A Mathematical Proof of God

[McBell]

Just knowing that something is not known or knowable doesn't make it some proposed God that operates according to some way or another.
Actually it is the opposite. Knowing that something is not known or knowable makes you conclude that you can't say anything about it except for the fact that you don't know.

unless of course you decide to slap the label 'God' to it...
Of course, since it is unknowable, one cannot prove which "label" would best describe it, thus his safety net of slapping the label God to it.

Problem is that far to many people disagree with the idea that god is completely, 100% unknowable. He seems to have problems fitting that little fact into his "equation".

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

unless of course you decide to slap the label 'God' to it...

Off course you can give anything a name. So when we have something unknown it is perfectly legitimate to give it a name. But when you give it a name that already means something else, then you link two things together that actually do not belong to one another.

And that is exactly what is done by many theists for example when using the first cause argument and it is what was done here.

That i call either "wrong" or dishonest.

 

[Troublemane]

I think the real implication of Goedel's Proof is that logic and reason will never give you all the information you need to solve everything. You have to include the irrational, intuitive and improbable. You have to allow for the unexpected, because you will never have all the answers, this includes limitations on the Divine, like specific religious outlooks. :angel2:

 

[themadhair]

Yeah, perhaps some are true, but all he directly proved is that they are unknowable.

No he didn’t. Reread my post again or, better yet, actually take a course in mathematics on formal systems to at least gain a clue. For the benefit of what appears to be someone very slow on the uptake the key point is this:
[SIZE=+5]Unknowable does not equal unproveable[/SIZE]
Ffs, the fact that you can’t even state Gödel’s theorem accurately should be a red flag.

Steven Hawking in post 1 may be the most famous scientist on earth.

From that lecture: “This is very reminiscent of Gödel’s theorem. This says that any finite system of axioms, is not sufficient to prove every result in mathematics.”
Fancy that. Your own source disagrees with you on what Gödel’s theorem entails. He even actually went through the theorem itself. Did miss/ignore that part?

What about "Godel and the End of Physics" did you find complicated?

None of it. This is a public lecture where the concepts and ideas are being simplified for the layperson.

Normal humans can't follow that kind of math, but it's a world class scientist flat out saying it applies to physics and that it's been proven with math.

And he is probably right since pretty much all of physics boils down to a formal axiomatic-based model at some point. Theories in physics are mathematical models. The problem here is that what Stephan is saying isn’t what you think he is saying. If you can’t even state Gödel’s theorem accurately then how can you even pretend to understand Stephan’s extrapolation of it?

Greg Chaitin in post 1 who invented Algorithmic Information Theory, information theory for digital information probably is the greatest living mathematician, he's sure the greatest living expert on Godel. And he says the same damn thing.

Same problem as above – what he is saying isn’t what you are claiming he is saying. This is probably due to you having no understanding whatsoever of formal mathematics and the precise meaning of the word ‘incomplete’ within that context.

It's damn obvious if you understand it,

The problem is that you don’t understand it.

but what both are talking about, is the educated, informed argument against Godel. What about if you use an infinite number of axioms, what if you take an infinite number of things on pure faith, can you then plug all the gaps?

Neither of the two are even remotely close to discussing that. In fact, considering that the theorem is inherently to do with things known but unproaveable, the term ‘gaps’ is you once again twisting Gödel into something it is not nor never will be. To be pretty blunt, you are making shoite up and massacring the words and works of others in an attempt to justify your crap.

What they are talking about in those two peer reviewed papers, is that even with an infinite number of axioms, even if you take an infinite number of things on pure faith, and are right about all of them, even then, the math is incomplete, and science will never describe the universe, much less make it work.

Stephan’s was a layperson lecture not a peer reviewed paper. Unfortunately it appears he failed to simply his material sufficiently for you to have followed it. He also at no point ever discussed what you say above (probably due to it being false).

Greg also did not discuss anything relating to an infinite number of axioms. The reason he didn’t is probably because your claim that “ if you take an infinite number of things on pure faith, and are right about all of them, even then, the math is incomplete ” is flat out false as follows:
Let X be the set of all true statements, and suppose that we have a formal system Y defined axiomatically by the elements in X. By definition any true statement under system Y is provable and hence complete. Q.E.D.

You also fail to take into account that Gödel’s work only applies to effectively generated systems. That is, systems built upon countable sets of axioms.

As I said before:
[SIZE=+5]Leave Gödel alone and stop massacring his work.[/SIZE]

Unknowable to science as long as it uses math. Not necessarily unknowable to some other system. I have another thread based on the same principle, "Some positions Based on Faith are closer to Truth than Science'.

Unknowable does not equal unprovable. Even within any given formal system where Gödel applies something being unprovable does not make it unknowable. Take a course in mathematics and learn what these terms mean and in what context they are used. Seriously.

Easy to prove I don't know French, that it's unknowable to me. That doesn't mean I know French.

French would be unknowable to you if you were dead, retarded, linguistically deficient, a non-human incapable of learning human communication skills, a human incapable of learning communication skills, etc. The fact that you can learn French, that you have the means at your disposal to carry out the act of learning French, means it is by definition knowable. The fact that you can be assessed to determine whether or not you know French means that is definitionally knowable.

That a person doesn’t even know the difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘knowable’ while attempting to discuss something involving formal logic isn’t just funny – it is tragically funny.

You can prove (Godel's Proof) that some statements (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem) are eternally unknowable. That doesn't mean you know if it's true or false.

You do realise that Gödel’s theorem was entirely concerned about the existence of true statements that are unprovable right? That the possibility of knowing a statement to be true but unprovable was why his theorem made such a ripple when published? You do realise that including the word ‘eternally’ to Gödel’s theorem is a joke when the simple addition of one more axiom renders any chosen statement provable? You do know it is a joke to use the word unknowable when Gödel’s theorem has nothing to do with unknowable statements?

 

[Kurt31416]

You made a mistake in your argument.

It's always framed as being about Rick, never the ideas. Lord, give me the patience.

You originally said:
If that is so, how would you logically derive that the "something" that is beyond the reach of science is at the same time a "great" unknowable that "makes the universe work".

False, I never said that, sounds like somthing you are saying, mixed with something I said. Assuming that's what you mean, and trying to parse it... Math proves how the Universe works is eternally beyond the reach of math/logic/science/etc., yet it works. Where's the problem? That math/science can't ever make the Universe work? The Universe doesn't work?

That thing unknowable to reason that makes the Universe work qualifies for the word "Great" if anything in the Universe does.

Just knowing that something is not known or knowable doesn't make it some proposed God that operates according to some way or another.

You can call it "X" or the Easter Rabbit, if you like. Almost always when you solve any science problem you use math, and the first thing you usually do is define your variables, like

x = distance
t=time
Cat = lifetime of the cat in years
Dog = lifetime of the dog in years.
etc.

Sound familiar?

Actually it is the opposite. Knowing that something is not known or knowable makes

Two very different things. We are talking about the unknowable, not something you haven't figured out yet, something eternally unknowable.

you conclude that you can't say anything about it except for the fact that you don't know.

No, I say math/logic/science can't know it. As I demonstrate in the thread "Proof Some Positions Based on Faith are Closer to Truth than Science" it is possible to approach truth more closely if you abandon math/logic/science.

 

[Kurt31416]

Off course you can give anything a name. So when we have something unknown it is perfectly legitimate to give it a name.

It's called algebra, a well beaten path.

But when you give it a name that already means something else, then you link two things together that actually do not belong to one another.

It's the God of Einstein, Spinoza, Jefferson and the historical Jesus of Thomas. They aren't permitted to use the word either? I who proved it, and didn't just say so intuitively, can't use it? I've repeatedly said nothing was proved about burning bushes.

And that is exactly what is done by many theists for example when using the first cause argument and it is what was done here.

That i call either "wrong" or dishonest.

"Dishonest" Back to talking about Rick to close it out. I don't know about anyone else, but I find arguments based on the ideas far more convincing than any personal failings of me personally.

Since we're talking about me, I think your issue is that it's distressing to you that I did prove it. Not that I personally did anything clever, it's been obvious since Godel's Proof in 1931.

 

[Kurt31416]

I think the real implication of Goedel's Proof is that logic and reason will never give you all the information you need to solve everything. You have to include the irrational, intuitive and improbable. You have to allow for the unexpected, because you will never have all the answers, this includes limitations on the Divine, like specific religious outlooks. :angel2:

It demonstrates that no one speaks for God.

The Living Father is Unknowable.
​

Not claiming there was any creation, that things have always been here, eliminates half the old hack God paradoxes, like "Then, who created God". Being Unknowable eliminates the rest of them, like "if God said a stone could never be lifted..." Why would one assume God says things?​

 

[Kurt31416]

No he didn’t. Reread my post again or, better yet, actually take a course in mathematics on formal systems to at least gain a clue. For the benefit of what appears to be someone very slow on the uptake

No point reading any further. If you had any good ideas, you wouldn't need the ad-hominem. Probably the reason for needing the large font too.

 

[BucephalusBB]

You can call it "X" or the Easter Rabbit, if you like. Almost always when you solve any science problem you use math, and the first thing you usually do is define your variables, like

x = distance
t=time
Cat = lifetime of the cat in years
Dog = lifetime of the dog in years.
etc.

Sound familiar?

Yes, but that isn't math. the calculations are math, renaming variables isn't math.

 

[Kurt31416]

Yes, but that isn't math. the calculations are math, renaming variables isn't math.

Sure it is. It's called algebra. Virtually all math science uses is based on algebra. It's real common in math that you take some complex term and define it as a simpler symbol. For instance, the del operator in vector Calculus, or "sin(x)" are common, but you can at any time take some complex term and replace it with "x" or "God" if you like.

 

[BucephalusBB]

Sure it is. It's called algebra. Virtually all math science uses is based on algebra. It's real common in math that you take some complex term and define it as a simpler symbol. For instance, the del operator in vector Calculus, or "sin(x)" are common, but you can at any time take some complex term and replace it with "x" or "God" if you like.

No, algebra is your work with variables, renaming them is nothing more than language. Says nothing about the algebra you use.

Edit: small example,
X²(X-3)=X³-3X
Now you may use this algebra where you wish, The algebra does not care if you name X to T or "God". Renaming them doesn't change the constant "X". It remains a constant in this example.

 

[Kurt31416]

No, algebra is your work with variables, renaming them is nothing more than language. Says nothing about the algebra you use.

Edit: small example,
X²(X-3)=X³-3X
Now you may use this algebra where you wish, The algebra does not care if you name X to T or "God". Renaming them doesn't change the constant "X". It remains a constant in this example.

As written, it's not a constant. It's a curved line if you plot

f(x) = X³-3X

And I can say,

God ==X³-3X

But I can't say anything about burning bushes and old men with gray beards using them for mobile phones.

I could even use the trick Godel used to get a mathematical statement (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem), that said, "This sentence is a lie." Godel numbering, you replace the symbols used with numbers and then use math on the string of numbers. But far more elegant to define

God ==The Great Unknowable of the Universe that makes it work.

Surely the assumption that the Universe does work that something exists is ok?

 

[themadhair]

No point reading any further. If you had any good ideas, you wouldn't need the ad-hominem. Probably the reason for needing the large font too.

It isn’t an ad-hominem if it is a true observation made independent of the presented argument. The reason for the large font is to highlight the key points that you are missing.

Sure it is. It's called algebra.

Algebra is when you use symbolic nomenclature as a place holder for an unknown. Decreeing an unknown or unknowable to be anything isn’t algebra, it is simply crap artistry.

As written, it's not a constant. It's a curved line if you plot

f(x) = X³-3X

And I can say,

God ==X³-3X

So first you argue that what Bouncing Ball wrote wasn’t a constant, and then you present an example wherein you make a definition predicated upon what Bouncing Ball wrote being a constant?? Shop. Over. All. Are. You. The.

I could even use the trick Godel used to get a mathematical statement (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem), that said, "This sentence is a lie." Godel numbering, you replace the symbols used with numbers and then use math on the string of numbers.

You really haven’t got a clue what Gödel’s theorem is do you? You don’t even grasp its significance or even what it even says. Seriously, you are an absolute ******* joke.

But far more elegant to define

God ==The Great Unknowable of the Universe that makes it work.

And this is the pure unsupported assertion that props up your illogical diatribe. And it has absolutely nothing to do with science, physics, logic or mathematics.

 

[Kurt31416]

1. Mathematics is the language of nature.

I was raised that mathematics is the skeleton of the Universe. But Godel proved that False.

2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
No, some things in this Universe are eternally unknowable to any axiomatic system.

3. If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge.

Patterns emerge in statistically random numbers, from when you roll dice. (Like rolling dice 5 times in a row and getting three each time.) As you remove the patterns, the numbers approach being algorithmically random where there no longer is any patterns. In general, as you roll more and more dice, the statistically random number string approaches algorithmic randomness on average.

 

[themadhair]

I was raised that mathematics is the skeleton of the Universe. But Godel proved that False.

You don’t know what Gödel even proved. Seriously.

No, some things in this Universe are eternally unknowable to any axiomatic system.

[size=+5]Unknowable does not mean unprovable. Unprovable does not mean unknowable.[/size]

As you remove the patterns, the numbers approach being algorithmically random where there no longer is any patterns. In general, as you roll more and more dice, the statistically random number string approaches algorithmic randomness on average.

This is false. Increasing the set sufficiently doesn’t eliminate patterns. In fact quite the opposite. Increasing it to sufficiently large degree, even when generated via random means, guarantees the existence of patterns. This is corollary of combinatorics.

 

[Kurt31416]

Well, it keeps the thread at the top. Keeps it available when someone wants to carry on an intelligent conversation.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Well, it keeps the thread at the top. Keeps it available when someone wants to carry on an intelligent conversation.

Well when somebody like that comes along then i'll be happy to have one.

GhK.

 

[Kurt31416]

We'll both keep an eye peeled.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

That thing unknowable to reason that makes the Universe work qualifies for the word "Great" if anything in the Universe does.

Math doesn't say that there is "a thing" that is unknowable.
We can't even tell the quantity of things we can't know. What you do is to summarize all that is unknowable (without even being able to define what that is in sum) and call it "Great". Great is a value judgment that You personally can of course make but i do not think that just because something is not knowable it has to be "great".

Then you come with the following "argument":

You can call it "X" or the Easter Rabbit, if you like. Almost always when you solve any science problem you use math, and the first thing you usually do is define your variables, like

The argument is senseless.
God is an already used and "somewhat" defined term.
What you do is a dishonest use of words by using an already predefined term for something else and thereby creating an illegitimate link between religion and a set of supposedly unknowable things.
The God of for example the old testament is definetly not the unknowable thing that you try to speak about here.

No, I say math/logic/science can't know it.

What logic, math and science can't "know" can't be known by religion either. All religion must be verified or else no religion has any legitimate claim of truth or in other words, all religions would be equal in the validity of claims. The only way to verify a religion is by the very means you already found to be shortcomming.

 

[Kurt31416]

Math doesn't say that there is "a thing" that is unknowable.

Sure it does, it says the truth of Godel's Theorem is unknowable. If not, which is it, true or false?

We can't even tell the quantity of things we can't know.

Yes, but we can say there are some things we will never know.

What you do is to summarize all that is unknowable (without even being able to define what that is in sum) and call it "Great". Great is a value judgment that You personally can of course make but i do not think that just because something is not knowable it has to be "great".

The thing that makes the Universe work doesn't qualify for the word "Great"? If not, nothing qualifies.

T

hen you come with the following "argument":

The argument is senseless.
God is an already used and "somewhat" defined term.
What you do is a dishonest use of words by using an already predefined term for something else and thereby creating an illegitimate link between religion and a set of supposedly unknowable things.
The God of for example the old testament is definetly not the unknowable thing that you try to speak about here.

It proves the God of Einstein, Spinoza, Jefferson and the historical Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas. Those that want to prove burning bushes used as mobile phones are on their own.

What logic, math and science can't "know" can't be known by religion either.

False, the proof is in the thread "Some things based on faith are closer to truth than science" buried a couple pages back, shall I fetch it for you?

All religion must be verified or else no religion has any legitimate claim of truth or in other words, all religions would be equal in the validity of claims. The only way to verify a religion is by the very means you already found to be shortcomming.

All religions are false or all true? That makes no sense.