Gödels ontologischer Gottesbeweis
From Anthologia
Gabriel Pickard»God Ex (redirected from Werg.GodEx)
A presentation (en aleman) on Gödel's ontological proof of God's existence. (Thank you for that one, Tobias!) I can follow the proof up to the point where he starts mucking around with essential properties; specifically i do not understand the need for this necessary existence axiom, it comes quite from the blue. However, today while digging in the Garden (yea - always wanted to be a epicurean; garden-philosopher) this got me thinking again about a "logic" [the quotes are set there with care; i'm thinking about not-abiding with the idea of a formal language as a set of words, such that it would have the capacity to be split into syntax and semantics, instead possibly a non-set multitude.. again something along the lines of non-arbitrary as well as unique and "nicht-eindeutig", these properties concerning "multitude-membership" or not] in which existence-statements come "for free". So one would be able to state the existence of anything (including god, goblins, hobgoblins and your mother's neighbor's socks), for which god should there have been, existing prae existence, who then should have decided to single out certain being as non-existent, or maybe rather to talk about things that don't exist and tell them not to exist? [Isn't this lovely, i'm claiming universal existence, by constructing an unplausibility argument (to say the least) for the existence of a meta-existence.. haha! this stinks (at least i'm admitting it)] Additionally, such a logic would not have a high opinion of universal statements (all-Aussagen). If one does not swim in a world of empty plastic bags, of sets and sets of sets (I have the hunch that the all-aussage lies at the basis of the construction of sets via the method as being extensions of predicates), such approach may become sensible, who knows :-} As everyday replacement for existence-claims i'd use something like the german "es gibt", which implies access (possibly from the uttering entity; the speaker, something,,, place to research still).
In dieselbe Richtung dachte ich auch. Meine banale Überlegung ist diese (mir sind die logischen Operationen nicht vertraut, daher erfolgt meine Überlegung auch anderes), dass eine ontologisch-logische Operation natürlich nur systemimmanent bleiben kann. Was aus der Logik kommt, kann nie transzendentale Weiten erschließen, sondern nur weitere logische Konstrukte schaffen. Abgesehen von den anfänglichen Axiomen, die natürlich als erstes zu hinterfragen wären [„… it comes quite from the blue.“], bleibt für mich die Plattitüde, dass ein logischer Gottesbeweis nur einen logischen – aber keineswegs real-transzendentalen Gott – beweist. Wenn ich aber den Begriff „Gott“ in die Logik einführe, dann beweist das schon eine große Verwirrtheit, denn der Begriff „Gott“ wird transzendental bestimmt (wenn ich es von dort nicht tue, dann wird er semantisch sinnlos). Hier an diesem Punkt liegt eine wohl kaum zu übersehende Inkonsequenz und epistemologische Verwirrung vor.
