OK, I think it's 100%. I'm just not sure what it means that the higher beings are connected by analogy not composition, and "formal rights comprise a real science" (unless he means there is something objectively knowable about ethics). That said, the higher beings thing sounds like something I *would* agree with, if I understood it... ;)
On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:16:09 AM UTC+10, Jason wrote: > > Which of the 14 points did you not agree with? > > As for his ontological proof, I think that was more something he did for > fun, to see if he could impart some rigor to Anselm's argument. > > Jason > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Pierz <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> It's amazing to me that a man of Gödel's brilliance could take the drivel >> of the ontological argument seriously. Did I miss something about that >> specious piece of sophistry? Other than that I'm in 87.5% agreement with >> him... >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
