Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (18845)	12/5/2004 1:41:17 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) of 28931

You should understand something about Whitehead-Russel's logical propositions to understand this properly. The proof is discussed here. It involves an acceptance of certain axioms. stats.uwaterloo.ca Godel's and Anselms proofs are ontological and are called proofs of necessity. They demonstrate the surprising consequences of our beliefs about the nature of a god. The proof below does not rule out more than one god! Proof Axiom 1. (Dichotomy) A property is positive if and only if it's negation is negative. Axiom 2. (Closure) A property is positive if it necessarily contains a positive property. Theorem 1 A positive property is logically consistent (i.e., possibly it has some instance). Definition. Something is God-like if and only if it possesses all positive properties. Axiom 3. Being God-like is a positive property. Axiom 4. Being a positive property is (logical, hence) necessary. Definition. A property P is the essence of x if and only if x has P and P is necessarily minimal. Theorem 2. If x is God-like, then being God-like is the essence of x. Definition. NE(x): x necessarily exists if it has an essential property. Axiom 5. Being NE is God-like. Theorem 3. Necessarily there is some x such that x is God-like.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next