Sherlock Holmes lives on Baker St.

That's true, but not in reality.

That is a contigent existence

It may well be true.

Why would god be any different?

You cannot assert that unless you have seen all existence

God would be in the necessary category.

@Akulakhan I'm not arguing for the goodness of anything here, just trying to parse a complex topic and indentify it's flaws. Like I said, it's an interesting line of thought, but it doesn't prove anything.

Is existence hard for you to comprehend?

What are you doing right now?

That's not really the issue here though.

I came in late, what is the issue?

What the paper actually shows.

Forget the actual logical proof. I trust his logic is solid, but the proof isn't sound.

And what do you believe the paper shows -- or rather, what do you see missing?

I didn't read the paper posted (it elaborates on how the proof is begin put into a language that a computer proving system can verify

so we dont need that paper, we are just talkign about godels ontological proof

The paper's purpose is to show that the provers they are using work, not to prove the argument correct. Because there are axioms in the argument that the computer can't parse.

The ontological argument has been refuted many different ways over the years, I was under the impression going in that the paper somehow proved the argument valid, but that's not it's purpose at all.

Yeah a computer can't comprehend and determine 'positive' traits when there is no objective way to assign that characteristic.

It was showing the conversion.

So then why use it in the first place if you know it is as such?

I see I thought we were arguing the acutal proof

Then let's return the the proof itself. What issues do you see with it? What do you find missing in the proof?

Or, better yet, what issue do you find with his central premises, and the conclusion drawn?

Seems irrelevant to use a source then argue immediately after that it technically isn't correct or applicable

I didn't use the source originaly, it was shown to me and presented as proof of the argument's validity. Which it isn't, that's my only point.

Fine, fine, the paper may not demonstrate the validity sufficiently for you. Have you said why you think the argument itself is invalid?

It was proven on a ATP but all the articles written on its proving were written by autistic fucking neckbeard atheists

Stop tiptoeing around and make a definitive statement

Yes, I said all that earlier.

Hurr Durr Prover doesn't prove it because it isn't my belief.

No, it doesn't prove it because it doesn't prove it. It's that simple.

>it doesn't prove it because it doesn't prove it
HAHAHAHHahhahahahahahahah

ahhahahaha

hahhahahah

ahh

ahaha

hah

Oh

boy