The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD  (Read 3773 times)

wanchung

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« on: 14/10/2010 10:24:44 »
Ontological proof of God:

By Wan-Jiung Hu

1.   All the moral properties are called positive
2.   All the knowing properties are also called positive
3.   An entity includes all the moral properties(justice etc) and all the knowing are perfect, his name is GOD
4.   All knowing is equal to total truth ;”true” is a characteristics of truth
5.   All existences are “true” and all truths must exist or they are not truths; existence and truth are interchangeable
6.   Ethical truth is equal to moral property; goodness and truth are interchangeable
7.   Existence is a positive property; both existence, truth, and goodness are positive (same direction)
8.   Since the property of GOD include all positive properties
9.   GOD must exist!
10.   According to identity of indiscernibles, no two distinct objects can have precisely the same properties, and so there can only be one object in each world that possesses property G.
11.   The name of GOD was called Jehovah, Allah, Elohim, Adi-Buddha (the primordial Buddha) in different people and culture. They are have all perfect moral properties. According to identity of indiscernibles, these culture and people believe in the same GOD.

PS: Moral properties are called “benign”. The definition of “benign” is to promote or prolong all the livings existence. For example, making anti-hypertensive drug to prolong human life is called “beneficent”. Thus, both existence and benign moral properties are positive properties. On the other hand, to eliminate anyone’s existence is called “evil”. For example, to kill somebody is deleting his existence. Evil and deleting existence are called negative properties.
Another point is the concept of 0 and 1 in math. 0 means non-existence, and 1 means existence. Thus, existence means positive property. For example, if you have three dogs. You say you have +3 dogs, not 0 dogs or -3dogs. This deduction shows that existence is a positive property.
By definition, GOD is the perfect JUDGE(ultimate justice). Thus, GOD will award good guys and punish bad guys from our universe due to our free wills. GOD must be all-knowing or he could not create universe and could not be the perfect judge. All truth/knowing includes everything happened. Thus, there must be a better place “paradise” than our universe and a worse place “hell” than our universe. Every religion believes there is paradise and there is hell. Good guys will go to paradise and bad guys will enter hell. Our universe is a temporary matter world, but paradise and hell are forever worlds. After our universe is ended, good guys still live in paradise and bad guys still live in hell. Good guys won’t be moved to hell, and bad guys won’t be moved to paradise. The award or punishment is forever, or it will be no meaning, no justice. God must maintain the perfect justice.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2010 01:25:26 by demografx »

Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6561
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #1 on: 15/10/2010 11:26:52 »
Fine, super, great, marvellous, wonderful, anything you say.

And here is some more scientific proof of the existance of God.

1) 2 + 2 = 4
2) x½ x y¾ (♠ + ♣ - ♥) = K9P
3)  :o)xx( =   B)

Pretty conclusive stuff eh!

imatfaal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2953
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #2 on: 15/10/2010 11:57:08 »
Don

Not sure about your first equation but the other two make perfect sense - I was a committed atheist till I read your post but now I will be handing back my membership of the rationalists.

JP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3763
    • View Profile
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #3 on: 15/10/2010 15:45:54 »
3)  :o)xx( =   B)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaait a minute.  I think there's an error in your calculation here.  I checked it and got
:o)xx( =    O8) O8) O8)

Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6561
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #4 on: 15/10/2010 16:24:55 »
3)  :o)xx( =   B)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaait a minute.  I think there's an error in your calculation here.  I checked it and got
:o)xx( =    O8) O8) O8)

I've just done that calculation again and the result was the same.

 :o)xx(B)

I think your  :o) was corrupt JP.

Look

 (:o)  |))  x  xx(O8) O8) O8)

You should also remember that the square of the hippopotamus is equal to the chocolate biscuit in the tea cup.

demografx

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7978
    • View Profile
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #5 on: 18/10/2010 22:56:35 »
Don

Not sure about your first equation but the other two make perfect sense - I was a committed atheist till I read your post but now I will be handing back my membership of the rationalists.

I'm with Matthew (and Luke and John). I also exchanged all my Quantitative credits in college for basket-weaving course credit.

demografx

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7978
    • View Profile
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #6 on: 18/10/2010 22:59:07 »

You should also remember that the square of the hippopotamus is equal to the chocolate biscuit in the tea cup.


Are you SURE? The future of my marriage depends on this!

Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6561
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #7 on: 20/10/2010 09:43:45 »
.........The future of my marriage depends on this!

I would offer you some advice, but I can only speak for myself, since I am not a ventriloquist.

Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6561
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #8 on: 20/10/2010 09:46:11 »
.................I'm with Matthew (and Luke and John)..........

Oh! I see!!! And just what have you got against Mark?

I call this unabashed prejudice.

wanchung

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #9 on: 30/10/2010 09:37:28 »
Moral Philosophy

Currently, the moral philosophy (ethic principle) is proposed by two major philosophy theory branches. The first one is consequentialism. Bentham and Mill are the major founders of consequentialism (utilitarianism). They think the meaning of moral laws is to promote the maximum happiness of individual and society. A variation of this theory is wonderful life theory. They think the existence of moral principle is promote the happiness of individual life. The second one is deontology. Kant is the major founder. He thought the moral principle is the duty of individual. These philosophers thought the existence of moral law is to promote a perfect life of individual. The third moral theory branch is a modification of consequentialism.

The utilitarianism only focuses on the consequence of moral principles. They do not focus on the methods or ways which lead to the consequences. They think: if the consequence is good, then the ways leading to the consequence (maximum happiness) are moral principles. However, this theory has severe defects. For example, Marxist. Marxist thought that social equality is the final happiness of whole society. Thus, we should use vigorous methods such as class struggle or class conflict. They thought the Labour class should overthrow the Capital class in order to achieve the complete society equality. They thought the combat between classes is a moral principle. However, history proves that the class combat usually kill many many human lives and cause a lot of suffering. In addition, there are several important questions that consequentialism cannot answer well.
•   What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
•   Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
•   How are the consequences judged and who judges them?
Thus, the utilitarianism is wrong. It is not the orgin of moral laws.

How about the deontology? Deontologists think the moral principles are originated from the “duty” of each individual. They think the moral laws are from human nature of each individual. Thus, we should obey the moral laws. However, are moral laws really human nature and duty? Kant thought moral laws are inherited in our blood which is not observed in biology or psychology. If there is only one person in the world, are there still moral principles or laws? In addition, Kant’s deontology cannot accept the “white lie”. If you have a relative who is recently diagnosed “cancer” and he hasn’t known the diagnosis, you cannot tell him the truth because he will commit suicide based on his personality. You will need to lie to him, and this is called “white lie”. However, Kant’s deontology doesn’t allow white lie. He thought honesty is the moral principle. Thus, anyone who lies disobeys the moral laws. Thus, this person is immoral even his lie is well intentioned. Thus, Kant’s moral philosophy is also doubtful.

Here, I will propose a new moral philosophy to solve the above issues. I call this new ethical principle “Beingfairism”. There are two major components in this moral principle: “Being” and “Fair”. “Being” means existence. All moral laws are to promote the living things’ existence. For example, we cannot hurt people. “Do no harm” is the fundamental moral principle. In addition, anything which can promote living things existence is called beneficent. If someone develops anti-cancer drugs to promote people’s lives, then this one fulfils moral principle. The second major component is “Fair”. “Fair” means justice. As written in American Declaration of Independence
, the basic moral principle is “All men are born equal”. Human beings have a nature tendency that wants they are treated fairly. 

Justice is the identical term of fairness. There are three principle forms of justice. The first one is interactional justice. This reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect. That means if you want people respect you, you will need to respect them first. If you want people are polite to you, you will need to treat them politely first. The second one is distributive justice. This is proper allocation of things including wealth, power, and reward. The third one is social justice. This is the justice between sex, race, religion, and nation. 

An important publication about justice is “A theory of justice” by John Rawls. He thinks the first principle of justice is: each person has equal right of basic liberties. There are three major components of this first principle: personal freedom (freedom from harm and freedom of migration and residence), freedom of expression (speech and assembly) and freedom from fear (from arbitrary arrest, threatening, or terrorism). The second principle of justice is: avoid social and economic inequalities. There are also two major components of this second principle: political liberties and freedom of personal properties.

All moral values must fulfill “Beingfairism”. For example: Honesty. Honesty value is in order to let people treat you fairly if you tell truths to them first. You want people to tell you the truth, you must tell them the truth first. This is fair. In addition, honesty can promote the maximal existence of whole society. However, we can look at the above example of “white lie”. Because you want to avoid your relative’s suicide, this is to promote “existence” or “being”. This behavior doesn’t disobey “Beingfairism”. This well intentioned white lie is moral.

How about utilitarianism? Moral laws do not depend on the maximum happiness consequence. Actually, fairness or justice is more fundamental. For example: Marxist. If we need to overthrow the rich class by class combat to achieve complete social equalities, this is immoral because we may need to kill lots of people and create a lot of sufferings. And, how about the basic personal liberties including economical liberties and political liberties of the “rich” class? That is why political Marxism is not moral even their purposes are “for society”. They disobey the principle of “Beingfairism”.

We can also try to answer the questions about consequentialism. 1. What kind of consequence is called good consequence? Actually, fairness or justice is more important than the consequence. Good consequence must be achieved by fairness or justice. 2. Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action? The principle of “Beingfairism” must be applied to whole society or whole human beings. We must promote the whole society or whole human beings existence. We must let each individual of the whole society feels justice or fairness. 3. How are the consequences judged and who judges them? We can use law to judge the consequences. Law is the most fundamental tool to maintain each individual’s basic justice. We can also use the “Beingfairism” principle to judge if the behavior is moral or not moral. All ethic principles must fulfill the major two components of the “Beingfairism”: “Being” and “Fair”. In religion, God is the final judge of human beings.
It is worth noting that freedom is not listed in the “Beingfairism” moral philosophy. It is because freedom is the behavior of our free will. And, free will can lead not only goodness but also evil. In the catholic bible, God put a “good-evil tree” for Adam and Eve. He told them not to eat the fruit or you will get evil. However, Adam and Eve still ate the fruit based on their free will. Thus, free will is the actual source of evil or goodness. We can choose goodness or evil behavior based on our own free wills. Thus, sometimes freedom is overused or abused. We have freedom of express, but we cannot have freedom to spread slander. Thus, freedom needs to be regulated by justice or fairness. Thus, “Fair” is more fundamental than freedom. However, I do agree that personal basic liberties are important. These basic freedoms should be included in either “Being” or “Fair” category of this new moral philosophy. I think freedom is actually a kind of human nature. It is a natural desire of each individual. Existence is also a kind of human nature. However, the existence here is the maximal existence of all human beings. Since freedom can lead not only to goodness but also to evil. I do not put freedom in “Beingfairism” since freedom is not the absolute moral value for goodness.
In Kant philosophy, he thought the origin of morality is either from human nature or from God. Many followers believe that morality is actually from God. However, my moral philosophy points out the moral principles are actually from “existence” and “justice”. In eastern Asia, Confucianism is dominant culture. Many western people think it is a religion in Asia. However, Confucianism is not a religion because Confucius never talked about God or ghost. He never talked about after life. Thus, how are the moral values from Confucianism set up? I think the key roles are “Being” and “Fairness”. By using the two basic principles, we can decide all the moral values and solve all the ethic issues. Nowadays, we have problems in religion conflict such as the conflict between Christian and Islam. Although I prove in the previous chapter that people actually believe the same God, Christian countries and Islam countries still think their “God” is different. Thus, it leads to religion conflicts because different Gods have different moral values. I suggest here that we may not talk about God. We can only use the principles of “Existence” and “Justice” to decide moral values.
Many people believe that there are no absolute moral values. They think the moral values will change as the world and time change. However, this is a wrong concept. For example, “we cannot kill people” is an absolute moral value. It won’t be changed even in the future. People think moral values are changing because some subgroups in society were unaware about their justice. For example, black slaves were thought to have no human rights and justice before Lincoln’s era. However, when they were aware that they are not fairly treated by white people, they started to fight for their justice. “Beingfairism” is not changed, but the awareness changed. We can also use the “Beingfairism” to deal with complicated issue such as homosexual in current society. Homosexual is considered immoral in many religions and society. It is because there will be decreased the whole human beings existence if more and more people become homosexual. However, when homosexual people are aware of their situation, they will think the society is unfair to them. They think the society doesn’t criticize the DINK (double income no kids) people but criticize them. It is unfair to them. The value of “Being” and “Fair” might be conflicted in some minor situations. However, we can still find ways for greatest common divisor for these two major values. Above paragraphs are my opinions about “Beingfairism” moral philosophy.
« Last Edit: 31/10/2010 02:06:41 by demografx »

Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6561
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #10 on: 30/10/2010 13:56:22 »
Needless to say, I haven't read a word of that post, though I did just notice the bit at the bottom.

I suggest you practice your own 'beingfairism' and preach to those on a religious forum where you may find a more sympathetic ear, though I wouldn't bank on it. The religious tend to base their beliefs on faith, not scientific proof, of which, I hasten to add, you have supplied none whatsoever and cannot do so.

A footwear manufacturer and repairers site could the right place for your posts.

demografx

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7978
    • View Profile
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #11 on: 31/10/2010 02:21:20 »


Needless to say, I haven't read a word of that [wanchung] post...


Me neither. The only two words I was able to read (for some strange reason) were the words "Moral Philosophy."

Hmm.


demografx

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7978
    • View Profile
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #12 on: 31/10/2010 02:23:34 »


.................I'm with Matthew (and Luke and John)..........


Oh! I see!!! And just what have you got against Mark?

I call this unabashed prejudice.


Sigh. Guilty as charged. Mark is "in". Please be lenient.

wanchung

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #13 on: 01/11/2010 04:42:25 »
Dear Moderator,
It is unfair!
I cannot read my post.
Please "beingfair"!
Thanks!

demografx

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7978
    • View Profile
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #14 on: 01/11/2010 06:54:17 »

wanchung, as per the rules of the Forum, this is not a venue for a One-Way-Direction Religious or Philosophical  Lecture.

Are you "beingfair" to a  SCIENCE FORUM?

What scientific evidence for God would you like us all to discuss?
« Last Edit: 02/11/2010 01:28:21 by demografx »

peppercorn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1563
    • View Profile
    • solar
Re: Modfied Godel's Ontological Proof of GOD
« Reply #15 on: 01/11/2010 11:13:18 »
Dear Moderator,
It is unfair!
I cannot read my post.
Please "beingfair"!
Thanks!

Dear wanchung,
What are you hoping to achieve here?
If you want to have a chat about peoples 'faith' in a God then please do do so - this is the 'Just Chat' section afterall.
If you honestly believe you have a scientific proof for a creator then you're going to have to lay it out scientifically - with a mathematically describable theory supported by empirical evidence.  NB. Using the terminology  that you have done so far on, say, the New Theories board will quickly get your thread locked for failing to follow any use of logical argument (even New Theories should be attempt some sort of rational outline).
Regards, A. Mod

 

SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length