Did Pollock refute Godel? I doubt it…

Pollock’s argument at:

 

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/ontological_argument_for_nonexistence/

 

is linked from 

 

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ontological_argument

 

which I got courtesy of  Lazarinth

 

http://fantasyandanime.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/getting-misrepresented-by-others-lets-get-to-know-each-other-better/

 

And apparently I have misread Lazarinth’s argument.  I hate getting misrepresented, so I’ll have to be a bit more careful about how I represent the arguments of others.

<hr>

Did Pollock refute Godel?  I doubt it, but I’ll check the logic several times and post my reasoning.

 

At first glance, it looks like Pollock is not even operating with the same math as Godel, but that might be a notational difference.

<hr>

 

Iron Chariots also links a much weaker objection at:

 

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.tw/2009/01/on-plantingas-ontological-argument.html

 

But Godel’s argument doesn’t depend on Platinga’s, so I won’t bother looking into Platinga until I’ve figured out Pollock.

Advertisements

One thought on “Did Pollock refute Godel? I doubt it…”

  1. Just for the record there were other parties involved with what I was writing about in my last post. Those three comments I sent really should have only been one but as you can tell by my first one it could have done with some editing. There is some misunderstandings and discussion here to be cleaned up first, dominantly the ontological argument and the contingency of awareness for belief but I’ll leave those to last.

    3 points of context from my original post so they don’t need to be brought up again. Religious texts and morality (or god’s cruelty) are not the reasons for my disbelief in a god but the lack of convincing evidence and the philosophies of Occam’s Razor and Russel’s Teapot. I don’t argue from authority and don’t follow specific mathematicians or theorist, Russell, Godel or Pollock’s names mean nothing to me. I just follow the modals and see if hey are convincing or not.

    The unconvincing nature of the ontological argument is that given the same properties, any subject could be conceived to exist but it doesn’t mean it does unless you are referring that thing to the conception, brain activity, itself. My question is, besides the methodology to get it, how do your ideas (or Godel’s) differ from this and how does it change it?

    Finally I don’t believe that anyone can have a belief in the existence of something if they aren’t aware of or haven’t conceived of what that something is. Therefore I don’t believe that people who are unaware of certain gods (supreme or minor) throughout history or cultures can have a belief in their existence. They a atheistic towards them, and unless you know of every god that has ever been told of, I am sure there are some gods you are unaware of and therefore can not believe exist, in which case you are atheistic towards them.

    Like

Comments Might Work, But We Won't Know Until You Try

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s