God proof models

[barfo]

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

Indeed, it's not. It is of course crap, but it was at least written by someone other than a stoned teenager.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

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!"

Someone ought to challenge those math guys at the american math society to a debate at debate.org. If you use your material from whatgodwantsgodgets.com, you'll surely win!

 

[magnifier661]

Indeed, it's not. It is of course crap, but it was at least written by someone other than a stoned teenager.

barfo

It amazes me how the atheist will be so quick to call something like this crap, without using their brain. You skimmed trough it like some arrogant prick, and because it has God in it, instantly said "this is some bullshit!"

Well I have news for you and your wannabe physics banter. I presented this to a physicist, that is an atheist to boot, and he said the effort is good and the models are "in the right direction".

See the difference with a "person in the know", with formal training in the field would respect all models. That's how you can filter the "wannabes from the know"

 

[magnifier661]

Someone ought to challenge those math guys at the american math society to a debate at debate.org. If you use your material from whatgodwantsgodgets.com, you'll surely win!

Those players in the math society argue the point, but will not refute it. They aren't defendants from Mars like you are

 

[Denny Crane]

Those players in the math society argue the point, but will not refute it. They aren't defendants from Mars like you are

I'd be impressed if you could explain the proof, step by step, in your own words.

You'll try using Google for that, so don't bother.

 

[magnifier661]

I'd be impressed if you could explain the proof, step by step, in your own words.

You'll try using Google for that, so don't bother.

Actually, as I said to barfo, i presented this to a physicist. I wanted to make sure these models had teeth before I posted them. He said "they are in the right direction". And unlike barfo, i explained clearly that this is by no means, the right answer, but a scientific model that could be expanded upon. Just like singularity theorem.

 

[Denny Crane]

You'll surely win a Nobel prize. Or a whatgodwantsgodgets prize.

Or not.

 

[barfo]

It amazes me how the atheist will be so quick to call something like this crap, without using their brain. You skimmed trough it like some arrogant prick, and because it has God in it, instantly said "this is some bullshit!"

I skimmed through it like a guy who doesn't really give a crap. Here's a much more efficient mathematical model for you to use:

Assume God Exists.

It has the result you want, and more intellectual honesty than any of your other 'models'.

Well I have news for you and your wannabe physics banter. I presented this to a physicist, that is an atheist to boot, and he said the effort is good and the models are "in the right direction".

How exciting for you

See the difference with a "person in the know", with formal training in the field would respect all models. That's how you can filter the "wannabes from the know"

I see. I'll endeavor to become "a know".

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

You'll surely win a Nobel prize. Or a whatgodwantsgodgets prize.

Or not.

Godell was one of the most respected mathematicians of his time. Your vision is thin, clouded with Martian DNA!

 

[magnifier661]

I skimmed through it like a guy who doesn't really give a crap. Here's a much more efficient mathematical model for you to use:

Assume God Exists.

It has the result you want, and more intellectual honesty than any of your other 'models'.



How exciting for you



I see. I'll endeavor to become "a know".

barfo

It was very exciting! It's nice that you admit that your "aren't in the know". Now we can discuss like peers.

 

[Denny Crane]

Godell was one of the most respected mathematicians of his time. Your vision is thin, clouded with Martian DNA!

Steven Hawking is an atheist. Yet you somehow found a quote that makes him appear to be a kool aid sipper.

Things aren't what they seem, eh?

 

[magnifier661]

Steven Hawking is an atheist. Yet you somehow found a quote that makes him appear to be a kool aid sipper.

Things aren't what they seem, eh?

Hawking is an agnostic.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hawking is an agnostic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ng-Heaven-fairy-story-people-afraid-dark.html

Heaven is a ‘fairy story for people afraid of the dark’, Professor Stephen Hawking suggestd yesterday.

As well as saying there is no heaven or afterlife, the renowned scientist said that our brains switch off like ‘broken down computers’ when we die.

His comments upset some religious groups, already angry at his statement last year that the universe was not created by God.

-- by golly you'll claim you're right!

 

[magnifier661]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ng-Heaven-fairy-story-people-afraid-dark.html

Heaven is a ‘fairy story for people afraid of the dark’, Professor Stephen Hawking suggestd yesterday.

As well as saying there is no heaven or afterlife, the renowned scientist said that our brains switch off like ‘broken down computers’ when we die.

His comments upset some religious groups, already angry at his statement last year that the universe was not created by God.

-- by golly you'll claim you're right!

We've had this discussion earlier this year and you even said that you are agnostic. We described the concept. So you turning back to the atheist side?

Oh I forgot, you change your opinion like a lizard sheds it's skin

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm agnostic in the sense that if I saw an actual unicorn, I'd start believing they exist. My expectations are ZERO they do. I'm quite sure they do not exist.

Heaven is the fairy tale Hawking says it is. There is ZERO evidence God created the universe. ZERO.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm agnostic in the sense that if I saw an actual unicorn, I'd start believing they exist. My expectations are ZERO they do. I'm quite sure they do not exist.

Heaven is the fairy tale Hawking says it is.

Heaven can be a fairytale as you suggest, but the concept of a designer is not that improbable as you suggest.

As well, you also mentioning "there is no empirical evidence there is a god". Well I blew that out of the water.

Enjoy your evening

 

[MarAzul]

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.

The article discusses Incompleteness, not this axiom.

The statement about Gödel being afraid is ridiculous. The man would not be afraid of anyone trying to prove god exists! He, knew it was a fact, no fear required. You have the fear, not the man that created the axiom.

 

[Denny Crane]

The article discusses Incompleteness, not this axiom.

The statement about Gödel being afraid is ridiculous. The man would not be afraid of anyone trying to prove god exists! He, knew it was a fact, no fear required. You have the fear, not the man that created the axiom.

You got it right. The fallacy is in the axioms. They're supposed to be undoubtable, but they are doubtable. I showed you that "God does not exist" is just as good a premise as "he does" right off the bat. Barfo figured it out without hardly trying.

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Gödel_s_ontological_proof.html

The first version of the ontological proof in Gödel's papers is dated "around 1941". Gödel is not known to have told anyone about his work on the proof until 1970, when he thought he was dying. In February, he allowed Dana Scott to copy out a version of the proof, which circulated privately. In August 1970, Gödel told Oskar Morgenstern that he was "satisfied" with the proof, but Morgenstern recorded in his diary entry for 29 August 1970, that Gödel would not publish because he was afraid that others might think "that he actually believes in God, whereas he is only engaged in a logical investigation (that is, in showing that such a proof with classical assumptions (completeness, etc.) correspondingly axiomatized, is possible)."[1]

Do the math for me... 1970 - 1941 is how many years did he sit on this masterpiece?

 

[MarAzul]

You got it right. The fallacy is in the axioms. They're supposed to be undoubtable, but they are doubtable. I showed you that "God does not exist" is just as good a premise as "he does" right off the bat. Barfo figured it out without hardly trying.

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Gödel_s_ontological_proof.html

The first version of the ontological proof in Gödel's papers is dated "around 1941". Gödel is not known to have told anyone about his work on the proof until 1970, when he thought he was dying. In February, he allowed Dana Scott to copy out a version of the proof, which circulated privately. In August 1970, Gödel told Oskar Morgenstern that he was "satisfied" with the proof, but Morgenstern recorded in his diary entry for 29 August 1970, that Gödel would not publish because he was afraid that others might think "that he actually believes in God, whereas he is only engaged in a logical investigation (that is, in showing that such a proof with classical assumptions (completeness, etc.) correspondingly axiomatized, is possible)."[1]

Do the math for me... 1970 - 1941 is how many years did he sit on this masterpiece?

Sorry, I know this statement to be bullshit.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sorry, I know this statement to be bullshit.

It is sourced, you're "bullshit" is not.

 

[MarAzul]

It is sourced, you're "bullshit" is not.

It is hearsay and I know it is in error.

 

[Denny Crane]

It is hearsay and I know it is in error.

It is not hearsay. His notes are dated, he gave the proof to someone else to publish 29 years later. What he said is documented in a diary at the time. The proof was given to TWO different people.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Reading those math equations might make HCP stroke out.

We need a warning in the thread title.

 

[MarAzul]

It is not hearsay. His notes are dated, he gave the proof to someone else to publish 29 years later. What he said is documented in a diary at the time. The proof was given to TWO different people.

Here is some more hearsay for you.

"Morgenstern's diary is an important and usually reliable source for Gödel's later years, but the implication of the August 1970 diary entry—that Gödel did not believe in God—is not consistent with the other evidence. In letters to his mother, who was not a churchgoer and had raised Kurt and his brother as freethinkers,[3] Gödel argued at length for a belief in an afterlife.[4] He did the same in an interview with a skeptical Hao Wang, who said: "I expressed my doubts as G spoke [...] Gödel smiled as he replied to my questions, obviously aware that his answers were not convincing me."[5] Wang reports that Gödel's wife, Adele, two days after Gödel's death, told Wang that "Gödel, although he did not go to church, was religious and read the Bible in bed every Sunday morning."[6] In an unmailed answer to a questionnaire, Gödel described his religion as "baptized Lutheran (but not member of any religious congregation)."


Of course when I tell you he knew God was here, that is first hand hearsay.

 

[Denny Crane]

Here is some more hearsay for you.

"Morgenstern's diary is an important and usually reliable source for Gödel's later years, but the implication of the August 1970 diary entry—that Gödel did not believe in God—is not consistent with the other evidence. In letters to his mother, who was not a churchgoer and had raised Kurt and his brother as freethinkers,[3] Gödel argued at length for a belief in an afterlife.[4] He did the same in an interview with a skeptical Hao Wang, who said: "I expressed my doubts as G spoke [...] Gödel smiled as he replied to my questions, obviously aware that his answers were not convincing me."[5] Wang reports that Gödel's wife, Adele, two days after Gödel's death, told Wang that "Gödel, although he did not go to church, was religious and read the Bible in bed every Sunday morning."[6] In an unmailed answer to a questionnaire, Gödel described his religion as "baptized Lutheran (but not member of any religious congregation)."


Of course when I tell you he knew God was here, that is first hand hearsay.

He wrote it at the time he got the proof to publish, and the proof was kept private for ~30 years for the stated reason.

 

[magnifier661]

It is not hearsay. His notes are dated, he gave the proof to someone else to publish 29 years later. What he said is documented in a diary at the time. The proof was given to TWO different people.

So he quotes he doesn't want people to believe he believes in God; yet he makes a model to give a mathematical equation for God; which he himself explains and advertises.

Maybe your short sightedness once again fails you. If you could think outside the box; it's probably his fear that his peers won't take it seriously.

Because you have one mention in his diary, yet he was public in saying it was an equation for God probability.

You are discredited once again... Nice reach btw... You must have long arms

 

[Denny Crane]

So he quotes he doesn't want people to believe he believes in God; yet he makes a model to give a mathematical equation for God; which he himself explains and advertises.

Maybe your short sightedness once again fails you. If you could think outside the box; it's probably his fear that his peers won't take it seriously.

Because you have one mention in his diary, yet he was public in saying it was an equation for God probability.

You are discredited once again... Nice reach btw... You must have long arms

It's not a mathematical model.

What bullshit are you going to claim is true next? Hawking is agnostic failed already.

 

[magnifier661]

It's not a mathematical model.

What bullshit are you going to claim is true next? Hawking is agnostic failed already.

It started as a theorem but has yet to be unproven.

Show me where it is proven wrong?!?!

 

[Denny Crane]

It started as a theorem but has yet to be unproven.

Show me where it is proven wrong?!?!

It's proven wrong all over the place. You won't admit it if you see it.

I've already debunked it a few times in this thread. So did barfo, without really trying. It's that obviously wrong.

God doesn't exist. Therefore, the axioms he proposes are not undoubtable facts, or intuitive ones.

His argument is not a mathematical model, either.

 

[Denny Crane]

I skimmed through it like a guy who doesn't really give a crap. Here's a much more efficient mathematical model for you to use:

Assume God Exists.

It has the result you want, and more intellectual honesty than any of your other 'models'.

Even barfo gets it.

The "theory" starts with "assume god exists."

How about we assume he doesn't. Now prove he exists.

I mean, you're going after the Nobel Prize here, and you have a physicist who says you're on the right track. Or some other nonsense.