Can't translate or explain the Unknowable much either.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Mathematical Proof of God
- Thread starter Kurt31416
- Start date
Can't translate or explain the Unknowable much either.
McBell
Unbound
And I second that.
Seems to me that the biggest problem in his whole "proof" is that the very same line of BS can be used to prove any and all possible deities exist.
For example, merely replace the word "God" in his posts with the word "Zeus".
Now try with "The Flying Spaghetti Monster"
Now with "Satan"
OMFG!!!
He has just proven the existence of every single deity that is, ever was, and ever will be!!!!!!
Can we say: "deja mooo..."
McBell
Unbound
Actually you are flat out wrong.
I can make any and all the claims I want, about anything anything I want.
However, I know that merely making claims does not make any of said claims true.
Oh gee, I thought it would be clear that you can't claim anything about thunderbolts because the proof didn't prove any such thing. Well, hopefully that's clear now.
Keep a good thought.
McBell
Unbound
You seem to be missing the point.
What point did I miss? You can call the Great Unknowable of the Universe that Makes it Work, x or Fred or Zeus or anything you like, but don't make claims you proved thunderbolts or burning bushes or a God that answers prayers.
Smoke
Done here.
Exactly. So defining it as "God" and then equating it to any theological concept of God is without any foundation whatsoever.
Hi Smoke,
It's the same Living Father as the historical Jesus as primarily found in the Gospel of Thomas.
Rick
Smoke
Done here.
If it's unknowable then it is -- by definition -- impossible for you to know that.
False, I can know I don't know French. That doesn't mean I know French.
Math can prove that math can never describe the Universe, that doesn't mean math can describe the Universe.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Godel is great...
As you state its a way of showing there is more to reality than can be put into a concept by homosapiens...
Hardly a revelation to some. But then we have been fed the idea that logic, the intellect etc can conceptualise anything, for a long time...
I generally tie this in with quantum logic...
And the Benoit Mandelbrot concept of the length of britain having an infinite length, due to an ever increasingly accurate ruler, that would eventually measure every grain of sand at a planc length...giving the length as infinite...
As you state its a way of showing there is more to reality than can be put into a concept by homosapiens...
Hardly a revelation to some. But then we have been fed the idea that logic, the intellect etc can conceptualise anything, for a long time...
I generally tie this in with quantum logic...
And the Benoit Mandelbrot concept of the length of britain having an infinite length, due to an ever increasingly accurate ruler, that would eventually measure every grain of sand at a planc length...giving the length as infinite...
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
yes, now if you tell anyone else, I'll have to kill you
GiantHouseKey
Well-Known Member
People think some crazy stuff, but it doesn't mean that they're right.
But you knew that, so it's not unknowable. It is possible for you to know French, as the language itself is not unknowable, so using it here doesn't really help your arguement.
What's trying to be said is that you can't prove the existance of something where it's existance is unprovable. I could say:
Something exists, but I don't know what it is...
...But because we can't know what it is, let's call it God
...God therefore exists!
Are you familiar with the word 'conflation'?
GhK.
I makes no difference if French is etrnally unknowable to me, just because I know I can't speak French, doesn't help me speak it.
And I was using an analogy I hoped was easy to understand. I could,k for instance, say that because I know Godel's Theorem is Unknowable doesn't mean I know if it's true or false.
No no no!!! *shakes head* Just because we will never understand everything about the universe does not make god an explanation, in fact god is an avoidance of an explanation, because your left with explaining where the entity "god" came from. So, it's a bit of a non answer. The fact that we can't explain something does not mean that you have an explanation for that something.
Don't get stuck on the god of the gaps argument, these gaps are permanent, for ever and ever, no matter what. If there's some doubt about that, we need to go over Godel's proof and catch up with what mathematicians have known for several generations.
Why do you assume the Universe or God "came from" somewhere? It violates the Conservation Laws about as bad as they can be violated. If both have always been here, Big Banging and Big Crunching, or the repeated Big Bangs of Membrane Theory or the Many Worlds of the Everett Interpretation of the Quantum Theory, all those paradoxes people cling to are resolved.
So what??? I don't care if the gaps are forever, an unknown answer is an unknown answer. Even if it's unknown forever it remains just that, unknown. Saying a thing is unknown forever and then giving an explanation is the most faulty reasoning ever.