thank you for your coverage of this talk.
...Zeno! Thank you for your coverage of this talk. <br /><br />I am however very concerned that my comment on Mr. O'Brien forgetting his sippy cup and helmet at home was left out.<br /><br />The talk was fun, PZ's use of basic dictionary definitions gave it a nice light side of humor.<br /><br />My biggest problem with the talk were the people who kept bursting out with their super special and unique arguments on god's existence and "moral relativism" (which was what was in fact for the win). Everybody kept wanting to drag the discussion into the hypothetical vacuum that helped them the most. It was quite irritating. <br /><br />I asked the question looking for the most utilitarian means for moving atehists forward. I was not tring to say PZ was in charge of Atheists, but rather, he is a prominent figure, and as such people do listen to him, and obviously he's got a direction he's heading in, but not everyone is a scientist, some of us are in other fields (obviously math was present as all hell, and I think philosophers showed that they'll keep babbling in the classroom) but what about people who plan on being involved in politics or law, or even just basic day to day blue collar stuff. What should everyone focs on for our movement to progress ismore of what I as looking for. Not that it matters at this point.<br /><br />I'll also say this, as an atheist, seeing Mr. O'Brien shaking and stuttering to get the courage up to even READ a prepared question while insulting PZ's work was very refreshing, especially in Placer County. The fact that he knew he was in front of a person who was far more intelligent and far more confident and was literally nervous or afraid to the point of shaking gave me some great hope for the people who are on the same side as me. It's nice to see them on your heels. <br /><br />Oh and you also left out the response to "More people believe in god than don't" "Everyone defecates" <br /><br />Would you be willing to link to Mr. O'Brien's blog? I'd be curious to check it out.Caseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11513161367318133843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-60733638199331505042010-02-01T04:32:57.762-08:002010-02-01T04:32:57.762-08:00"The definition of God is that he possesses a..."The definition of God is that he possesses all positive properties. If he exists, then he has all of those positive properties. Not existing would be a negative property, which he cannot have, so he has to exist."<br /><br />Is this supposed to be a proof of God's existence? That's ridiculous! This 'proof' is consistent with both 'god exists' and 'god doesn't exist', so how can it be a proof at all!<br /><br />In a nutshell it's saying, if god exists, then he must exist. so he exists.Herbie Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09803317570747783552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-11920953047577240432010-01-31T19:37:23.016-08:002010-01-31T19:37:23.016-08:00Shannon: very roughly, this is what it says (based...Shannon: very roughly, this is what it says (based on the Wikipedia article, anyway):<br /><br />First, we draw a distinction between "necessary existence" and "contingent existence." A thing with "necessary existence" must exist; a thing with "contingent existence" may happen to exist but need not.<br /><br />We also draw a distinction between "positive properties" and "negative properties." We don't really know what "positive," "negative," and "properties" mean, so we introduce an axiom saying that we do. <br /><br />In particular, "necessary existence" is a positive property. We know this because we introduce an axiom saying that it is.<br /><br />One more definition: we define the property of Godlikeness as follows. If an object x is Godlike, then x possesses all positive properties.<br /><br />Now, we don't know whether God exists in this world. But since there is nothing contradictory about the property of Godlikeness, God must exist in some world. And since it exists there, it has the property of Godlikeness.<br /><br />So we know God exists in some world, and since it is Godlike, it has all positive properties. Among those positive properties is "necessary existence." Therefore God does not just happen to exist in that world: it _must_ exist in _all_ worlds.<br /><br />That's it. Really. Anyone who can't poke a hole or two in this isn't paying attention.NinjaLibrarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07796317000253088701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-8402355985097989282010-01-31T19:24:30.167-08:002010-01-31T19:24:30.167-08:00"For me to effectively present the proof, how..."<i>For me to effectively present the proof, however, I would need to have worked out notes and access to a white board at center stage. I cannot effectively argue for it unprepared and from a seat in the audience.</i>"<br /><br />You were asked to offer <b>your strongest argument</b> for the existence of God. If you lack sufficient familiarity with which to defend it, then I suggest it is not a very strong argument.YAAFPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-57277125339042897242010-01-31T18:45:38.213-08:002010-01-31T18:45:38.213-08:00A mathematical proof can't be much of a proof ...<i>A mathematical proof can't be much of a proof it requires a sympathetic audience to work.</i><br /><br />I am reminded of the line, "if no one understands the proof, is it really a proof?" This was in regard to the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.<br /><br />What is a proof if there isn't agreement about whether it's correct or not?Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-50115643526913190782010-01-31T15:22:12.266-08:002010-01-31T15:22:12.266-08:00Thank you, Zeno, for blogging the talks, particula...Thank you, Zeno, for blogging the talks, particularly the Q&A sessions. I had planned to hear PZ talk at Stanford but something came up. You've helped fill the PZ-shaped gap in my soul (or something like that).<br /><br />Oh, and my captcha word is <i>preal</i>. Is there a <i>pimaginary</i>? Or perhaps a <i>pinteger</i>?Karennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-89150888763255115092010-01-31T12:18:00.699-08:002010-01-31T12:18:00.699-08:00The ontological argument can be summarized thus:
...The ontological argument can be summarized thus:<br /><br />If (in my mind) I define God as an entity with the property of necessary existence, then God necessarily exists (in reality).<br /><br />Not far off from 'god exists because I said so'.Ibishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07354547321603494421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-12214648491375618912010-01-31T11:53:25.563-08:002010-01-31T11:53:25.563-08:00Can someone explain this "proof" to me? ...Can someone explain this "proof" to me? I'm fairly intelligent but I don't know much about the world of higher mathematics so maybe that's why I'm not getting it. I read the wikipedia page but it sounds to me it's something along the lines of 'god exists because I said so'. <br /><br />I don't get how this argument is proof of god's existence. And if this is enough to prove something, then why not just stick other names in there, like the invisible pink unicorn or Odin. <br /><br />What am I not understanding here?Shannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13606192123176489400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-87302860027940742602010-01-31T11:34:54.268-08:002010-01-31T11:34:54.268-08:00I never said that Gödel wasn't a believer, onl...I never said that Gödel wasn't a believer, only that (according to the diarist) he only formulated the "proof" as an exercise in logic, and did not apparently find it convincing on its own merits. Like Anselm's original, it doesn't work as a proof because it cannot convince a neutral party. No matter how much you formalise it, it just comes down to logical legerdemain. Existence in the mind (or in "possible worlds" can never necessitate existence in objective reality (in this world).Ibishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07354547321603494421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-49781593645585626962010-01-31T11:19:47.881-08:002010-01-31T11:19:47.881-08:00"It can't be a very convincing proof if t..."It can't be a very convincing proof if the person who created it wasn't convinced by it."<br /><br />That's a nice quote-mine. From the same article:<br /><br />"Morgenstern's diary is an important and usually reliable source for Gödel's later years, but the implication of the August 1970 diary entry — that Gödel did not believe in God — is not consistent with the other evidence."<br /><br />Also, it is a fact that Gödel wanted the proof to survive him, which is why he shared it with Dana Scott, an accomplished mathematician/logician in his own right. The same Dana Scott judged the underlying modal logic sound.Robert O'Briennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-81681548509535606882010-01-31T11:10:32.819-08:002010-01-31T11:10:32.819-08:00From Wikipedia:
"Morgenstern recorded in his ...From Wikipedia:<br />"Morgenstern recorded in his diary entry for 29 August 1970 that Gödel would not publish because he was afraid that others might think "that he actually believes in God, whereas he is only engaged in a logical investigation."<br /><br />It can't be a very convincing proof if the person who created it wasn't convinced by it.Ibishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07354547321603494421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-54111255668326253602010-01-31T11:01:14.654-08:002010-01-31T11:01:14.654-08:00"A mathematical proof can't be much of a ..."A mathematical proof can't be much of a proof it requires a sympathetic audience to work."<br /><br />The proof does not require a sympathetic audience to work. For me to effectively present the proof, however, I would need to have worked out notes and access to a white board at center stage. I cannot effectively argue for it unprepared and from a seat in the audience.Robert O'Briennoreply@blogger.com