Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems

some more properties emerge. One of these can be identified as the simplicity of truth

In this essay, I will take into account Russel and Coplestone's debate about the Metaphysical Argument. I will be arguing my opinion that Russel's view on the matter is right. First, I will briefly discuss both philosopher's take on the argument before I begin discussing my reasons for picking Russel. I will also take into consideration what someone taking Coplestone's side might respond to my opinions and defend myself.

Anselm’s Ontological Argument argues for the existence of an all-perfect God. The Ontological Argument assumes that Existence is a great making property. Critiques of Anselm and his version of the Ontological Argument argue that existence is not a great making property. If the critics are correct, they have completely bested Anselm, and destroyed his argument. In this essay, I will argue on behalf of Anselm’s argument and defend existence as a great making property.

Throughout Proslogion Anselm defends his argument that “God is which nothing greater can be thought” by providing key elements. Anselm proposes that one cannot imagine a god that is greater, and even non-believers have a conception of the western god. Anselm asserts that since everyone has an understanding of god in their mind, then god exist in reality. This paper will evaluate some of the main key elements that Anselm uses to prove that the ontological argument is correct in Proslogion. I contend that Anselm does not exhibit proper terminology and provides vague statements and therefore his argument that “God is which nothing greater can be thought” is invalid.

McPherson, James M. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.Vol. 139, No. 1. (Mar., 1995), pp. 1-10.

He establishes that the illogicality is a rational difficult and develops a realism solitary on behalf of theists who have faith in God to be present as omnipotent and also merely good.

St. Anselm's Ontological Argument has remained one of the most widely-known arguments for a Christian God, as well as simply probably the most famous logical proof of all time, since its inception in the late 11th century. The economical proof uses deductive logic starting from basic given premises to lead the reader to what is meant to be the inevitable conclusion that God must, necessarily, exist. The argument's polished simplicity is both a point in favor and a problem, however, for it provides little explanation for its premises beyond what is to be assumed within the tight structural framework of Christian thought beneath which all medieval philosophy operated. Anselm's proof is a clever piece of logic, and an important one, but its

Descartes's fifth Meditation argument for God's existence relies on an untenable notion that existence is a perfection and that it can be predicated of God. I shall first explain what Descartes's argument for God's existence is, and then present his argument in propositional form. I will then attempt to support the argument that existence is neither a perfection nor a predicate of God.

The textbook states that there is profound uncertainty about the universe and about reality. Gödel’s Theorem states that there will always be one truth that cannot be proved, but is nevertheless true. This seems like a very confusing sentence since some may question “how can one truth not be proven, but still be true?” Gödel also stated that a computer can never do a task that was meant for a human, but it imitate the human

The concept of God is central to the development of Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy. Although both philosophers employ an ontological argument for the existence and necessity of God the specific nature of God differs greatly with each account. While Descartes suggests a Judeo-Christian concept of God, Spinoza argues a more monistic deity similar to that of the Hindu tradition. The most significant difference however, lies within the basis and structure of each argument itself. Considered from an analytical standpoint through the lens of Gotlobb Frege, Descartes' proof of God possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of expressing the

We continue our study of the history of God by looking at His attributes from a number of different viewpoints. We will first examine the view of Classical Theism, then the view of Freewill Theism, and finally that of Open Theism. We begin by defining Classical Theism, also called traditional theism or Augustinian theism.

Bertrand Russel and Ludwig Wittgenstein's personal and professional relationship is well known, with Russel having famously sponsored Wittgenstein's submission of Tractatus Logic-Philosophicus for PhD credit at Cambridge University. Both philosophers were important early contributors to the theory of logical atomism, and although they would both go on to reject many of the ideas central to logical atomism, their work nevertheless represented an important break from philosophical Idealism and set the stage for the developments of the twentieth century (Hylton 105, 116). However, despite the general agreement between Russel's The Philosophy of Logical Atomism and Wittgenstein's Tractatus, the philosophers disagree on the question of skepticism. For Russel, skepticism is an irrefutable position, whereas Wittgenstein characteristically describes skepticism as being "palpably senseless" (Wittgenstein 187). Fully understanding Wittgenstein's meaning requires an analysis of the role of skepticism in both Russel and Wittgenstein's work, but ultimately one can say with relative confidence that Wittgenstein is largely successful in dissolving the problem of skepticism, in that he is able to demonstrate how the notion of skepticism falls within a category of thought exercise that Wittgenstein sees as outside the useful parameters of philosophy because it does not actually contain any kind of sense or meaning.

Aristotle (384-322) and George Boole (1815-1864) are both highly regarded logicians. Aristotle is undeniably the elevated of the two as he paved the way for Boole’s work when he created logic, although, this is not by any means to diminish Boole’s work. He geniusly developed Boolean algebra. While both logicians profoundly contributed to many areas, their standpoints on the set theory and consequently their interpretation of the square opposition greatly differ.

The author of Essay41 askes the philosophical question, “Is arithmetic universally true?” To help the reader, the author defines universally as “something [that] is always true, everywhere” and arithmetic as subtraction, addition, multiplication, and division. The first answer to the question would be yes, arithmetic is universally true. Since many cultures have discovered arithmetic without the influence of eachother and people used arithmetic before it was even defined, we can draw the conclusion that it is universally true. Another might say that arithmetic is not universally true. Since mankind is taught arithmetic and it cannot be seen, arithmetic is not deemed universally true. Overall, the author believes that arithmetic is universally

Mathematics has contributed to the alteration of technology over many years. The most noticeable mathematical technology is the evolution of the abacus to the many variations of the calculator. Some people argue that the changes in technology have been for the better while others argue they have been for the worse. While this paper does not address specifically technology, this paper rather addresses influential persons in philosophy to the field of mathematics. In order to understand the impact of mathematics, this paper will delve into the three philosophers of the past who have contributed to this academic. In this paper, I will cover the views of three philosophers of mathematics encompassing their