Talk:Gödel's ontological proof

Georg Cantor equated what he called the Absolute Infinite with God. He held that the Absolute Infinite had various mathematical properties, including (if I recall correctly) that every property of the Absolute Infinite is also held by some smaller object... -- The Anome

The actual infinite arises in three contexts: first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent otherworldly being, in Deo , where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Absolute; second when it occurs in the contingent, created world; third when the mind grasps it in abstracto as a mathematical magnitude, number or order type. -- Georg Cantor, as quoted in Mind Tools by Rudy Rucker.

That's interesting, and belongs on the Cantor page, maybe on the God page, and on the infinity page. Goedel's ontological proof is unrelated: it uses "perfection", not "infinity" as the defining feature of God. --AxelBoldt

I agree with you that it belongs in those places. I thought it was relevant here because of the repeated theme of possession of properties by a mathematical God-like entity equated with God, and because Goedel presumably knew of Cantor's related idea.

Perhaps there should be a Mathematics and God article? -- The Anome

Fairandbalanced:

1. This isn't the forum to discuss your problems with the Theistic god, as in "There is no evidence this God resembles the vicious misogynistic God of the Bible."
2. This really isn't the forum to discuss your problems with Godel's proof either. It is an article about the proof its self, not about what you think of it.
3. You might read wikipedia's article on npov: Neutral point of view, especially "The basic concept of neutrality" and "Characterizing opinions of people's work".
4. You might also read http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_tone, a suggested extension to npov.

If you really want to write about your objections to Godel's proof, http://meta.wikipedia.org/ might be a more appropriate venue. :Seth Mahoney 23:25, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is not the forum to present a putative proof of the existence of the Christian God and suppress dissenting viewpoints. This is certainly not Godel's best or even good work, so the only reason it is here is to push religion.

You commented that "God" should be capitalized because Godel wanted to prove the Christian God. Do you have any evidence that it "resembles the vicious misogynistic God of the Bible." If not, then my statement is a fact, not a POV.

I suspect some of my objections are weak. I was thinking of looking them over, change the tone a bit, consolidate. But you opted for edit war. So be it. Fairandbalanced 02:30, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually, this is the forum to present a proof, putative or otherwise, of the existence of the Christian God (though only one specific proof), as it is an article about a proof (Godel's) of the Christian God. It is not a discussion forum, nor is it the proper place to present your critique of the "vicious and misogynistic God of the Bible".

Your statement is a POV in that it makes two very POV-specific references to the God of the Bible: namely that he is "vicious" and "misogynistic". These are two attributes that characterize your view of the Biblical God, not a general view and not Godel's view. Considering that this is an article on Godel's proof, the only relevant characterization of the God of the Bible is Godel's. As far as why the article is here, there are plenty of reasons that it is a useful article other than "to push religion" - historical research, interest in Godel and his views and reasoning style, interest in proofs or specifically proofs of God, etc.

As far as characterizing my removal of statements like "vicious and misogynistic God of the Bible", restoring God after you changed it throughout the article to "a god", and adding counterarguments to awkward disproofs of Godel's proof and awkward disproofs of God's existence as an "edit war", that is certainly your choice, but it was not my intention - ending the article with "I'm right", as you attempted to do (for example, "you can use logic to prove anything" - a totally erroneous statement, by the way) violates the NPOV standard wikipedia has set up and doesn't result in better articles. The article I reverted to presents Godel's proof and even included a blurb about how Godel himself noted that it wasn't an exceptionally effective proof, and was only intended as a formalization of a prior proof, one of the most famous in the history of logic, which is a fair and balanced account of the matter. If your views are threatened by that, perhaps you shouldn't read the article. For the record, I am not a monotheist of any sort, though I am an admirer of Godel's work, and with the exception of the attempted disproof, upon first read it seemed a reasonable, nonthreatening record of what the article is supposed to be about: Godel's ontological proof.

Regardless of the strength of your objections, this isn't a forum to air them. It is an article on Godel's ontological proof. If you want to include objections to this proof, perhaps you should research them first - I believe the article mentions objections by Sobel. This would be a good starting point. A paragraph at the end summarizing objections to the proof from authoratitive sources might be appropriate, along with links to other sites that have information about those objections or the objectors.:Seth Mahoney 09:26, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)