Posted: Aug 07, 2020 10:15 am
Cito di Pense wrote:Svartalf wrote:I'd say. I've known the ontological proof to be bunk for 35 years. Philosophy teacher in high school walked us through that one.
So I don't guess that, however great a logician Gödel may have been, couching it in the trappings of formal mathematical logic change that fact any.
As usual, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, but don't take that to mean that the trappings of mathematical logic are the root problem here. As already pointed out, it's the definitions that are questionable. Definitions are statements we accept without proof. We don't have to accept them, but then we can't prove anything with them, even if they're OK. This is elementary stuff, like the link between mitochondria and ATP.
with due deference for your stable genius intelligence, it's you who entirely miss the point.
I did say that the ontologic proof is a turd, and that nothing can change that.