Gödel's Proof of God - In Depth

In this video, we discuss Gödels Proof of God from the perspective of a Logician.

[gwpiaser]

Great video, great wrok. I had never heard a critical work about Godel's "proof". Really interesting.

[rsmt]

The justification for Theorem 1 is that a property that is exemplified nowhere must vacuously entail every other property, including negative properties, and a positive property can't entail a non-positive property. No problem up to this point, if you accept the first two axioms.

[blackfeatherstill]

Godel's notion of god is probably more in line with Spinoza?

[Feedback]

God works in mysterious ways all praise to HIM!!!

I have been looking for a good kernel programming tutorial and I finally found one and he believes in God too😂😂😂

They say ask and you shall receive boy no kidding 😂😂😂

[RamAms-yk]

I have to say, your mischaracterization of the G0d in the Bible reflects an elementary understanding of the Bible. Sincerely

[James-lljb]

Childish....yipes: this guy doesn't understand Leibniz' law....then denies the proof is Gödel's😂: hilarious!

[arielburbaickij]

regarding the remarks about the colors green or blue and consequences of constructing implications differently -- this is usually explained through Leibniz's requirements of not all properties accepted into this consideration but only the ones which are considered perfect (vollkommen) by being positive and absolute without limits (ohne Begrenzung) -- as blue and green and whatever other colors are not absolute without limit properties -- they do not qualify for the inclusion into the set of perfect properties ;-)

[TheExceptionalState]

It seems to me you are conflating positive properties (7:40) with things you agree with rather than properties of existence. Or have I misunderstood something?

[holytrinity]

The concept of “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would exist as a “potential act” and be one of many things that exist. If the universe came from “nothing” then this nothing would have had the ability to become the universe. But the concept “nothing” as we previously explained, cannot have the ability to act, therefore, the universe could not have come from nothing on its own.
Since there are things that do exist, then “something” must have always existed, because as we just proved, things cannot come from “nothing” on their own.
If time had ever proceeded at an infinite rate, which is like fast forwarding through a motion picture, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time has always progressed at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that time could never have progressed over an infinite time interval. The proof goes like this, pick any number no matter how great. You can always add one to it and thereby make it greater in value, therefore you can never reach infinity. And you cannot say that all we need to do is to wait an infinite amount of time and then we would reach infinity, because then you are assuming that you can wait an infinite amount of time. However, this is what you were trying to prove and so that is not proof at all. You cannot assume to be true, that which you are trying to prove to be true otherwise you can prove anything to be true, even that which is false. Therefore, time could not have started an “infinite” time ago and therefore had a beginning a finite time ago.
Since “something” always existed as we previously proved, it had to have existed before time started. Since space and time are one entity called the space-time continuum as Einstein pointed out, then this “something” had to have existed before space and time existed and therefore caused space and time.
Since this “something” existed outside of space and time it cannot be made up of material things, because material things can only exist in space. And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we previously proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, hence order cannot come from pure disorder. Therefore, this “something” had to have had the ability to cause order, space-time, material things, beauty, life, everything in our universe, including our universe and natural laws and rules. Since we call ourselves beings, then we should at least call this “something” a Being, who we call God.
Since only God always existed, and the universe is not made of God as we just proved, then God must have created the universe out of “nothing”. Since “nothing” does not even exist, then God must have infinite Power in order to have created the universe from “nothing”. Since all people desire happiness, then God must have created us to be happy out of love for us.
Naturally, all creatures should love their Creator. For us to love God from our heart, God had to create in us a free-will, because no person can be forced to love, otherwise this would not be true love from their heart. With our free-will, we can choose to do good or bad to our neighbor and this is why there is sin in the world, because some people have chosen to hate God and their neighbor and are only interested in pleasing themselves. God did not create evil, nor does He desire evil, but he does allow sin to happen because He had to form us with a free-will, in order for us to love Him and others from our heart.

[TheExceptionalState]

Interesting video, thanks!
Nice Freudian slip there. 1:56 "That's heresy, I mean hearsay... or whatever". Es ist nicht immer leicht mit der englischen Aussprache, eine Logik, die viel zu wünschen übrig lässt oder....

[BuleriaChk]

There is Me and The, but I am not altogether sure about our relationship
# = Me + Thee (one or the other of us is god, but not both)
#^2 = Me^2 + Thee^2 if we don't communicate (multiplication is not defined)
#^2 = [Me^2 + Thee^2] + 2[me][Thee] if we communicate (interact)

"Yesterday upon the stair
I saw a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh how I wish he'd go away" - Ogden Nash

Godel and Fermat

Every number is prime relative to its own base: n = n(n/n) = n(1_n) Every even number is the sum of two primes (Goldbach): n + n = 2n. A number cannot be both even and odd.

Fermat's Last Theorem is valid.
Proof for Vilage Idiots
# = a + b
#^n = [a^n + b^n] + f(a, b, n) (Binomial Exansion) proved by Newon.
#^n = [a^n + b^n] iff f(a, b, n) = 0
#^n <> [a^n + b^n] QED

a=4, b=3
# = 4 + 3 = 7
#^2 = 49 = [25] +[24]

Note that for n = 2
#^2 = [a^2 + b^2] + [2ab] (Pythagoras and Einstein and anyone who uses vector calculas is wrong because of [2ab]

c= a + ib, c* = a-ib
cc* = a^2 + b^2 using imaginary numbers. But all numbers are positive???
cc* <> #^2
Note that #^2 = [cc*] + [2ab] imaginary numbers not necessary in full expansion.

Godel Numbering of wff's does not include products of sums, so itself is incomplete.
Godel and Fermat

Every number is prime relative to its own base: n = n(n/n) = n(1_n) Every even number is the sum of two primes (Goldbach): n + n = 2n. A number cannot be both even and odd.

Fermat's Last Theorem is valid.
Proof for Vilage Idiots
# = a + b
#^n = [a^n + b^n] + f(a, b, n) (Binomial Exansion) proved by Newon.
#^n = [a^n + b^n] iff f(a, b, n) = 0
#^n <> [a^n + b^n] QED

a=4, b=3
# = 4 + 3 = 7
#^2 = 49 = [25] +[24]

Note that for n = 2
#^2 = [a^2 + b^2] + [2ab] (Pythagoras and Einstein and anyone who uses vector calculas is wrong because of [2ab]

c= a + ib, c* = a-ib
cc* = a^2 + b^2 using imaginary numbers. But all numbers are positive???
cc* <> #^2
Note that #^2 = [cc*] + [2ab] imaginary numbers not necessary in full expansion.

Godel Numbering of wff's does not include products of sums, so itself is incomplete.
It is Godel's characterization of his meta-language that is incomplete, not the natural numbers.

[Diego-emcp]

In different universes properties of a given object may change such as a pen being blue or green. The problem with your criticism seems to lie in the arbitrariness of choosing what is actually a positive property. Who says that "green" is a positive property like "omnipotence"? A pen may have a different colour in another universe, an aspect that is godlike is more likely to be considered necessary in all possible universes by intuition

[tarp-grommet]

Well, that should bring in all those young people missing from the churches! I'm sure they will have one look at this and say "Yes, Adam and Eve were real people eating some actual fruit while a talking snake watched them do it!"

[rsmt]

Axiom 5 is doing some heavy lifting. The other axioms are merely stating attributes of P (or of G) while leaving the actual interpretation of P to the whims of the logician, so they don't really say anything of substance. I can claim that every property that I possess is positive, while remaining consistent with the axioms. Have I proven that I am God, or only proven that I exist? If the former, then I exist in every possible universe. If the latter, then it needs to be justified that there is *any* E fitting Def. 3. Axiom 5 is handwaving to shortcut that justification.

[arprintsa]

The problem is that God has by definition only positive properties. It will be exting to construct a similar proof (based also on modal logic) that God do not exist.

[---ynpo]

I am no expert in logics, but should not most of the "=>" arrows be "-->"?

PS: your voice sounds familiar frome somewhere .... (:

[badcircle]

God is perfect and by definition is free of sin. Since we are born in sin (adam and eve ate the apple) it is impossible for us to be perfect. So he sent his son Jesus to pay for our sins as a perfect sacrifice. His blood cleansed your sins.

[rockyfjord]

Logicism is akin to Luther and Calvin's predestination, or so I think. I think it's nonsense. Logic doesn't prove anything.

[pathfinder]

There are some bizarre inconsistencies in this presentation. Firstly, there is his apparent obsession with the Churchian superstition that God and Jesus are one and the same. It was a good point where he showed that they are not (11:54), but he keeps bringing it up even though they have nothing to do with each other in this context. Later he says (15:15): "You are either 100% good or you are essentially bad - rotten to the core". How does he draw this conclusion??? It seems very emotionally loaded and hyperbolic. I dont see that everything that is not 100% good has to be 100% bad. Rather inconsistent given his reasoning to this point. Then he goes into comparing green and yellow as essences of pencils, but those are not inherently positive properties, they are simply personal preferences, irrelevant to the function of a pencil. Under Theorem 3, he proves that x being Godlike means immortality, but how does he do that when all he does is show that y being Godlike also means immortality? Obviously if its true for one its true for all, but it being true for all does not prove it is true for one. Circular reasoning... All in all, a complete mess of an analysis. His foundations are no better than the ones he accuses Godel of contriving. I must say, however, I loved the nod to Monty Pythons Flying Circus (20:20)!!

[friedrichmarkus]

Why "not applicable" is not included to "positive" and "negative"?