A Mathematical Proof of God

[themadhair]

Please stop massacring Gödel. Seriously, please stop.

The basic idea of the theorem is this:
Given an axiom based system conforming to certain conditions there exists statements which are both true and unproveable within that system.

This theorem has absolutely no application outside of the formal systems where it applies. It doesn’t apply to quantum mechanics, it doesn’t apply to science and it doesn’t apply to the big steaming pile of gosa in the OP.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Please stop massacring Gödel. Seriously, please stop.

The basic idea of the theorem is this:
Given an axiom based system conforming to certain conditions there exists statements which are both true and unproveable within that system.

This theorem has absolutely no application outside of the formal systems where it applies. It doesn’t apply to quantum mechanics, it doesn’t apply to science and it doesn’t apply to the big steaming pile of gosa in the OP.

He apparently thinks the universe is a formal logic system. Of course, any "proof" of god has to have at least one error.

 

[themadhair]

He apparently thinks the universe is a formal logic system.

Even if it was there is a world of difference between 'unproveable' and 'unknowable'.

 

[Kurt31416]

This is the point of the complete post. But actualy it states nothing really extraordinary.
By the same statement i could say:
Something like a stone exists and if i call it God then i have proven the existence of God even empirically.

The difference is that the stone isn't the proven Great Unknowable that Makes the Universe Work. A tall order for a stone.

 

[McBell]

The difference is that the stone isn't the proven Great Unknowable that Makes the Universe Work. A tall order for a stone.

ROTFLMFAO.

The "proven" "unknowable"....

OMFG!!!
Please stop...
Oh God...my sides are killing me.

 

[themadhair]

The "proven" "unknowable"....

Just quoting it again because...well....just because somethings just need to be quoted again even if for the wrong reasons.

 

[Kurt31416]

I know I am being a pest but you say there is no such thing as negative mass but going back to my earlier statement - positive and negative are labels we ascribed to 'things'. Energy, another label. Cern aint spitting out anything except what the sensors perceive. We interpert the world around us from what we percieve. Perhaps the assumptions and interpretations from much earlier experiments should be re-evaluated. You suggest that space would go away if there was negative mass, how do you know it doesn't? How would you know? How would you measure it? Is there a mass/dark matter equivalence?

Hi well yeah, your intuition may be right. Who knows, perhaps someone has pursued it. There's a thing called tachyons permitted by Special Relativity. They always travel faster than the speed of light, and their mass is an imaginary number, squared, it is a negative number. But there's a catch 22, they can never mix with things that travel less than the speed of light. A barrier that can never be broken, from the viewpoint of Relativity, like Black Holes, but like Hawking Radiation from the Quantum Theory cheating Relativity, there may be some equivalent thing for Tachyons.

I suspect if so, there's a Catch 22 like for the Tachyons.

 

[Kurt31416]

Please stop massacring Gödel. Seriously, please stop.

The basic idea of the theorem is this:
Given an axiom based system conforming to certain conditions there exists statements which are both true and unproveable within that system.

And things you can prove true that say they are false, making them true and false at the same time, which is what Godel actually did. This forces you to pick from inconsistancy, where things are true and false at the same time, a disaster for math, or admitting your axiomatic system is incomplete, and some things will always remain unknowble to your axiomatic system. Yeah, perhaps some are true, but all he directly proved is that they are unknowable.

This theorem has absolutely no application outside of the formal systems where it applies. It doesn’t apply to quantum mechanics, it doesn’t apply to science and it doesn’t apply to the big steaming pile of gosa in the OP.

Steven Hawking in post 1 may be the most famous scientist on earth. He's not the greatest but he's certainly on that top level. What about "Godel and the End of Physics" did you find complicated? 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.

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.

It's damn obvious if you understand it, that mathematical science is eternally limited, 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? 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.

 

[Kurt31416]

He apparently thinks the universe is a formal logic system. Of course, any "proof" of god has to have at least one error.

Nope, I'm saying the exact opposite, the Universe is eternally unknowable to axiomatic systems and things that use them like science, computers, and DNA.

 

[Kurt31416]

Even if it was there is a world of difference between 'unproveable' and 'unknowable'.

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'.

 

[McBell]

... I have another thread based on the same principle, "Some positions Based on Faith are closer to Truth than Science'.

yep.
And you look like an even bigger fanatic in that thread.

 

[Kurt31416]

ROTFLMFAO.

The "proven" "unknowable"....

OMFG!!!
Please stop...
Oh God...my sides are killing me.

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

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.

I think the most poetic say to say it is,

Math can never describe the Universe, but it can prove it can never describe the Universe.

Sounds like something the historical Jesus would say.

 

[Kurt31416]

Just quoting it again because...well....just because somethings just need to be quoted again even if for the wrong reasons.

Same answer. And it's straightforward.

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

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.

 

[McBell]

here we go again...

 

[Kurt31416]

yep.
And you look like an even bigger fanatic in that thread.

Well, it all gets old, explaining the same things over and over. The historical Jesus is a lot more fun. Lately I've decided the story of the poor persecuted Samaritans is the biggest coverup in the history of western civilization.

 

[Tristesse]

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

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.

I think the most poetic say to say it is,

Math can never describe the Universe, but it can prove it can never describe the Universe.

Sounds like something the historical Jesus would say.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what not being able to never understand the universe means. The fact that we will never fully understand the universe is not proof that something for which we don't understand exists (i.e. god). All that it means is that we will never understand, it means nothing more, there are a vast number of things in the universe for which we won't have an answer, but the only thing that proves is that we will never have an answer. So, your mathematical proof of god fails miserably. You can do the same experiment with pixies, and then say you've mathematically proven the existence of pixies.

 

[Kurt31416]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding

Always the first person, and never a good sign for what is to follow.

of what not being able to never understand the universe means.

Well, I was focusing on the not being able to make the Universe work without the math/science aspect.

The fact that we will never fully understand the universe is not proof that something for which we don't understand exists (i.e. god).

It means something makes the universe work despite the fact that math/science will never be able to. You can define that as "x" or "y' or "The Great Unknowable that Makes the Universe Work" or "Living Father". That's the first thing one learns in algebra, that's what algebra is.

All that it means is that we will never understand, it means nothing more,

No, it's math/logic/science/reason will never understand. Not quite the same thing.

there are a vast number of things in the universe for which we won't have an answer, but the only thing that proves is that we will never have an answer.

Not the God of the gaps, not that there's always some things we haven't gotten to yet, there are somethings that are eternally unknowable.

So, your mathematical proof of god fails miserably. You can do the same experiment with pixies, and then say you've mathematically proven the existence of pixies.

No one proved pixies make the Universe work. If you want to call that Great Unknowable "pixies", that's fine, you just can't claim you prove anything about pixie dust.

What is proved is the God of Einstein, Jefferson, Spinoza and the Historical Jesus as found in the Gospel of Thomas. No one claimed any proof of burning bushes.

 

[McBell]

...you just can't claim you prove anything about pixie dust....

You seem stuck on this idea that people cannot make claims.

Funny things is you yourself are making all manner of claims....

For example, not only do I claim Pixie dust is real, I will go even further and say you have been breathing it much to deeply.

 

[Kurt31416]

You seem stuck on this idea that people cannot make claims.

Funny things is you yourself are making all manner of claims....

If they prove something unknowable makes the Universe work, they can call it Fred.

For example, not only do I claim Pixie dust is real, I will go even further and say you have been breathing it much to deeply.

You might be right.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

The difference is that the stone isn't the proven Great Unknowable that Makes the Universe Work. A tall order for a stone.

You made a mistake in your argument.
You originally said:

Something exists that is eternally beyond the reach of science, and
if, like Jesus, you call it God, then you have proven the existance
of God with the most formal, picky mathematics in existance.

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". ?

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.