It's lamentable that people dismiss these proofs after only a shallow analysis, being convinced that they don't work. This proof is more rigorously formulated in Godël's ontological proof (which was verified by computer to be consistent).

@@conversative Lol no,The axioms Godel used could easily be doubted,One of them was literally this "There are worlds apart from this physical world",Lol how can we accept such an axiom?

@@conversative It is consistent yeah,If you accept the ridiculous axioms.

@@ayanokojikiyotaka2413 No, that's not one of the axioms. You may be referring to "possible worlds semantics" in modal logic. That's how modal logic is structured. If you don't understand that then you don't understand the system of logic being used by Godël for his proof.

@@conversative Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs in his papers. Points relevant to the ontological proof include: 4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.14. Religions are, for the most part, bad-but religion is not. Most criticism of Gödel's proof is aimed at its axioms: as with any proof in any logical system, if the axioms the proof depends on are doubted, then the conclusions can be doubted. It is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof - because it rests on five axioms, some of which are considered questionable. A proof does not necessitate that the conclusion be correct, but rather that by accepting the axioms, the conclusion follows logically. Many philosophers have called the axioms into question. The first layer of criticism is simply that there are no arguments presented that give reasons why the axioms are true. A second layer is that these particular axioms lead to unwelcome conclusions. This line of thought was argued by Jordan Howard Sobel,showing that if the axioms are accepted, they lead to a "modal collapse" where every statement that is true is necessarily true, i.e. the sets of necessary, of contingent, and of possible truths all coincide (provided there are accessible worlds at all).[According to Robert Koons,  Sobel suggested in a 2005 conference paper that Gödel might have welcomed modal collapse. There are suggested amendments to the proof, presented by ,but argued to be refutable by Anderson and Michael Gettings.Sobel's proof of modal collapse has been questioned by Koons,but a counter-defence by Sobel has been given. Gödel's proof has also been questioned by Graham Oppy,asking whether many other almost-gods would also be "proven" through Gödel's axioms. This counter-argument has been questioned by Gettings,who agrees that the axioms might be questioned, but disagrees that Oppy's particular counter-example can be shown from Gödel's axioms. I found this on Wikipedia If the axioms are doubted it's not much of a proof.

I thought that was the funniest part of the video. I don’t know if you’re right or not. But what does it matter? Unlike you i didn’t come here to diagnose ppl. He’s just trying to encourage his students. He’s a good dude, and funny too. “And you’ll die alone” LOL

Qq

Really loved the “You’ll die alone” bit 😂

@@nadaing "Unlike you, I didn't come here to diagnose people." I'm trying to figure out where that came from. Who is diagnosing people?

Pretending to know what you don’t know is the basis for all religion.

@kiroshakir7935 I don't think any of that addresses my point. It's still begging the question. It's assuming the existence of God to prove the existence of God. Or in a minor form, using the definition of God to prove a characteristic of God. In either case, the proof fails due to question begging.

@kiroshakir7935 Descartes was trying to prove the existence of God, right? That was the goal of the proof: show the existence of God. Effectively your argument is that he proved the existence of the idea of God, which is... fine, but doesn't prove anything. I can prove the existence of the idea of Unicorns, werewolves, and vampires by the same means. It no more proves their existence than the existence of God, though.

@kiroshakir7935 Right, and that begs the question. I'm going to show God exists. The idea of God requires existence (an assumption that God exists). Thus God just exist. That's literally begging the question. I know of a rod of all powerful knowledge and ability. This rod is so powerful that the holder of the rod knows all things and is capable of doing all things. The idea of such a rod requires its existence. Therefore the rod exists. The same flaw is present in that argument.

@kiroshakir7935 it doesn't need to be infinitely great, it just needs existence as part of its identity. The Descartes proof is that God has existence as an identity attribute. It doesn't rely on God having all of the perfect attributes. Instead it's that existence is one of the many attributes God is defined by. I define the rod of all knowing and ability as also including existence as one of its properties, therefore it exists. By simply saying, "X has existence as one of its essential properties, therefore X necessarily exists," there's question begging going on, because you're assuming a fundamental property of a thing to demonstrate its existence. If you're going to say, no, that only applies to God and nothing else, you need more than "Because I say so" to explain why. Otherwise the proof can be used to prove the existence of anything by simply adding, "Oh and this thing also has the fundamental property of existing."

Damn every argument has been deleted you’re a natural talent.😅😂

HOW??

Hes not writing in reverse, even though it looks like it. He made a video about it.

Look at his shirt and jacket. The buttons are on the wrong side.

Here's the video he made showing how it works kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bMWUZ5eT0cfDd3U.html

Okay the methodology is really neat!

Which would you think is a good argument for existence of god? I’m not being rhetorical even though I think at best we can remain agnostic. Existence demands physical proofs rather than abstract arguments. Unless there is a plane of existence that isn’t physical, that we will never be able to verify. God might as well exists in our mind like mathematics.

@@MugenTJ I think Aquinas’ arguments about the need for a first cause, unmoved mover, and necessary being are the best arguments for the necessary existence of a God. While they do not prove the existence of the Christian God, they show that there needs to be some being beyond our universe which is responsible for the creation.

@@JuanMPalacio as much as circular reasoning can lead to a lot of false beliefs, it seems the universe might popped into existence on its own and will one day disappear again . Which might even be a paradox to our logic because we exist within the existing universe. Nothing prevents the universe from coming into existence by itself. Similarly for god.

@@MugenTJ Thank you. I no longer believe in a God.

@@JuanMPalacio haha. The beauty of belief is it need not be objective or verifiable. If it serves you a personal purpose leading to well being. Indeed the Christian god is very problematic. Modern men can do much better.

His idea is that God created us with the idea of him innately in us. So no, he does not prove that we invented God. In fact, the cosmological proof of his existence implies that we could have never made an idea of him unless he gave it to us.

Except Descartes never said that

While Descartes was a great mathematician - as a philosopher, he was mediocre at best - there are way too many holes and problems with his work - he had great influence and is therefore important to study, but for example, Spinoza, who was only 36 years younger than Descartes, was a far superior philosopher

Humans.

I have never heard of that. What is “Cultic Milieu”?

@@profjeffreykaplan ohh so you are different Jeffrey Kaplan hahaha sorry my mistake, because one of the authors of this book "The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization" is also Jeffrey Kaplan,i thought you were him :D

@@bhirawaanoraga4953 Gotcha. No worries. There are several of us Jeffrey Kaplans.

Well he sidesteps it being that blatant. Most people say "God exists because he is God and God exists" which is plainly circular. Descartes says "God is good, separately anything that is good exists, therefore God exists." Which is still circular but at least it has more than 1 step I guess.

😂

then don't fake it