close

Discovered in

Find other sites about

Related Sites

  • Kurt G&dels Ontological Argument

    If you are not familiar with Kurt Gödel the odds are that you may enjoy this witty and accessible treatment of a subject otherwise intended almost exclusively for specialists. Popeye, floating Baby Boomers and Napoleon winning at Waterloo are used in Professor Christopher Small's... more

    Reviewed by tetrapod78 Jan 06 2008, 11:57am ( 28 reviews ) • uwaterloo.ca

    116K views
  • Showing 23 of 28
  • Reviews of the site
  • Join StumbleUpon or login to add a review! default avatar

  • Rated by danhiggins3 on Feb 02 2009, 9:26pm

    This is a fascinating exercise in a specific and noncanonical approach to reasoning through a question. Anselm's version of this was pure sophistry, as far as I was concerned, but Godel uses some different tools. It's ultimately inconclusive, but it's fun.

  • Rated by Cowboy77 on Mar 18 2008, 5:09pm

    Part of my Master's Thesis was on Anselm's version of this proof. Godel's revision has not been well received but has some interesting ideas.

  • Rated by Sophiaspencer on Jan 25 2008, 4:32am

    seen it a lot of times

  • Rated by tetrapod78 on Jan 06 2008, 11:57am

    If you are not familiar with Kurt Gödel the odds are that you may enjoy this witty and accessible treatment of a subject otherwise intended almost exclusively for specialists. Popeye, floating Baby Boomers and Napoleon winning at Waterloo are used in Professor Christopher Small's philosophical enterprise concerning proof theory. He applies modal postulates to prove the existence of God but also of Santa Clause. Proof for their existence is not entirely satisfying but he does demonstrate the tools and introduce a lesser known aspect of Gödel. Perhaps he covers too much territory, too lightly. However, you have to write for a specific audience in mind and be consistent. Dr. Small took on a tough, complex job. Furthermore, he is vulnerable to criticism for going too far as well as not far enough concurrently. He wants the reader to enjoy the site.

  • Rated by neuropsychguy on Dec 27 2007, 7:25pm

    Kurt Gödel was awesome. He basically demonstrated that mathematics is not perfect (I was quite chagrined when I first learned about his incompleteness theorems).

  • Reviewed by AceMyth on Oct 16 2007, 4:35am

    "So there is nothing wrong with the definition. Can we really show that unicorns exist using this argument? The answer is no. Our definition of a unicorn would only seem to imply that all unicorns exist, or equivalently, that for all x, if x is a unicorn then x exists. However, this statement is trivially true, because it is vacuously satisfied." So this magically invalidates the Reductio Ad Absurdum with the unicorn... But magically fails to apply to the original argument about God. That's lovely.

  • Rated by ntltrmllgnc on Feb 09 2007, 11:46am

    Of course to follow the logic above is to say that it is possible for something that doesn't exist to know anything to begin with. Nice trick. Disappointing really.