Religion

[BAndrew]

@Froge
Although eliasfrost already disproved me:

What exactly 2.5485734952482394629462 or -666 omnipotent beings mean?

---

Reading Gödel's ontological proof:

The definition of God has almost nothing to do with what we mean when we say God.
The proof is not wrong, but I think some of the axioms and definitions are questionable.

[Froge]

Well, if a being was truly omnipotent then they should both be discrete and continuous. That's already a contradiction by itself.

However, that's irrelevant to my point, which is that an inductive proof of P(n) where n is only a positive integer says nothing about the validity of P(n) for all other values of n.

[BAndrew]

Well, if a being was truly omnipotent then they should both be discrete and continuous. That's already a contradiction by itself.

However, that's irrelevant to my point, which is that an inductive proof of P(n) where n is only a positive integer says nothing about the validity of P(n) for all other values of n.

I already mentioned that n is a positive integer.
I proved P(n) for every n (where n is a positive integer).

sqrt(17) Gods doesn't make any sense so that' why I jumped to the conclusion.

[Froge]

Does √17 gods really make no sense? Due to their omnipotence* we can't make any assumption that we can count gods the same way that we can count apples. For example, what sort of things can take continuous values? Temperature is one. So what if god is a temperature?

*Though, as I have mentioned before, omnipotent beings are already destroyed by the contradictory fact that they are discrete and continuous at the same time

[BAndrew]

@Froge

Fair enough

---

Gödel proved that God necessarily exists.

However, here's his definition of God:

x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive