sort by best latest
Just because you can list a set of assumptions in a mathematical proof, does not mean the premise of those assumptions are true. Just because we can conceive the concept of God, does not make God real. You took their findings out of context.
It's the same as any scientific theorem. I don't see atheists complaining about other theorems in the same blind prejudiced way.
Quite simply, any mathematical proof, keep in mind, it is an excellent term for this, that is, proof; means it is significantly more probable than not.
God exists outside of this space and time. He is the explanation. We can't see him or perceive him in any way other that by knowing that the proof is in the pudding. The fact that I am conscious is enough proof for me. I think thetefore I am.
Indeed, Nathan... Above, beyond and throughout our dimension...
The computer scientists did not prove the possibility of God by proving the theorem. They kept the God part in the headline to gain attention. If you wish to understand what they really did, watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9vQV7hE1Uk
but we don't see atheists on vendettas over any other theorem. That's very damaging to their criticism of Godel.
If you're going to use information to make a case, at least use it correctly :)
I have. There are no other theorems subject to the same vendetta on the entire net. Ergo my point is that this severly weakens arguments agsinst Godel
The construction of his proof was sound. The premise for the "givens" were not. By the same logic, Gandalf the Grey, Voldemort, Yoda, Spielberg's E.T., The Babadook, Puff the Magic Dragon, etc etc etc could possibly exist as well :)
Hello Warren Samu, In your previous comment you have mentioned fictional characters that represent extra terrestrial Intelligence in a fantasy environment and a fantastical scenario. But can you prove that extraterrestrial intelligence cannot exist?
Using modal logic, someone probably could create assumptions exclusive enough that extraterrestrial intelligence cannot exist. It just depends on how one defines all the parts. That's the problem with Godel's proof. He created subjective conditions.
I must point out you are evading my point: why is no other theorem subjected to the same vendetta?
At Warren Samu, that video link was narrated by an Atheist. She has a hidden agenda; this is not valid...
I can't speak to someone else's vendetta. I am pointing out that this development in the field of computer science is being taken out of context. If you use it this way, you risk discrediting yourself to anyone who understands Godel's proof.
same same: do you spend this much time denigrating any other theorem? No. Hence it's your atheist vendetta
That's the problem. I am not attacking the theorem, just stating the fact that it means little in the real world. It is based on subjective definitions and not analytical http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-argu...
of course you are attacking the theorem. The dictionary definition of Gandalf is a fictional character but the definition of God is "perfect immutable being". By not using basic definitions you have tried to obfuscate
Obviously, I am wasting my efforts. The theorem is sound, the "givens" are not. It is not based on science, but simply a mathematical puzzle and an exercise in Philosophy. Use it as you wish :)
At Mr. Warren Samu,
Think what you must...
no one is even trying to "use it as you wish ". It's a theorem of the same calibre as other theorems; you seem to deny it without logic and that's been the only topic of conversation now for quite a while here. er..:)?
My apologies I'm not having luck editing tonight
You are right there. But I really believe that through systematic reasoning we can.
Good luck! I don't believe you can find God through rationality. Much of religion contradicts itself and so does the concept of God.
If I ask a question, 'If there is no higher power, why have we never been able to 'manufacture' even a single living cell in a lab and why do we always need to borrow cells from a living organism for experimentation?' what would the answer be?
We're not there yet. Be patient.
That's what skeptics said when we planned to go to the moon!