God proof models (1 Viewer)

[Further]

I said ALMOST.

 

[magnifier661]

You argue his point. If the "truth" can't be agreed upon then it can't be used as an axiom. The creationists believe totally that the earth is 6k years old so they would feel like that's a given, usable as an axiom because it's blatently true. But to you, and to me, it sounds totally ridiculous. Hence, not usable as an axiom.

The age of the universe or Earth has no relevance to God being a positive. That axiom is not being used in this model

 

[Further]

So in our argument, singularity is held to the same principle? Maybe the Big Bang? All aren't universally accepted. Are they held from different parameters?

And show me where is must be universally accepted?

First, I said almost.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

are the axioms being used without controversy?

 

[magnifier661]

First, I said almost.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Wait a minute?! The controversy is what?

There are no positives? God is not positive? What?

We are talking "logical reasoning". As in "what if God existed, what would he be like?"

It is pretty universal that all would agree he's positive if existed.

 

[Further]

The age of the universe or Earth has no relevance to God being a positive. That axiom is not being used in this model

Yes, but the axioms that are being used are just as flawed from my perspective. So, denny is using the absurdity of the creationist stance To demonstrate that we see the axioms that are being used by Göbel as equally bonkers.

 

[magnifier661]

Or how about we take the "Biblical God" out of the equation?

Let's insert "creator" instead.

Creation is good, the entire universe is created, so the creator exists.

You guys are muddling this model up, trying to discredit the Bible for some reason

 

[magnifier661]

Yes, but the axioms that are being used are just as flawed from my perspective. So, denny is using the absurdity of the creationist stance To demonstrate that we see the axioms that are being used by Göbel as equally bonkers.

Absurdity?! You generalizing again? Taking a young earth Christian and saying all Creationist believe it as some indicator is absurd!

That's like saying you saw a black man steal, so all black people are thieves! How absurd is that?!?!

 

[Further]

Or how about we take the "Biblical God" out of the equation?

Let's insert "creator" instead.

Creation is good, the entire universe is created, so the creator exists.

You guys are muddling this model up, trying to discredit the Bible for some reason

ill check in later, gotta do some work. But no, it's the axioms, not the bible we are disagreeing with, we are simply bringing up the bible to demonstrate a point.

Ok, it's up to you and denny for a while.

 

[magnifier661]

ill check in later, gotta do some work. But no, it's the axioms, not the bible we are disagreeing with, we are simply bringing up the bible to demonstrate a point.

Ok, it's up to you and denny for a while.

As I posted above. Let's use "creator" instead of Hebrew God. Creation is positive no?

 

[magnifier661]

Denny said "Godel's modal is not math"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel's_incompleteness_theorems

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic.

So we can all see how silly Denny's logic is

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, but the axioms that are being used are just as flawed from my perspective. So, denny is using the absurdity of the creationist stance To demonstrate that we see the axioms that are being used by Göbel as equally bonkers.

Am I that obvious?

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny said "Godel's modal is not math"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel's_incompleteness_theorems



So we can all see how silly Denny's logic is

D'oh?

Those are his theorems of incompleteness. They are not his proof of god, which is something else altogether.

D'oh?

 

[Denny Crane]

Creation is positive no?

No.

You are just demonstrating you don't understand at all what Godel was trying to say or do.

 

[magnifier661]

D'oh?

Those are his theorems of incompleteness. They are not his proof of god, which is something else altogether.

D'oh?

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-928668.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=

Lmao bro, you think you can run the program without math? You are a complete laughing stock when it comes to debating...

 

[magnifier661]

No.

You are just demonstrating you don't understand at all what Godel was trying to say or do.

Creation is not a positive? So I'm not negative for slitting your throat because your life is not positive? I mean what does it matter right?

 

[Denny Crane]

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-928668.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=

Lmao bro, you think you can run the program without math? You are a complete laughing stock when it comes to debating...

You failed to read your link. And it says nothing to make your latest in a long string of errors somehow correct.

 

[Denny Crane]

Creation is not a positive? So I'm not negative for slitting your throat because your life is not positive? I mean what does it matter right?

I mean you are absolutely and 100% clueless about what Godel meant by positive.

 

[magnifier661]

You failed to read your link. And it says nothing to make your latest in a long string of errors somehow correct.

DOH!!!!

Proving God's Existence with a MacBook

That is where Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University and his colleague, Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, come in. Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct -- at least on a mathematical level -- by way of higher modal logic. Their initial submission on the arXiv.org research article server is called "Formalization, Mechanization and Automation of Gödel's Proof of God's Existence."

God this is too easy

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Perhaps it's just me, but looking back at the axioms and theorems in the OP, it appears that it is more a proof of God-like-ness rather than a proof of God. That is to say, the applications of the axioms and theorems to positive qualities point to the existence of a concept of God rather than to God Himself.

 

[Denny Crane]

You still failed to read your own link.

Wasn't there some mention of a caveat in there? If I were you, I'd omit that part too, or it would make you look even more clueless.

 

[Denny Crane]

Perhaps it's just me, but looking back at the axioms and theorems in the OP, it appears that it is more a proof of God-like-ness rather than a proof of God. That is to say, the applications of the axioms and theorems to positive qualities point to the existence of a concept of God rather than to God Himself.

Exactly. That concept being something between Godel's ears, and likely not your concept.

 

[Denny Crane]

Exactly. That concept being something between Godel's ears, and likely not your concept.

The concept of Santa Clause exists, too. And vampires.

 

[magnifier661]

I mean you are absolutely and 100% clueless about what Godel meant by positive.

The positive can mean whatever you want it to be. And so you can input creation as a positive just as easily.

 

[Denny Crane]

There you go. Thus it cannot be a proper axiom.

You finally got something right.

 

[magnifier661]

You still failed to read your own link.

Wasn't there some mention of a caveat in there? If I were you, I'd omit that part too, or it would make you look even more clueless.

Did the math portion of the model work sir?

 

[magnifier661]

There you go. Thus it cannot be a proper axiom.

You finally got something right.

That's absolutely false. As I said earlier, creation good? If you agree that creation is good, then the axiom works.

Wtf bro, are you arguing with yourself?

 

[Denny Crane]

Did the math portion of the model work sir?

The computer program that modeled Godel's modal logic was the math.

Not the argument itself.

There's been a long running discussion about whether a machine could possibly think like a human. This sort of grandstanding is an attempt to show one day a machine might. That, and only that, is the significance of the program.

 

[magnifier661]

Perhaps it's just me, but looking back at the axioms and theorems in the OP, it appears that it is more a proof of God-like-ness rather than a proof of God. That is to say, the applications of the axioms and theorems to positive qualities point to the existence of a concept of God rather than to God Himself.

There are no arguments on that. But what was originally posted are tools to get closer to finding God. As I also explained from the beginning, that belief in God still requires faith (look back for proof with adul). I simply suggested that models are in place to actually take finding God empirically is completely valid

 

[Denny Crane]

That's absolutely false. As I said earlier, creation good? If you agree that creation is good, then the axiom works.

Wtf bro, are you arguing with yourself?

No.

I don't agree that creation had a cause at all, or was from some nebulous "goodness."

Your (Godel's) axiom is a stinking pile.

 

[magnifier661]

The computer program that modeled Godel's modal logic was the math.

Not the argument itself.

There's been a long running discussion about whether a machine could possibly think like a human. This sort of grandstanding is an attempt to show one day a machine might. That, and only that, is the significance of the program.

You said it wasn't math right? So if it isn't math, then it couldn't work as I keep posting.

Just because you believe the model false, doesn't make it false on the math sense. If you go there, then as I already posted, models to suggest singularity are just as false.

Do you want to go there?