[User23]

> because it's a logical impossibility.

Really? Why don't you share your theorem?

We know that the existence of God can be found logically, because Gödel wrote a formal proof.

> The arrogance is simply astounding.

Indeed, I'm impressed by your self-awareness.

[SketchySeaBeast]

> We know that the existence of God can be found logically, because Gödel wrote a formal proof.

This, of course, is why if you look online there are no refutations of said proof.

I would suggest you're being incredibly pedantic - formal logic being a place far removed from the logic to which they were referring. It seems roughly analogous to me that just because mathematically infinity exists doesn't mean it must exist as physical property.

[User23]

I didn’t see any logic, informal or otherwise. God doesn’t exist because I don’t want Him to isn’t any kind of argument at all.

[SketchySeaBeast]

You're right - that's not a terribly well thought out argument. They should have said:

"I don't believe in any deities existence as such a claim would require extraordinary evidence. Not only have we been provided no extraordinary evidence, we have been provided no evidence at all, save possibly the very existence of creation itself, but we can safely reject the argument that a creator deity exists because creation exists due to the innate problem with first causes arguments - if you assume that everything must have a first cause, that first cause can't have had one, thus there isn't an innate requirement for a first cause, making first causes an argument against themselves. There being no evidence provided, therefore I can safely rejected the supposition that such a being would exist."

That would have made more sense.

[User23]

Yes, that does make more sense. Of course I would counter that the universe and our existing in it came to be out of random mindless chaos is also an extraordinary claim.

I’d state it as there must be a singular uncaused cause on account of the tree of causality has to have a root. We call that uncaused root of causality God. The refutation requires that we accept that some events have causes and some don’t and oh well no idea to really know which is which. Since the entire scientific and engineering endeavor relies on events having causes, I find that conclusion philosophically unsatisfactory.

[SketchySeaBeast]

If we don't assume a beginning or end, then we end up with infinite time, with infinite variations, and with that it's a pretty much certainty that this would exist as it does, for this iteration.

Science and Engineering rely on cause and event largely in mathematical abstractions - if we draw the line out far enough "why is that real ball moving through space" the answer stretches all the way back to the big bang, and we lack the ability to see what came before. From what I understand of current science - the theory is that it was due to a big crunch, which was due to a big bang - infinite loops in an infinite cycle.

Again though, you're saying that the singular uncaused occurred just because - in a system that otherwise must have a cause and effect that MUST have had a cause and effect, unless you decide to draw a special case for it, where I can see no reason why you would. It's basically a special pleading to jam god into a hole of knowledge, just like we used to do with demons and witches before we understood the real nature of diseases.

[sklivvz1971]

Godel's proof is just a formal logic version of Augustine proof, which has been disproven.

Here's the "proof": God is perfect, all perfect things must exist, therefore God exists

Which is easily refuted by observing that the statement merely shows that either a perfect God exists or it does not. The fact that one can posit a perfect God does not make it real. Even a kid can understand that.

[User23]

No it's not. It's a formalization of St. Anselm's ontological argument. It's clear to me that you have no real interest in the subject, but on the off chance I'm wrong you can easily find both the medieval ontological argument and the modern formal one online.

In any event I think Gödel's proof is worth understanding simply as a nice example of modal logic and the power of formalisms. Anselm's informal attempt at a proof is famously unreadable.

[BackBackBack]

> We know that the existence of God can be found logically, because Gödel wrote a formal proof.

And that is when the whole world converted overnight never to question dogma again, right? Wait, that didn't happen. Because is not posible to prove any god, let alone the overlord dictator that is, by your own "logic", making me type this words disregarding him/her.

If there are no gods, then I'm right. If there are gods and they are your kind of illogical creators that somehow do not need an explanation themselves, completely powerful and complex beyond imagination, yet simple enough to classify as "first movers", and caring enough to "die" for us but not before having a plan in-place to resurrect themselves, then leaving for some reason, he/she/it/they WANT ME to be an atheist, so I'm still right. Or are you going against your gods?

Anyway I'm done answering you. At least I hope you learned what an Atheist is and don't keep going around claiming that we are as bad as the rest because we also have "faith" in atheism! Sadly, I'm not holding my breath.