My summer of solitude was cut short last night when a friend of mine arrived in town, with tickets to the Warped Tour show no less.
I recently came to find out that this friend is considering a conversion to Islam. Kind of threw me off guard considering I watched his transition from Catholicism to atheism during our youthwhich may still be ongoing as I dont know where the line is, and his favourite band remains Bad Religion. Whatever makes him happy I guess. Now Ive got Kurt Gdels ontological argument for the existence of a God running through my head this morning, which usually only manages to give me a headache. The argument is rarely successful in converting atheists, that record is still held my miscellaneous life threatening situations (one of which I believe is at work in my friend). Countless people have pointed out potential flaws in the argument, and I have one in particular thats been nagging at me all morning.
To argue that God exists, Gdel relies on the concept of Positive Properties. An example would be to exist. Some folks may argue that existence is not a positive property, but at the very least, existence also afford you the opportunity for non-existencethis is suicidegirls after all, whereas the latter is nothing. Other examples would be the properties of being healthy, happy, sexy, wealthy,.. etc. He then defines a God-like being as one that is maximally perfect, and says that this is achieved by requiring that this being has all the positive properties that can be conceived of as their essential properties. This is similar to Anselm saying that God is that thing than which nothing greater can be thought.
The problem I have is that I can think of a positive property right now that God, by definition, cant possess, and thats the property of being mortal. I argue that being able to die, being able to experience entropy through your own vessel from youth to (hopefully) old age and finally death, is an extremely positive property. Change is good, without it life would stagnate and choke on itself. So at the very least, in Gdels argument, God can only exist for a finite period of time.
What a horrible way to start the day,.. I mean,.. where do I go from here?
I recently came to find out that this friend is considering a conversion to Islam. Kind of threw me off guard considering I watched his transition from Catholicism to atheism during our youthwhich may still be ongoing as I dont know where the line is, and his favourite band remains Bad Religion. Whatever makes him happy I guess. Now Ive got Kurt Gdels ontological argument for the existence of a God running through my head this morning, which usually only manages to give me a headache. The argument is rarely successful in converting atheists, that record is still held my miscellaneous life threatening situations (one of which I believe is at work in my friend). Countless people have pointed out potential flaws in the argument, and I have one in particular thats been nagging at me all morning.
To argue that God exists, Gdel relies on the concept of Positive Properties. An example would be to exist. Some folks may argue that existence is not a positive property, but at the very least, existence also afford you the opportunity for non-existencethis is suicidegirls after all, whereas the latter is nothing. Other examples would be the properties of being healthy, happy, sexy, wealthy,.. etc. He then defines a God-like being as one that is maximally perfect, and says that this is achieved by requiring that this being has all the positive properties that can be conceived of as their essential properties. This is similar to Anselm saying that God is that thing than which nothing greater can be thought.
The problem I have is that I can think of a positive property right now that God, by definition, cant possess, and thats the property of being mortal. I argue that being able to die, being able to experience entropy through your own vessel from youth to (hopefully) old age and finally death, is an extremely positive property. Change is good, without it life would stagnate and choke on itself. So at the very least, in Gdels argument, God can only exist for a finite period of time.
What a horrible way to start the day,.. I mean,.. where do I go from here?