Formalizing a Proof of God by Leibniz
timlabs.org
Formalizing a Proof of God by Leibniz
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: Formalizing a Proof of God by Leibniz
#2Posted 20 minutes ago and it looks like the site is already down.
Leibniz' arguments essentially amounts to a 17th century "because I am unable to understand or comprehend another reason, including the nature of the universe, the nature of thinking and thought of an independent agent, and 'because this is a convenient reason'".
Its premised on:
- 1. The ontological argument;
- 2. The cosmological argument;
- 3. The argument from eternal truths and;
- 4. The argument from the pre-established harmony, which is more commonly known as the argument from design.
Re: Formalizing a Proof of God by Leibniz
#3Posted 20 minutes ago and it looks like the site is already down. Leibniz' arguments essentially amounts to a 17th century "because I am unable to understand or comprehend another reason, including the nature of the universe, the nature of thinking and thought of an independent agent, and 'because this is a convenient reason'". Its premised on: - 1. The ontological argument; - 2. The cosmological argument; - 3. The a…
Re: Formalizing a Proof of God by Leibniz
#4[deleted]
Re: Formalizing a Proof of God by Leibniz
#5P8 Every body whatsoever has an infinite number of parts.
P3 Infinite power is an original capacity to move the infinite.
So anything moving anything has infinite power, in which case everything moving something has infinite power?
LE: I re-read the P3 premise: only movers that aren't moved themselves have infinite power. All movers that have bodies are moved themselves (P6), so they don't have infinite power.
Re: Formalizing a Proof of God by Leibniz
#6P8 Every body whatsoever has an infinite number of parts. P3 Infinite power is an original capacity to move the infinite. So anything moving anything has infinite power, in which case everything moving something has infinite power? LE: I re-read the P3 premise: only movers that aren't moved themselves have infinite power. All movers that have bodies are moved themselves (P6), so they don't have infinite power.
I think the post is more about what Oak can do as a proof language. Obviously, anyone can pick apart the argument.
Re: Formalizing a Proof of God by Leibniz
#7P8 Every body whatsoever has an infinite number of parts. P3 Infinite power is an original capacity to move the infinite. So anything moving anything has infinite power, in which case everything moving something has infinite power? LE: I re-read the P3 premise: only movers that aren't moved themselves have infinite power. All movers that have bodies are moved themselves (P6), so they don't have infinite power.
I think the distinction lies in God being that which cannot be moved, having infinite power is not enough to be God.
Re: Formalizing a Proof of God by Leibniz
#8I have 0 experience with theorem provers (and almost 0 with proofs in general) but am at least somewhat aware of their existence. This might be the first time I feel like I can actually follow the code. Might start learning Oak because of this post, so thanks!
Re: Formalizing a Proof of God by Leibniz
#9[deleted]
Re: Formalizing a Proof of God by Leibniz
#10I think this is quite elegant and nice. Cool!
Interesting to see the connections between various philosophies on the debate of "unmoved mover" this is basically the crux between Christianity/Ancient Greek/Ancient Vedic.
Thanks for sharing.