themadhair
Well-Known Member
It's true. Hence why it is usually referred to as a theorem.
-
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
themadhair
Well-Known Member
No. Gödel’s theorem states that within a sufficiently large effectively generated axiom-based system there can exist statements that can be true but not provable within the system. You, due to not having a clue, have confused yourself about the logic and form behind the proof for that theorem.
And in mathematics incomplete has a very specific definition within formal systems that differs from the use of the word in English.
Basically you know nothing about the subject and it shows.
And in mathematics incomplete has a very specific definition within formal systems that differs from the use of the word in English.
Basically you know nothing about the subject and it shows.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Quoting from wikipedia:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man" or "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Did you miss the part where I explained what Gödels theorem was and what it really says? Hence, my comments towards you were no used as a substitute for an argument, they were an observation made in addition to the argument.
Of course it cant be an ad hominem if the comments made are actually true. Taking my last comment I issued the following remarks directed at you:
The first comment is perfectly accurate. You quoted a statement analogous to that used within Gödels proof and then insinuated that this was the statement of Gödels theorem. I explained what Gödels theorem really says and pointed the error from which your statement arose. Based upon this it is quite clear to draw the inference that you dont know this topic, and if fact have an extremely poor understanding of it. Pointing out that inference is not an ad hominem giving the evidence supports your not having a clue and your confusion.themadhair said:
The second comment is also accurate. You have, yet again, misconstrued the mathematical meaning of the term incomplete with its English counterpart. This is not the first time I have pointed this out. If a person is utterly lacking in knowledge of a particular area then it is often the case that extremely elemental misunderstandings occur. Based upon you misunderstanding of what is a relatively basic concept in mathematics, namely the idea of completeness, combined with several other elementary mistakes on the topic by yourself (for example, confusing unprovable with unknowable) is clear and compelling evidence for your utter lack of education and/or research into this topic. Pointing out that you know nothing is clearly mandated by your postings, as is pointing out how that lack of knowledge is extremely noticeable. Again, this is not an ad-hominem since it is clearly a true comment.
Why do people insist on crying foul when they have just embarrassed themselves? You cry ad hominem despite the post you responded to being on target and containing relevant information? Why do you do that? If you had a sensible foundation for you gosa youd have presented it already. Since you dont have that, and are out of your depth on what isnt exactly the most deep complicated mathematics, you resort to crying foul. Good luck with that more than enough information already exists in the thread to show the inanity of what you are presenting.
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
"a" thing <> "some" things.
"some things" does not automatically equate to "the thing that makes the universe work"
It prooves nothing. It is just a decree, a redefinition of an already defined term.
Just as much as i could call that thing or these things "athelete's foot" and thus have suddenly "prooven" something
Please do. I see no way allowing you to "proove" what you said above.
No i said that in order to see if a religion is closer to "the truth" you would have to verify it. You thus would have to verify all religions in order to see if their claims are correct (until you find the first one that is absolutely correct).
For verification you only have the exact means that you yourself have claimed to be incomplete. Thus there is NO way of verifying any religion, no religion can thus legitimately claim truth any more than the other.
Last edited:
Science can never make the Universe Work that's documented in peer-reviewed papers in post 1.
Is there some dispute that the Universe works, that there's something instead of the Void? Seems that's a safe assumption if anything is.
Therefore, something other than math/science makes the Universe work, something eternally unknowable to math science.
Ok, I'll bump it in a minute.
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
Science doesn't make anything work. Science is a method in order to try to understand how everything in the universe works.
Nobody denies that there are things that we humans will not be capable of knowing. Thats obvious if you just remember that we are bound to this continuum.
But that does NOT equate to the idea that THOSE things that we do not know are either:
ONE thing and/or
that this ONE thing/these things are what make the universe work.
Do you understand the problem?
You assign a specific function to things of which you only believe/know it to be unknowable.
If you dont believe me take something as trivial as fish in an aquarium. I am not knowable to them. You arent either. Neither cars, trains, computers, magazines, keys, mobiles, eau de toilette etc.
Yet NONE of those things makes their universe work
Others (like the kid taking care of them) might.
Sure it does. Great silver birds that fly through the skies and magic talking boxes in our living rooms.
The world famous scientist and mathematician in post one say it will never understand how everything in the Universe works.
Nothing to do with humans. Computers or space critters, as long as they use math will have the same problem.
Nothing was proved about humans, and that Great Unknowable that makes the Universe work is unknowable. No claims have been made about the notiion of one entity, like an old man with a gray beard.
All I've assigned is what's been proved. It's the Great Unknowable that makes the Universe work. It's Unknowable and it makes the Universe work. You can call it the Great Assembly or the Easter Rabbit if you like, just don't claim anythng about taking a vote or Easter eggs.
If you dont believe me take something as trivial as fish in an aquarium. I am not knowable to them. You arent either. Neither cars, trains, computers, magazines, keys, mobiles, eau de toilette etc.
Yet NONE of those things makes their universe work
Lots of things don't make the universe work, not just humans doing math.
Well, I suppose it's possible this is an aquarium, with some run of the mill multidimensional space critter, or assembly of them, that has it as a hobby, but I suspect not.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
It is like a candidate for the Turing test that doesn't quite make it. it responds and seems to be conversing, but doesn't appear to have grasped the concepts just yet.
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
Very long winded indeed. The idea that if something is so complex we can't understand it, so God must have did it, is one of the oldest arguments for the existence of a God. Now you throw in "if it's unknowable" then that is somehow proof that God did it. Your entire premise starts with the assumption that something beyond our understanding is making the universe run. I propose, with about as much evidence has you have presented, that the universe has always existed, it had no beginning and has no end, thereby it was never created. The other problem you have with this premise is that you need to at least address the question, "Were did this God come from?" If your answer is, "he has always existed" then your premise is no more solid than mine. There are certainly things "unknowable" but blindly deferring the to a mythical being is illogical.
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
And that is precisely why we have thousands of Gods, with untold clashes down through history as to who has the "right" God. By remaining hidden the imaginary God of yours has caused untold misery and death form those vying for the right to call their God "the only true God" nice job!
Nothing to do with something being too complex for humans. Too complex for math and science, whether hairless apes are involved or not.
False, beyond the understanding of math/logic/science for all eternity, not matter what. Not that it ain't got to it yet, but that it's impossible to get to it.
Correct, the corrent most popular Everett Many Worlds Interpretation of the Quantum Theory, General Relativity in a closed Universe and the current (temporary) darling for uniting them, Membrane Theory with it's repeated Big Bangs, all say the Many Worlds of the Kingdom of the Father have always been here, and always will be.
The disciples said to Jesus: Tell us how our end will be. Jesus said: Since you have discovered the beginning, why do you seek the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who shall stand at the beginning (in the beginning), and he shall know the end, and shall not taste death. Thomas 18
That the Living Father is Unknowable, from formal mathematical proof, resolves all the other common paradoxes, like if God said a stone could never be lifted...
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
Science and math are a product of humans, its how we attempt to understand our universe.
When you say "the Kingdom of the father" you are referring to a being from the supernatural realm, a realm were nothing is real, so to say the "father" has always been here is a statement of belief as there is no evidence to support your "father" thing.
You cannot know something unknowable, you are involved in a paradox. Using the word of Jesus does not help your premise as very little evidence exists to support his existence. Your like a dog chasing his tale trying to prove something unknowable. I suggest you try the opposite approach as Dr. Victor Stenger did in his book GOD THE FAILED HYPOTHESIS (How science shows that God does not exist) really a good read!!
Nothing to do with hairless apes. Computers can do math a lot better than most humans these days. Better than all humans at increading parts of it.
The sun does not circle the earth, and some hairless ape isn't the center of the universe.
Nope, nothing to do with supernatural. Proven with math, given the Quantum Theory. No, it doesn't prove that the Universe has always been here, It proves the Living Father makes it work. Occam's razor is that it's always been doing what it's doing now barring further evicence. That it's always been here comes from modern physics and faith.
False. I don't speak french, and I know it, but that doesn't mean I know French. I know (Godel's Proof) that Godel's Theorem is Unknowable, but that doesn't mean I know if it's true or false.
Is, "This statement is a lie.", true or false?
A lot more evidence than for Socrates. What do you consider evidence for people that lived that far in the past?
Tell that to Godel's best pal, Albert Einstein.
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
Computers were created by hairless apes. there is nothing that is the center of the universe.
The term "living father" means that this thing somehow has life. Now all you have to do is prove that it is alive, and do it with biology as that is how we determine if something is in fact "alive"
Physics and faith have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
You may not speak french but you are aware of the french language, french is not "unknowable"
I'll repeat, it is impossible to know of something "unknown"
I somehow missed your point involving Einstein.
Nothing else in the Universe can make computers but the hairless ape, but nothing is at the center of the Universe.
Can't have it both ways.
Nope, the "Living" refers to the mathematically proven fact that the Father makes the Universe work, gives it life. That's what Jesus and the others at the time meant too.
I just prove otherwise with math, that's not just faith, it's faith that the math is wrong, historically, not a good bet.
That's why I included the math equivalent, for those that want to question the real world teaching analogy.
I repeat the part you deleted with the math example of it.
He repeatedly said God existed, and it's precisely the God that Einstein and the historical Jesus believed in that was proved. Godel had no greater fan than Al Einstein, he waited on Godel like a servant.
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
We don't know that nothing else in the universe can make computers, life may well abound in other galaxies.
No mathematics can prove a god exists, if you offer this as evidence then your math is wrong. I'm quite sure if Jesus did exist his knowledge of math was very limited, foolish premise.
You have proven nothing with math, and certainly not that "the father makes the universe run."
He did nothing of the sort, here is an Einstein quote for you. "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something i me which could be called religion then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein 1954)
Here are some more just so all will know how wrong you are about his beliefs. "I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards the good and punishes the evil."
I am a deeply religious non-believer--this is a somewhat new kind of religion."
"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and i consider ethic and morality to be exclusive human concerns with no supernatural being behind it."
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
I repeat it again... SCIENCE doesn't make anything work.
A plane doesn't fly because science tells it to do so. It flies because natural laws lift it up as soon as its speed reaches a limit were the updrift is higher than the weight.
We had that already. Apart of that it is not important who says something but rather what it is that is said.
You start to waste my time now.
You have neither prooven that there is exactly ONE great unknowable, nor have you prooven that it is exactly THIS unknowable that makes the universe work.
ALL you can say is that there are things we can't ever know.
Thats all.
Its irrelevant what we suspect. If you agree that it is possible then you should already have seen your error because my example was just meant to demonstrate it.