Math Disaproving God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Math Disaproving God
(25-02-2013 01:29 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 01:13 PM)Vera Wrote:  And then, there's Gödel's proof, of course. Which doesn't mean anything to me, but I'm this stupid.
Same spelling (I want an umlaut key), different person. Your Godel is assuming, first, that a maximal element for the possible can be formulated (rather than several non-comparable elements), and second and more egregiously, that imagining something is true will make it true.

My Godel was an early 20th century mathematical logician who demonstrated the logical inconsistency of complete knowledge. No system of facts can ever be complete; something will always be missing. He did this by showing that a system of facts cannot prove the claim that something cannot be proven using only the system of facts, and also demonstrating that this claim was true.

Applying this to God's omniscience, consider the following assertion: God does not know that this claim is true. (With a traditional epistemological definition of knowledge as true belief.) If God DID believe the claim to be true, and it was true, then the claim would also somehow be false, and thus it is impossible for God to believe it is true. Therefore, God doesn't know it's true. And that makes it true. You can know it, I can know it, everyone in the world can know it. But God can't. Thus, God is not omniscient, because there is a fact that God doesn't know.
Same Gödel, Kurt the mathematician.

And he was not talking about knowledge, but of mathematical or logical systems equivalent to arithmetic.

His proof is that such a system cannot be complete without being inconsistent. That is, of all truths can be proved (completeness) there will be logical contradictions.

Reducing the system to rid it of contradictions makes it incomplete. That is, there will be truths of the system that cannot be proved.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Math Disaproving God
(25-02-2013 01:29 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Same spelling (I want an umlaut key), different person. Your Godel is assuming, first, that a maximal element for the possible can be formulated (rather than several non-comparable elements), and second and more egregiously, that imagining something is true will make it true.

My Godel was an early 20th century mathematical logician who demonstrated the logical inconsistency of complete knowledge. No system of facts can ever be complete; something will always be missing. He did this by showing that a system of facts cannot prove the claim that something cannot be proven using only the system of facts, and also demonstrating that this claim was true.

Applying this to God's omniscience, consider the following assertion: God does not know that this claim is true. (With a traditional epistemological definition of knowledge as true belief.) If God DID believe the claim to be true, and it was true, then the claim would also somehow be false, and thus it is impossible for God to believe it is true. Therefore, God doesn't know it's true. And that makes it true. You can know it, I can know it, everyone in the world can know it. But God can't. Thus, God is not omniscient, because there is a fact that God doesn't know.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite positive it is the same person, Kurt Gödel. Both theorems are his.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 03:30 PM
RE: Math Disaproving God
(25-02-2013 01:35 PM)Vera Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 01:29 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Same spelling (I want an umlaut key), different person. Your Godel is assuming, first, that a maximal element for the possible can be formulated (rather than several non-comparable elements), and second and more egregiously, that imagining something is true will make it true.

My Godel was an early 20th century mathematical logician who demonstrated the logical inconsistency of complete knowledge. No system of facts can ever be complete; something will always be missing. He did this by showing that a system of facts cannot prove the claim that something cannot be proven using only the system of facts, and also demonstrating that this claim was true.

Applying this to God's omniscience, consider the following assertion: God does not know that this claim is true. (With a traditional epistemological definition of knowledge as true belief.) If God DID believe the claim to be true, and it was true, then the claim would also somehow be false, and thus it is impossible for God to believe it is true. Therefore, God doesn't know it's true. And that makes it true. You can know it, I can know it, everyone in the world can know it. But God can't. Thus, God is not omniscient, because there is a fact that God doesn't know.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite positive it is the same person, Kurt Gödel. Both theorems are his.
Yeah, my bad. Skimmed your linked article, saw dates in the 11th century, and thought, not the same person.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 03:50 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2013 03:55 PM by DeathsNotoriousAngel.)
RE: Math Disaproving God
(07-06-2010 02:06 PM)omega21 Wrote:  At work earlier today a coworker said that there is a math equation that proves that God doesen't exist. Do you all know anything about this?
I found what you're looking for...

Original Video - More videos at TinyPic

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 11:00 PM
RE: Math Disaproving God
The answer is 42.

There is no "I" in "team" but there is a broken and mixed up "me."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 12:09 AM
RE: Math Disaproving God
Before anyone can disprove God, we must first define it, and that we have not done. Also, TheMrBillShow (which if {presumable he} will henceforth be referred to as Bill by me, if he sticks around) has a perfectly acceptable alternative answer.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: