He doesn't understand the difference between this argument and fact. Just as he doesn't understand the difference between opinion and fact.<quoted text>
Ho he, what? Evidence? By a creationist? Where? Unique! NEVER seen before! Where, where! Must see!(trumpet barking) Should have missed the most remarkable moment of last few centuries, creationists coming up with evidence!
Oh, Gödel. Sigh (disappointed). That one.
It is not evidence, it is reasoning. It is ontological proof, based on a set of axioms. An axiom or postulate define and delimit the realm of ANALYSIS; the relative truth of an axiom is TAKEN FOR GRANTED within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths.
The axioms of Gödel's ontological proof for god are:
1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
3: The property of being God-like is positive
4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
5: Necessary existence is a positive property.
Axioms are allowed (you have to start your reasoning SOMEWHERE after all) if they are evidently true or based on empirical evidence.
You can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster also by Gödel's ontological proof. The only assumption to accomplish that is axiom 3: "the property of being Flying Spaghetti Monster-like is positive". In other words, the proof tells us It tells us nothing of the nature of that concept or how we should act differently based on that nature. You could replace "positive" by pretty much any set of properties which fit the axioms, assert that "necessary existence" is part of that set, and then conclude that some entity necessarily exists that exhibits all these properties. Even so, "positive" in the moral sense seems to violate several axioms, at least intuitively.
Even so, "positive" in the moral sense seems to violate several axioms, at least intuitively.
For instance, to respect one's properties is positive. But let's take an example. During the great Irish famine in the 19th century, a slight one million people died of starvation in less than a decade and another million or so emigrated while the English landowners exported vast amounts of food on a daily basis from the harbours of Galway, Cobh and Dún Loaghaire. The aid the starving people received was of an immoral low impact.
Now I would find it of moral standing if some guys robbed a grain bin of those landowners to feed their children and families.
Moral virtue is highly contextual and depending on the circumstances.
I won't go into the other axioms but several of them are disputable and even contradicting each other when applied to any property, like "morality".
Shortly, I didn't ask for reasoning, but EMPIRICAL evidence.
Bah, disappointed again.
Nice post. I like the potato famine analogy.