God proof models

[Further]

I would be interested to hear who these people are that disagreed with Gödel. We are speaking of mathematics, assertions disagreed with would be very interesting, deducing assertions from math work is very unusual.

Check google, there are plenty.

 

[andalusian]

Check google, there are plenty.

I am not sure what the reference is to - there should be no disagreeing with Godel's theorem of incompleteness - they were proved mathematically by Godel in 1931 by basically showing a mapping of any problem space to different numerical spaces and proving that there is always a rule that can not be proved by existing axioms. The theorem is proved conclusively mathematically, people that do not agree with it simply do not grasp the math. Godel used a standard method of "proof of impossibility" - the only issue is that it is a really complicated method to get there - but it is proven and have been verified many times over by following the math.

(*) Proof of impossibility requires showing one example that breaks a rule to render prove it impossible to enforce. Godel showed a way to map any closed system to an irrational number space and showed that the order of groups within irrational numbers proves that there is always that instance that breaks the rule. (You will have to excuse me for trying to simplify it - it was more than 20 years since I tried to go through the paper and got to a point where I actually understood the basic mathematical concepts in it).

People can disagree with how Godel later tried to describe his personal belief in god etc... - but the theorem itself is proven mathematically.

 

[magnifier661]

I am not sure what the reference is to - there should be no disagreeing with Godel's theorem of incompleteness - they were proved mathematically by Godel in 1931 by basically showing a mapping of any problem space to different numerical spaces and proving that there is always a rule that can not be proved by existing axioms. The theorem is proved conclusively mathematically, people that do not agree with it simply do not grasp the math. Godel used a standard method of "proof of impossibility" - the only issue is that it is a really complicated method to get there - but it is proven and have been verified many times over by following the math.

(*) Proof of impossibility requires showing one example that breaks a rule to render prove it impossible to enforce. Godel showed a way to map any closed system to an irrational number space and showed that the order of groups within irrational numbers proves that there is always that instance that breaks the rule. (You will have to excuse me for trying to simplify it - it was more than 20 years since I tried to go through the paper and got to a point where I actually understood the basic mathematical concepts in it).

People can disagree with how Godel later tried to describe his personal belief in god etc... - but the theorem itself is proven mathematically.

Well said... And as you pointed out, Godel's theory on God is purely subjective. The math is right

 

[Further]

Yes, that was what I meant, not the actual math.

 

[magnifier661]

Yes, that was what I meant, not the actual math.

But the math could also be used to factor God into the equation. So the concept that there are no scientific models to go by for God's existence is false. Or you can take the concept of God logically.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://io9.com/5526583/if-the-universe-is-expanding-whats-it-expanding-into
http://io9.com/how-to-make-it-to-the-edge-of-the-observable-universe-i-513334876

 

[MarAzul]

Check google, there are plenty.

Ok, I did the Google. I only find Further.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...mages&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl

 

[barfo]

Here is an interesting link on math equations on the divine equation

http://www.mathmonism.com/eulersidentity.html

Wow. Someone took freshman physics and smoked a huge amount of pot.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow. Someone took freshman physics and smoked a huge amount of pot.

barfo

LSD

 

[magnifier661]

Wow. Someone took freshman physics and smoked a huge amount of pot.

barfo

You understand it?

 

[barfo]

LSD

Nah.

Freshman physics + pot: Wow, man, that equation is so cool, it's like all symmetric and shit.
Freshman physics + LSD: That equation is a lizard that is my mother!

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Nah.

Freshman physics + pot: Wow, man, that equation is so cool, it's like all symmetric and shit.
Freshman physics + LSD: That equation is a lizard that is my mother!

barfo

Shrooms.

 

[barfo]

You understand it?

Freshman physics? Yes.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Ok, I did the Google. I only find Further.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...mages&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl

Oh well, disagreeing is one thing, it matters little if you can't not prove the axiom is incorrect. No one has.

"Any verified mathematical proof is “true”, if the axioms themselves are true and the steps follow the rules of logic. Benzmüller and Paleo’s paper certainly supports Gödel’s proof: Based on his axioms and modal logic, it is necessary that God, a being expressing all positive properties, exists.

As noted above, one may still disagree with any axiom. If an axiom falls, then theorems depending on it would fall. Within modal logic, that would terminate the proof of God’s existence."

 

[Denny Crane]

American Mathematical Society book review explaining the abuse of Godel's theorem.

http://www.ams.org/notices/200703/rev-raatikainen.pdf

 

[magnifier661]

Freshman physics? Yes.

barfo

K explain it

 

[barfo]

K explain it

Explain what exactly?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

If an axiom falls, then theorems depending on it would fall. Within modal logic, that would terminate the proof of God’s existence."

You're sometime smarter than you look.

 

[RR7]

Explain what exactly?

barfo

freshman physics. And fast, I got an exam tomorrow.

 

[Denny Crane]

freshman physics. And fast, I got an exam tomorrow.

Peyote.

 

[magnifier661]

Explain what exactly?

barfo

The model that you said was "freshman level". Should be easy for you

 

[magnifier661]

American Mathematical Society book review explaining the abuse of Godel's theorem.

http://www.ams.org/notices/200703/rev-raatikainen.pdf

Abuse? You mean by the creator of the model?

 

[Denny Crane]

Abuse? You mean by the creator of the model?

By people who tout it but don't really understand it.

 

[magnifier661]

By people who tout it but don't really understand it.

Godel designed it and used it to create a God model. Are you saying he doesn't understand the model he created?

 

[magnifier661]

http://www.ericsteinhart.com/articles/divineinfinity.pdf

On this pdf, there is another mathematical model theory of a divine infinite God.

Interesting that none of you tackled this model. Maybe it's because it's not freshman level physics? Lol

 

[barfo]

The model that you said was "freshman level". Should be easy for you

it's not a model. it's dribble.

A. Some bit of science, often misstated
B. It's like really really cool.
Repeat A and B for 100 pages.
Therefore, god exists.
QED

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

You're sometime smarter than you look.

Instead of personal comments how about proving the axiom in error.
http://www.decodedscience.com/modal-logic-proved-godel-right-god-exists/38801/2

The article you posted seem quite irrelevant.

 

[magnifier661]

it's not a model. it's dribble.

A. Some bit of science, often misstated
B. It's like really really cool.
Repeat A and B for 100 pages.
Therefore, god exists.
QED

barfo

Odd, that's not what I got from it. But as I explained earlier... They aren't "100% undeniable proof", just like the physicist that believe in singularity; yet cannot create a model to support the theorem. Just confuse the hell out of them and dribble, like you explain, and say "all hail singularity because it cannot be modeled, therefor it exists!"

 

[magnifier661]

Instead of personal comments how about proving the axiom in error.
http://www.decodedscience.com/modal-logic-proved-godel-right-god-exists/38801/2

The article you posted seem quite irrelevant.

Lol I read it too. It seems Denny searched for keywords and said "okay they said something negative and that's how I can disprove the theorem!"

 

[Denny Crane]

Instead of personal comments how about proving the axiom in error.
http://www.decodedscience.com/modal-logic-proved-godel-right-god-exists/38801/2

The article you posted seem quite irrelevant.

You got it right, though.

The axiom, "god does not exist" is just as plausible as any he uses.

Therefore, the whole thing is a house of cards that tumbles to the ground, proving nothing.

The articles about the edge of the universe suggest you can't get to the actual edge to have any sort of finite "thing" to describe from "outside."

The american mathematical society article suggests that Godel's proof is misapplied to anything but mathematics.

And I've read that Godel did not want to publish his "proof" because he was afraid people would abuse it to infer somehow that it proves "God" exists.

What he proves is that the god between your ears exists, but not any supreme being.