Being an atheist is the biggest midwit trait

[Aristotélēs]

Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God

Try refuting it

 

[New Poster]

lol you could use this to prove anything

sonic the hedgehog has the positive property of speed, so he must exist

 

[Acquiescence]

Christian apologetics slop copium

 

[Aristotélēs]

lol you could use this to prove anything

sonic the hedgehog has the positive property of speed, so he must exist

Wrong. Typical midwit response.

A hedgehog isn't a perfect being - have all positive properties

 

[FacialStructure404]

holy midwit cope!

 

[Aristotélēs]

Christian apologetics slop copium

Reddit atheist copium

The proof is from the greatest logician after Aristotle, Gödel

 

[BWCisLAW]

Jesus was a jewish rabbi btw

 

[ltnbrownacnecel]

True however religious people tend to be more retarded than atheists.

 

[Sprinkles]

Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God

Try refuting it

View attachment 4411169

it’s about the “I AM” common denominator of your own awareness, Descartes proved this in his own thought experiments

 

[New Poster]

Wrong. Typical midwit response.

A hedgehog isn't a perfect being - have all positive properties

Well sonic does have all positive properties, but the proof above doesn’t require all positive properties. It works the same for just one.

 

[PrettyLights]

god needs to help you get a job nigga

 

[Overlord-]

consciousness is biggest proof of god
but also god is probably to abstract for humans to fathom
definitely not like how religions describe god

 

[unstable]

1. is sentience a positive property if yes then how? what decides positive.
if no, then how is a non sentient non living god: a god?
2. replace god with flying unicorn and this proof stops working even apologists don't believe this

you are a fake philosopher whose beliefs are irrelevant.

 

[Aristotélēs]

Well sonic does have all positive properties, but the proof above doesn’t require all positive properties. It works the same for just one.

Nope. You can't infer a hedgehog must have the property of existence since it doesn't have all the positive properties. Whereas the perfect being by definition has all the perfect properties & since existence is a perfect property, it must have it also

The proof doesn't work for hedgehog. it will have negative properties & as such, being a hedgehog won't be a postive property (A3), so the proof will collapse

D1 is crucial

 

[iwillascend2025]

imagine arguing about this bs WHILE YOU ARE A KHHV SUBHUMAN INCEL

 

[Aristotélēs]

1. is sentience a positive property if yes then how? what decides positive.
if no, then how is a non sentient non living god: a god?
2. replace god with flying unicorn and this proof stops working even apologists don't believe this

you are a fake philosopher whose beliefs are irrelevant.

1. That's irrelevant for now.

2. A unicorn isn't a perfect being...it doesn't have all the postive properties. Did you even understand the proof jfl. This is what I mean by atheists being midwits

 

[unstable]

1. That's irrelevant for now.

2. A unicorn isn't a perfect being...it doesn't have all the postive properties. Did you even understand the proof jfl. This is what I mean by atheists being midwits

your proof is proving the existence "perfect positive thing" but it also has to prove plenty of other characteristics of god like sentience and power over creation.

 

[New Poster]

Nope. You can't infer a hedgehog must have the property of existence since it doesn't have all the positive properties. Whereas the perfect being by definition has all the perfect properties & since existence is a perfect property, it must have it also

The proof doesn't work for hedgehog. it will have negative properties & as such, being a hedgehog won't be a postive property (A3), so the proof will collapse

D1 is crucial

There’s two parts of this — both of which are weasely: the definition of positive traits and the definition of god as having all positive traits.

The D1 and A5 moves bring the weasel shit together. It’s just a linguistic trick that relies on slippage in the meaning of the word positive. D1 uses positive in the sense of good, but A5 uses it in the sense of affirmative. He’s hoping no one notices. But I noticed, and sonic does, too.

 

[Aristotélēs]

1. it is not irrelevant your proof is proving the "perfect thing" but it also has to prove plenty of other characteristics of god like sentience and power over creation.

Nope. That's a further detail which will vary from individuals to individuals, religions to religions

The God of Aristotle for eg isn't merciful whereas the Abrahamic God is merciful

Here I'm interested in a minimal commitment to theism/godhead, which is sufficient enough to rule out atheism - which is incompatible with even the God of Spinoza - who isn't even conscious/sentient for your information. He is an infinite substance with all perfect modes (properties) - extension & mind are 2 of them

I'm not interested in theology for now but philosophy

 

[unstable]

Nope. That's a further detail which will vary from individuals to individuals, religions to religions

The God of Aristotle for eg isn't merciful whereas the Abrahamic God is merciful

Here I'm interested in a minimal commitment to theism/godhead, which is sufficient enough to rule out atheism - which is incompatible with even the God of Spinoza - who isn't conscious for your information. He is an infinite substance with all perfect modes (properties) - extension & mind are 2 of them

I'm not interested in theology for now but philosophy

a thing is not god

a thing with all positive properties does not become god

god is by definition sentient

and i am not athiest you demiurge worshipping gayreek cuck

 

[Aristotélēs]

a thing is not god

a thing with all positive properties does not become god

god is by definition sentient

and i am not athiest you demiurge worshipping gayreek cuck

Spinoza's substance isn't a thing amongst things to begin with. It's a unique thing with thingness predicated with equivocation

This is retarded coming from people who can't understand Godhead must possess life, intellect (awareness/sentience) & thingness in a transcendental manner in order to be a source of them

So when we say God isn't a sentient being, we don't mean he is like some rock . We mean he isn't sentient LIKE US. There's a big difference here. You need to understand equivocal predication before blabbering

 

[unstable]

Spinoza's substance isn't a thing amongst things to begin with. It's a unique thing with thingness predicated with equivocation

This is retarded coming from people who can't understand Godhead must possess life, intellect (awareness/sentience) & thingness in a transcendental manner in order to be a source of them

So when we say God isn't a sentient being, we don't mean he is like some rock . We mean he isn't sentient LIKE US. There's a big difference here. You need to understand equivocal predication before blabbering

but this proof is not about how his sentience is different than us

this proof is not about any kind of sentience or quality
it about the vague idea of a "perfectly positive thing" which is neither god in semantic nor societal interpretaion.

 

[Aristotélēs]

There’s two parts of this — both of which are weasely: the definition of positive traits and the definition of god as having all positive traits.

The D1 and A5 moves bring the weasel shit together. It’s just a linguistic trick that relies on slippage in the meaning of the word positive. D1 uses positive in the sense of good, but A5 uses it in the sense of affirmative. He’s hoping no one notices. But I noticed, and sonic does, too.

You are confusing theology with philosophy here. You can debate all day long on which properties are postive & how we must understand them (univocal, equivocal, analogical etc)

But this has nothing to do with the ontological proof. All it attempts is to prove the existence of a perfect being, whatever perfection happens to be.

You may claim existence isn’t a property (like Kant) or that perfection isn't a postive property & that would be more relevant than whatever retarded objections you are bringing.

 

[New Poster]

but this proof is not about how his sentience is different than us

this proof is not about any kind of sentience or quality
it about the vague idea of a "perfectly positive thing" which is neither god in semantic nor societal interpretaion.

Yeah, he’s watered down the idea of god to the infinite. So it’s a pointless discussion. You can be an atheist and believe in some Spinoza plane of infinite immanence. None of this relates to god in the way anyone irl uses the word.

 

[Aristotélēs]

but this proof is not about how his sentience is different than us

this proof is not about any kind of sentience or quality
it about the vague idea of a "perfectly positive thing" which is neither god in semantic nor societal interpretaion.

This is a perfect midwit response. It comes from a failure to deal with abstract modal reasoning

 

[Aristotélēs]

Yeah, he’s watered down the idea of god to the infinite. So it’s a pointless discussion. You can be an atheist and believe in some Spinoza plane of infinite immanence. None of this relates to god in the way anyone irl uses the word.

Nope. Jfl. Have you even read Spinoza? He explicitly denies being an athiest & regards all such readings as gross misinterpretation.

He regarded his infinite substance as a perfect being worthy of contemplation - worship in Spinoza's sense

He was an acosmist to put it more clearly

 

[New Poster]

You are confusing theology with philosophy here. You can debate all day long on which properties are postive & how we must understand them (univocal, equivocal, analogical etc)

But this has nothing to do with the ontological proof. All it attempts is to prove the existence of a perfect being, whatever perfection happens to be.

You may claim existence isn’t a property (like Kant) or that perfection isn't a postive property & that would be more relevant than whatever retarded objections you are bringing.

You got it the other way around. You’re doing philosophy. If you’re just going to define god as everything, then this just becomes an academic metaphysical discussion about whether infinity exists. It says nothing about any specific religion or theology.

 

[unstable]

This is a perfect midwit response. It comes from a failure to deal with abstract modal reasoning

this is how i expected your shitty cuckness reeking response to be like
jfl muh modal reasoning, trying to prove something that can't be proved or experimentally verified

 

[unstable]

You got it the other way around. You’re doing philosophy. If you’re just going to define god as everything, then this just becomes an academic metaphysical discussion about whether infinity exists. It says nothing about any specific religion or theology.

and what does positive even mean here, god like being possesses positive characteristics with respect to what?

 

[New Poster]

Nope. Jfl. Have you even read Spinoza? He explicitly denies being an athiest & regards all such readings as gross misinterpretation.

He regarded his infinite substance as a perfect being worthy of contemplation - worship in Spinoza's sense

He was an acosmist to put it more clearly

Yes, and Spinoza said that because he was writing in 17th century Netherlands. That still didn’t stop his contemporaries from thinking he was a heretic for watering down the Christian god to an infinite plane. If you’re just talking about the infinite, you’re doing philosophy.

 

[𝐸𝑐s𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑦𓃶]

imagine arguing about this bs WHILE YOU ARE A KHHV SUBHUMAN INCEL

What else are you supposed to do as an subhuman incel?

 

[whiteegyptian]

christcuckanity destroyed great rome.

 

[Aristotélēs]

Yes, and Spinoza said that because he was writing in 17th century Netherlands. That still didn’t stop his contemporaries from thinking he was a heretic for watering down the Christian god to an infinite plane. If you’re just talking about the infinite, you’re doing philosophy.

He wrote that in a letter to his friends. It wasn't even meant for public consumption or publicity etc

And

There's no reason to think only the Abrahamic God is the perfect being. Most Greek philosophers would have never accepted the anthropomorphic Christian God, a God who loves & punishes, all of these would be regarded as defects

Yeah..I am doing philosophy & philosophical religions have always existed, since ancient Greece

 

[New Poster]

and what does positive even mean here, god like being possesses positive characteristics with respect to what?

Gödel is being weasely about the meaning of the word positive. Op is taking all positive properties to mean everything that can exist.

 

[Daddy's Home]

"God" is an imaginary character, a fairy tale character, a thought; he does not exist, has no shape, no physical properties, you cannot interact with it

At one point, this imaginary thought / character did not exist, and at some point, this imaginary thought / character will disappear from collective memory of humans, because it is created by people, and exists only in people's minds

 

[Aristotélēs]

christcuckanity destroyed great rome.

Yeah. I always feel sad when I remember the divine Emperor Julian

 

[Big Daddy]

atheist - a theist

 

[Big Daddy]

Yeah. I always feel sad when I remember the divine Emperor Julian

did you read the digestae

 

[New Poster]

He wrote that in a letter to his friends. It wasn't even meant for public consumption or publicity etc

And

There's no reason to think only the Abrahamic God is the perfect being. Most Greek philosophers would have never accepted the anthropomorphic Christian God, a God who loves & punishes, all of these would be regarded as defects

Yeah..I am doing philosophy & philosophical religions have always existed, since ancient Greece

Yeah, I know. You’re arguing about the existence of a metaphysical category. No one uses god or religion in this sense, though. They mean a specific god in a specific theology. I might agree that infinity exists, but that doesn’t mean I have to believe in a Christian or Greek god.

 

[unstable]

Yeah. I always feel sad when I remember the divine Emperor Julian

divine emperor julian who left the virtuous religion of ancient "latium" to worship god of naked olive oil drinking shitskins from greece

 

[Aristotélēs]

"God" is an imaginary character, a fairy tale character, a thought; he does not exist, has no shape, no physical properties, you cannot interact with it

At one point, this imaginary thought / character did not exist, and at some point, this imaginary thought / character will disappear from collective memory of humans, because it is created by people, and exists only in people's minds

"No physical properties" - jfl especially when physicists can't even decide what is physical

Physical might as well be indistinguishable from non physical, as was pointed out by none other than David Hume, one of the greatest empiricists

So deal with the proof instead of pointless digressions

 

[Big Daddy]

"No physical properties" - jfl especially when physicists can't even decide what is physical

Physical might as well be indistinguishable from non physical, as was pointed out by none other than David Hume, one of the greatest empiricists

So deal with the proof instead of pointless digressions

my forum presence

 

[Daddy's Home]

jfl especially when physicists can't even decide what is physical

Bro is about to tell me that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 because whatever just because it doesn't support his narrative..

 

[Aristotélēs]

Bro is about to tell me that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 because whatever just because it doesn't support his narrative..

Go read Hume on materialism vs immaterialism, then talk to me

Physics now as an empirical inquiry, isn't committed to materialism or immaterialism as a doctrine

 

[Aristotélēs]

divine emperor julian who left the virtuous religion of ancient "latium" to worship god of naked olive oil drinking shitskins from greece

Greece/Italy are one civilization

If one is shitskin, then so is the other

 

[Big Daddy]

atheist - eat shit

 

[kana]

Is being a midwit even that bad? You're at least more than halfway intelligent ...

 

[car12345]

Gödel's ontological proof for the existence of God

Try refuting it

i believe that yakub created everything

 

[isis_Bleach]

A1 is already a leap because postivie/negative are judgements not properties. dnr the rest

 

[Aristotélēs]

A1 is already a leap because postivie/negative are judgements not properties. dnr the rest

Very low IQ response. You have failed to distinguish the content & designation of a proposition from the mode in which it is expressed

It's akin to saying "tall ramus" is just an idea in my head, simply because I can't grasp what a "tall ramus" is without a mind