Talk:Gödel's ontological proof

THE DAMN PROOF

What's the damn proof in plain language? Sn't Anselm's ontological argument was stupid but Gödel is an intelligent man, here the article is abotu his proof but we are nto given his proof only a logical representation of it, he has to have made it in words, where is it?Undead Herle King (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would he have made it in words? He was a logician. --Gwern (contribs) 18:04 17 January 2011 (GMT)

As an example of Gödel's logic, he starved himself to death because he thought that someone was trying to poison him.Lestrade (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Can someone *translate* the proof into plain language, then? Or is this against some rule of Wikipedia?72.213.177.26 (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at doing this at some point. I don't know when I'll get round to it; if someone else wants to do it, I recommend using this source, which outlines the argument in plain English. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It just prove that very smart people can be also very dumb when it comes to religion. It's basically the same dumb Anselm argument disguised with math — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.150.158.34 (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Adele, two days after Gödel's death, told Wang ... ?

Wang reports that Gödel's wife, Adele, two days after Gödel's death, told Wang that ... - didn't Adele die before Gödel ?? DamjanB52 (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC) DamjanB52

No, she survived him by several years. Quick web search indicates that she died in 1981. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:1A5F (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Friedman

Maybe add this?

https://u.osu.edu/friedman.8/files/2014/01/ConMathThe122512-1iea8ps.pdf

I don't know if it was formally published. It's entry #74 from Friedman's manuscripts page,[1] which says it was submitted in 2012. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:1A5F (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Gödel's ontological proof → Gödel's ontological argumentGödel's ontological argument – "Gödel's ontological proof"[2][3] is slightly more common on Google Scholar, but I would consider this to be a WP:POVTITLE since many people would not agree that this argument proves the existence of God. This title would also be WP:CONSISTENT with the more general article on ontological arguments. (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Weak don't move I don't care a whole lot which title it's under, but I don't think the move rationale is convincing. In this ambit calling something a "proof" is traditional, and doesn't necessarily mean that it proves what it purports to prove. --Trovatore (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Don't move The proof of Godel, as given in section "Symbolic notation", is formally correct, cf. the section about computer verification. Therefore, it deserves to be called "proof" more than most other philosophical arguments. (Of course, this does not mean that it proves any claim of any religion, as discussed in section "Criticism"). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above comments and common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. It's a formal proof, so I don't see a POV problem. Srnec (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Can be argued both ways but we need to go one way or another. So by default I think, no move. But see #Discussion, and also Andrew's Principle. Andrewa (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

As per my !vote above, IMO this is something of a line call. It's POV either way, and both titles can claim to be the common name depending on who you consider reliable and how you compare the attestation counts.

Gödel's ontological proof will tend to be preferred among:

• Sources who believe in God (with an exception noted below)
• Sources who are particularly interested in proof theory and computer-assisted proof
• And as proof theory is relatively recent and computers even more so, recent sources may support it, but that brings up a can of worms... how do we compare the count of attestations (or occurrences) in publications in two different fields?

Gödel's ontological argument will tend to be preferred among:

• Sources who do not believe in God
• Sources who are particularly interested in the history of similar arguments
• Perhaps surprisingly, sources who are particularly concerned with the theology of faith (which I disclose is my personal POV, see this off-this-wiki essay, and note that my !vote goes against this personal bias but for other reasons)

Food for thought? Andrewa (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Capitalizing a theoretical deity

I was surprised by the use of orthography "God" in the proof section, expecting that form to be restricted to the Christian "God", rather than a theoretical single deity. This seems to be backed up by God_(word)#Capitalization which says Template:Quote (my emphasis added). For me, the article would benefit from clearly distinguishing between "God" (the Abrahamic god in, eg, sentences about Gödel's personal beliefs) and "god" (a generic single deity, the subject of the proof). As nothing in the proof relates to any specific theology, it would be more accurate to use the uncapitalised form. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

[continued] In the History section of the article we find Template:Quote The juxtaposition of these sentences implies this is an inconsistency. There is none. The Kurt Gödel article includes this quote Template:Quote The words "independent of any theology" are critical here. Gödel was a theist. The introduction of the Abrahamic god into the proof is unwarranted. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I think any time you use the word as the personal name of the deity, it has to be capitalized. That's just the basic rules of English; personal names are capitalized, whether the name is God or Fred. That's how I think it's being used here, not as specific to Abrahamic theology.

It would be possible to reword the arguments so that they don't use a personal name, but it would be awkward and would alter the flavor of them in a way I don't think Gödel would have approved. --Trovatore (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)