A Mathematical Proof of God

[Duck]

still not seeing anything resembling what I know as a mathematical proof. Perhaps my kung-fu is too weak for this, but assembling a bunch of quotes, some web links and throwing in "proof", "theorem", and Jesus quotes doesn't really seem to prove anything.

 

[Kurt31416]

So what??? I don't care if the gaps are forever, an unknown answer is an unknown answer. .

You never wonder why we are here? How it all works? What's it all about Alphie?

Ok....

Even if it's unknown forever it remains just that,
unknown..

Well, this particular Great Unknowable is what makes the Universe work by definition. We know that, don't forget.

Saying a thing is unknown forever and then giving an explanation is the most faulty reasoning ever.

Oh no, I would never claim to speak for the Unknowable/Living Father, other than pointing out we proved he makes the Universe work.

The Living Father is Unknowable​

 

[Kurt31416]

still not seeing anything resembling what I know as a mathematical proof. Perhaps my kung-fu is too weak for this, but assembling a bunch of quotes, some web links and throwing in "proof", "theorem", and Jesus quotes doesn't really seem to prove anything.

Ok, let's start at the beginning. Do you agree with the references in post 1, from famous world class scientists/mathematicians? Ok with that math up to that point? The math they use is very obscure and difficult. Advanced Calculus is simple by comparison. Can you follow it if we go into it? I suggest we take their word for that part.

Still with me?

 

[Fortunato]

In a nutshell, given the Quantum Theory, you can prove with math that science and reason can never explain the Universe

I would suggest that you insert "fully" into your statement - i.e. "can never fully explain".

, much less make it work.

Math and science don't make any such claims that they are the reason the universe works as it does. They're only attempts at describing it.

Yet it works. If you define that Great Unknowable that Makes the Universe Work, "God" like you can define it "x" or "y", then you have proven God with formal math.

This is the part which I think causes most people problems. It reminds me of this

Far Side Cartoon. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems show that mathematical theories cannot be totally complete or consistent. I'm guessing this is where you get your idea of the Great Unknowable, that there are limits to what can be logically and mathematically demonstrated. But to define what lies beyond knowledge to be "God" is just that, a definition. I could just as easily define the Earth to be the center of the universe, but playing games like this with definitions doesn't make these things true. Calling the potted petunia I have in the corner of my living room the President of the United States, doesn't make it the Supreme Commander of the U.S. Armed Forces. You may believe in god and that he's the one keeping this world going, but it doesn't follow from your proof, which can be surmised thusly:

There are limits to knowledge, therefore my God exists!!!

But you can't make any claims about burning bushes and so on.

At any rate, it's the same as the Living Father of the historical Jesus as primarily found in the Gospel of Thomas, which never mentions things like burning bushes.

I find this to be the greatest part about your satire! How you can't claim anything about burning bushes, but can leap without explanation to the conclusion that this Great Unknowable is in fact the Living Father of Jesus. :clap

 

[Tristesse]

You never wonder why we are here? How it all works? What's it all about Alphie?

Ok....



Well, this particular Great Unknowable is what makes the Universe work by definition. We know that, don't forget.



Oh no, I would never claim to speak for the Unknowable/Living Father, other than pointing out we proved he makes the Universe work.

The Living Father is Unknowable​

Well, it depends on how you phrase the question, why or how we came to be? Why we are here is to pass our genes on, how we came to be is a different question, and of course I wonder how the universe all started, but I'm not going to make up an answer for the sake of having an answer, I'd much rather be honest and say I don't know. Maybe I will one day I will, but I don't know as of yet, and we may never know, and I'm totally fine with saying I don't know for the rest of my life.

How have you proved that the living father makes it work? we know nothing about the living father if it's unknowable, and saying it's unknowable means you don't know. So, how can you posit an answer either way? By definition unknowable means unknowable, so, you can't say anything about it, because it's unknowable. You can't give it any characteristics, or say anything about it, because IT'S UNKNOWABLE. I don't know how to put this any other way. So, your example fails on every level.

 

[Kurt31416]

I would suggest that you insert "fully" into your statement - i.e. "can never fully explain".:clap

Well, perhaps, but if you look close, science can't really explain anything. GR says things as fundamental as time is relative, and the QT says there's no objective reality to anything, and you can't do one unless you pretend the other doesn't exist.

But yeah, fine, it can't fully explain it and therefore it can never make it work. Same thing.

Math and science don't make any such claims that they are the reason the universe works as it does. They're only attempts at describing it.:clap

Where were you a little while ago. It was something you put on the altar of truth and worship.

This is the part which I think causes most people problems. It reminds me of this:clap

Doesn't show up.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems show that mathematical theories cannot be totally complete or consistent.:clap[/quote]

False, there's no such thing as a "mathematical theory" Science has theories but not math. All axiomatic systems, (at least complex enough to include the natural numbers) are incomplete or inconsistant, and inconsistant is so much worse, that all mathematicians automatically pick incomplete.

I'm guessing this is where you get your idea of the Great Unknowable, that there are limits to what can be logically and mathematically demonstrated. But to define what lies beyond knowledge to be "God" is just that, a definition. :clap

Correct. Didn't prove anything about burning bushes.

I could just as easily define the Earth to be the center of the universe,:clap

False, experiments would demonstrate that FALSE. You can define the earth to be "x" or "y' or "Fred".

...How you can't claim anything about burning bushes, but can leap without explanation to the conclusion that this Great Unknowable is in fact the Living Father of Jesus. :clap

I didn't claim anything about burning bushes. And it most certainly is the same Living Father of the historical Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas. He nailed it. The Living Father is Unknowable, and he makes the Universe work. He doesn't burn bushes or answer prayers or say things or have opinions etc. You can cuss him, you don't worship him. Let me guess, you never read the Gospel of Thomas, decades older and more genuine than anything in the Christian Bible according to the fancy academic experts with the fancy academic honors? Hint: It's the first such document in human history to have no explicit superstition from the viewpoint of science. It's the original sayings of Jesus before the Christians hung all that superstitious stuff on it.

 

[darkendless]

in a nutshell, given the quantum theory, you can prove with math that science and reason can never explain the universe, much less make it work. Yet it works. If you define that great unknowable that makes the universe work, "god" like you can define it "x" or "y", then you have proven god with formal math.

But you can't make any claims about burning bushes and so on.

At any rate, it's the same as the living father of the historical jesus as primarily found in the gospel of thomas, which never mentions things like burning bushes.

lmfao

 

[Smoke]

False, I can know I don't know French. That doesn't mean I know French.

First, Goedel's theorems have to do with formal mathematical theories. They aren't applicable to any subject you choose.

Second, you say that there is an unknowable something, but you immediately proceed to tell us things about this unknowable something. You say it "makes the universe work." You say it is "the same Living Father as the historical Jesus as primarily found in the Gospel of Thomas." That is, you claim knowledge of the unknowable -- and such knowledge is by definition impossible.

The reason you can know something about French without knowing French is that French is not unknowable. If you can describe something, even partially, that something is not unknowable. That's why the "Living Father" of whom you claim knowledge cannot be the unknowable.

 

[Kurt31416]

First, Goedel's theorems have to do with formal mathematical theories. They aren't applicable to any subject you choose..

Did you read post #1? The subject was chosen, and proved by famous world class scientist/mathematicians. Science can never ever describe the universe or make it work, for all eternity.

Yet it works.

Second, you say that there is an unknowable something, but you immediately proceed to tell us things about this unknowable something..

False. What was proved is the Great Unknowable that makes the Universe work. I haven't proceeded to tell anything else about that unknowable something.

You say it "makes the universe work." You say it is "the same Living Father as the historical Jesus as primarily found in the Gospel of Thomas." That is, you claim knowledge of the unknowable -.

-

False. Jesus doesn't claim anything about the Living Father other than being that Great Unknowable that makes the Universe Work. You obviously never read Thomas.

and such knowledge is by definition impossible..

.

False. It's the God of anyone that believes in a Great Unknowable that makes the Universe work

The reason you can know something about French without knowing French is that French is not unknowable.

.

I also gave the example of Godel's Theorem in case someone wanted to make that false analogy. Feel free to wander into that instead.

If you can describe something, even partially, that something is not unknowable. That's why the "Living Father" of whom you claim knowledge cannot be the unknowable.

False, We know the Great Unknowable makes the Universe work. We proved that with formal math. We know all kinds of things about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, but it's still unknowable.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Kurt,
have you met Vin? I am sure you guys would have a lot to talk about.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...onaut-pictures-iss-really-taken-airplane.html
:areyoucra

 

[Fortunato]

Well, perhaps, but if you look close, science can't really explain anything.

But that's not true. Science explains a lot. It has explanations for how gravity, germs, electricity, chemistry, galaxy formation, geology, and hundreds of other things work. They may not be perfect explanations, but they are better than none at all. The fact that science may never reach a perfect explanation of these systems is not the same as it can't explain anything. It just means it can't explain everything.

GR says things as fundamental as time is relative, and the QT says there's no objective reality to anything, and you can't do one unless you pretend the other doesn't exist.

I'm not sure what you mean with "no objective reality to anything" and "you can't do one unless you pretend the other doesn't exist". Which "ones" are you talking about, and can you give examples of what you're trying to explain?

Math and science don't make any such claims that they are the reason the universe works as it does. They're only attempts at describing it.

Where were you a little while ago. It was something you put on the altar of truth and worship.

What are you talking about? I never said that I worshiped science. And how does your statement apply to what I said?

Doesn't show up.

Sorry, I had tried adding that cartoon to my photo album, but I guess it didn't work out. Here it is:

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems show that mathematical theories cannot be totally complete or consistent.

False, there's no such thing as a "mathematical theory" Science has theories but not math.

Actually mathematics does have theories. In mathematical logic, a theory is a set of sentences expressed in a formal language. Some statements in a theory are included without proof (these are the axioms of the theory), and others (the theorems) are included because they are implied by the axioms. Please read this Wikipedia article on Theory_(mathematical_logic)


You never addressed my rewording of your argument. Are any of these correct?

1. That which we cannot know is by definition God.
2. God is unknowable, therefore anything which is unknowable is by definition God.
3. There are limits to knowledge, therefore my God exists.

Do any of these accurately reflect your argument?

Let me guess, you never read the Gospel of Thomas...

I've read the entire Bible, but none of the non-canonical texts. I guess I'll have to add this to my ever growing reading list.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You should try to find some way to integrate Planck time/length, superstrings, closed time-like curves, and/or dark matter into your humorous diatribe. The more esoteric scientific ideas you can mash together into a pseudo-scientific, pseudo-philosophical soup of complete nonsense, the better chance you'll have at fooling a few morons into thinking you have any idea what you're talking about.

 

[Oberon]

I've read the entire Bible, but none of the non-canonical texts. I guess I'll have to add this to my ever growing reading list.

Don't bother. Thomas doesn't add much historical information. See here. The canical gospels (with the possible exception of John) are still the best sources we have for understanding Jesus.

 

[Kurt31416]

Kurt,
have you met Vin? I am sure you guys would have a lot to talk about.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...onaut-pictures-iss-really-taken-airplane.html
:areyoucra

Nah, I know too many people that work for NASA and who's fingerprints are on the Moon to doubt it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you want to call the Great Unknowable That Makes the Universe work a bologna sandwich, or Fred, that's fine by me. I choose to call it the Living Father. More descriptive, since it gives the Universe life, and we are all part of it, like children.

You seem to know quite a lot about something that's supposedly "unknowable".

Sure we can, what we proved is that it's the Great Unknowable that Makes the Universe Work. Not just that "it's Unknowable". That we know it makes the Universe work, gives us no knowledge of how. By defintion, how is eternally beyond math/science.

If it's unknowable, how do you know it makes the universe work?

 

[Kurt31416]

But that's not true. Science explains a lot. It has explanations for how gravity, germs, electricity, chemistry, galaxy formation, geology, and hundreds of other things work.

All in an approximate, occasionally false way. The Uncertainty Principle alone demonstrates that.

They may not be perfect explanations, but they are better than none at all. The fact that science may never reach a perfect explanation of these systems is not the same as it can't explain anything. It just means it can't explain everything.

It means it explains some things in a rough approximate way, and some things it can never ever explain at all, not because it hasn't got to them yet, it will never be able to get to them, forever and ever.

I'm not sure what you mean with "no objective reality to anything"

The Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum Theory that dominated science for over half a century says a cat can be both dead and alive at the same time if you aren't looking at it. A 5% chance of a dead cat here, and a 7% chance of a live cat there, etc. Yeah, crazy. Drove Einstein and Schrodinger up the wall. The question is how the cat feels about being dead and alive at the same time, and what gives hairless apes this special ability to make things real.

The Everett Many Worlds Interpretation of the Quantum Theory is like the movie Back to the Future. It's replaced Copenhagen as most popular the last couple decades. It resolves the paradox. In some worlds the cat is alive and in some worlds the cat is dead, you have your feet in both worlds and when you look, you put both feet in only live cat or dead cat lines. The cat is always alive or dead, never both. Keep in mind we're discussing the meaning of LIFE from the viewpoint of science, and it's saying you live forever in some world lines.

and "you can't do one unless you pretend the other doesn't exist". Which "ones" are you talking about, and can you give examples of what you're trying to explain?

The two great pillars of modern science are General Relativity and the Quantum Theory. They outrank all other science and have done so for almost a century. To do one, you have to pretend the other doesn't exist. A good example is Stephen Hawking's (the guy I referenced in post 1) big discovery. That Black Holes glow with "Hawking Radiation". Black Holes come from pure GR, but to do it you have to ignore the QT. Turns out the QT says you can never be sure where something is, so some of it gets out. Eventually black holes, if you don't feed them, they glow until they don't have enough mass to be a black hole anymore.

What are you talking about? I never said that I worshiped science. And how does your statement apply to what I said?

I don't think I accused you of it.

Sorry, I had tried adding that cartoon to my photo album, but I guess it didn't work out. Here it is:

Heh heh.

Actually mathematics does have theories. In mathematical logic, a theory is a set of sentences expressed in a formal language. Some statements in a theory are included without proof (these are the axioms of the theory), and others (the theorems) are included because they are implied by the axioms. Please read this Wikipedia article on Theory_(mathematical_logic)

I don't get my understanding of math from Wikipedia. Ain't no theories in axiomatic systems. All math is axiomatic systems.

You never addressed my rewording of your argument. Are any of these correct?

Yeah I did. I'll probably just be repeating myself.

1. That which we cannot know is by definition God.

That which we can never ever know, that makes the Universe Work, is defined as God. Gotta stress it's not a god of the gaps or they'll harp on that, and need to point out making the Universe work, or they'll claim you never said that.

1. God is unknowable, therefore anything which is unknowable is by definition God.

God is the Great Unknowable that makes the Universe work. He makes the knowable and unknowable work. Other than that, he is Unknowable. Is Godel's Theorem God more than a tree in the forest? It's Unknowable.

1. There are limits to knowledge, therefore my God exists.

False.

Do any of these accurately reflect your argument?

Not really.


I've read the entire Bible, but none of the non-canonical texts. I guess I'll have to add this to my ever growing reading list

The fancy professors with the fancy honors say it's decades older and more genuine than anything in the Christian Bible. it's the elephant in the Christian living room everyone is ignoring.

 

[Kurt31416]

You seem to know quite a lot about something that's supposedly "unknowable".

You know you're the first prerson that's mentioned that. Kinda counter-intuitive don't you think?

Because I know I'll never learn French, doesn't mean I know French. Because I know Godel's Theorem's truth of falsity is Unknowable doesn't mean I know what it is.

If it's unknowable, how do you know it makes the universe work?

Quick summary, science and reason can never make the Universe work, yet it works. That Great Unknowble that makes it work is defined as God, like you say t = time. God is Unknowable and makes the Universe work.

 

[Tristesse]

That which we cannot know, is by definition that which is unknown. So, saying that which is unknown by definition is god, is no longer unknown. You've given some sort of answer no matter how vague, and the answer god has got to be the most vague answer ever. You seem to equate unknowable with god, but what your really not grasping is if something is unknowable, you cannot know about it. So, saying it's god is something for which you have no knowledge of. So, by definition the statement that god is unknowable is a contradiction in and of it's self. If something is unknowable you shouldn't know about it. Other wise it's no longer unknowable.

And I want to clear up all this business about theories only being for science. Well, a theory and a fact are not mutually exclusive. Most theories in science explain the observed fact. And a scientific theory is one of the greatest achievements in science. And math does have theories, quantum physics, that you seem to be very fond of, is a theory. I'm not degrading it by calling it a theory, because a theory is actually an enormous achievement.

 

[Kurt31416]

Don't bother. Thomas doesn't add much historical information. See here. The canical gospels (with the possible exception of John) are still the best sources we have for understanding Jesus.

Oh look, it's the bible thumper that gets his idea of Jesus from the preacher and part time cook at Billy Bob's Weekend Chapel and Truck Stop.

NOT the Senior Fullbright Scholars and Guggenheim Fellows. None of them down at Billy-Bob's

A good source for Thomas would be...

The Gospel Of Thomas Homepage

The FAQ would be a good place to start, or better yet, just read it. It only takes about 10 minutes if you don't pause to think, which you probably should/will.

 

[Kurt31416]

And math does have theories, quantum physics, that you seem to be very fond of, is a theory.

The Quantum Theory I'm so proud of is science, not math.