Science has proved the existence of God

[Jim__]

206. These points have all been discussed already.

The proof as it is written makes no constraints on what kinds of properties are meant.
If you assume the proof to operate with the full set of properties reality offers, then the proof is incorrect, because the axioms are faulty.

(As I laid out above.)

From post #203:

If you want to argue against his proof, you need to argue against the strongest version of the proof. To try to water it down, to ignore restrictionss that he verbally put on his set so that you can then attack the set as not instantiable in this world, is to concede the game. Arguments against weaker versions of the proof are an admission of lack of argument against the strong version of the proof, the version supported by Gödel's verbal statements.

[hr]

If you consider the proof plus the annotation that out of all properties reality offers only the subset of moral properties is considered as properties, then the proof is no longer general, because reality contains more properties than just the moral ones. The proof works within the fictional universe Gödel has defined, but not within our reality.

Again, from post #203:

A god-like entity doesn't need to have any accidental properties of the world.

[hr]

The proof is nice and all, but I see no way how it could possibly be translated from the abstract to the instance that is our reality.

From post #175:

The argument is abstract; but there is nothing specified in it that is not possible in our universe.

[hr]

Plus, including the annotation, the proof only proves the existence of a morally supreme entity and it is debatable whether this can count as "God". The "God" of this proof contains no superior knowledge or superior abilities or superior past deeds, as those aren't moral properties.

From post #188

Gödel did say that the properties he was talking about were moral aesthetic properties.

So, the god-like entity has moral aesthetic properties, although not any that are accidents of the world.

From post #203:

Gödel was trying come up with an ontological proof for the existence of a god-like entity, a revision of Anselm's proof.

The constraints on Gödel's god are the same as the constraint's on the god Anselm described.