What value is there in Godel's ontological proof?

>>9642081
I believe it is meant to demonstrate that there are no flaws in Aquinus's and Anselm's formulations of the proof

>>9642081
I think Kant was right when he said that God's being cannot be determined a priori

The axiom of his proof are not intuitive nor justificated

>we have an immortal soul
>have

Are.

File: St.-Thomas-Aquinas.jpg (144KB, 600x433px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 600x433px

Anyone who's REALLY Catholic knows God exists on the basis of faith, with the intervention of the supernatural as an additional guarantor.

This applies to Aquinas too, by the way. Aquinas didn't need any of his Five Proofs. Aquinas would have believed in God without any of them, because he was a true Christian who had faith, and faith was enough. He wanted to lay out his five proofs because he wanted to show that reason necessarily leads one to God, as well as faith.

none, as it's based in axioms. axioms as bases for arguments fall directly into the realm of subjectivity.

a common example would be that many consider it axiomatic that "murder is wrong", even though people will make excuses under certain circumstances to justify it or recognize that there is no evidence in the first place that it is inherently wrong to murder. the same goes for the axioms in godel's proof, the argument only has meaning if you agree with the axioms, though there is no tangible evidence for them.

>>9643092
>>9643105
Both pretty interesting.
The issue I have with materialism is that it ultimately regresses to Turtles All the Way Down going backwards and oblivion going forwards in clear defiance of the logic on the other end.