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 <pie...@gmail.com <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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com >> <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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
