• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Agnosticism is debunked using advanced methods of Science

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Demonstrated in an alternative way, that the Theorems of Gödel are true, and hold not only for some special mathematical problems but in general (for any kind of statement in any kind of system/situation). As applications: Hilbert’s Second Problem Solved. Agnosticism is solved. The burden of Disproof is given to atheists. Andrew Wiles’s proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem (which is a hypothesis) uses unproven hypothesis-es of set theory (not the axioms of set theory), thus, the proof is debunked.

Proof of the Second Incompleteness Theorem

The set of axioms produces statements. Some are decidable, some are undecidable. To prove in full range the consistency of mathematics is to prove the validity of all statements, including undecidable ones. Latter to do is impossible by definition. Thus, it is not possible to prove, that mathematics is consistent.

Another way to prove the Gödel’s Second Theorem:

  1. Axioms are defined as undecidable things.
  2. Such things are true.
  3. Thus, axioms are true, and, thus, the set of axioms are without self-contradiction, i.e. consistent.
Thus, a consistent set of axioms can not be proven.

The axioms are defined not as assumptions, but as undecidable but obvious things. Indeed, some axioms can be logically demonstrated [thus, gaining the status of theorems or facts].

More in the viXra:


Wiles Has not Proven the Fermat’s Last Theorem, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2005.0209
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Demonstrated in an alternative way, that the Theorems of Gödel are true, and hold not only for some special mathematical problems but in general (for any kind of statement in any kind of system/situation). As applications: Hilbert’s Second Problem Solved. Agnosticism is solved. The burden of Disproof is given to atheists. Andrew Wiles’s proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem (which is a hypothesis) uses unproven hypothesis-es of set theory (not the axioms of set theory), thus, the proof is debunked.

Proof of the Second Incompleteness Theorem

The set of axioms produces statements. Some are decidable, some are undecidable. To prove in full range the consistency of mathematics is to prove the validity of all statements, including undecidable ones. Latter to do is impossible by definition. Thus, it is not possible to prove, that mathematics is consistent.

Another way to prove the Gödel’s Second Theorem:

  1. Axioms are defined as undecidable things.
  2. Such things are true.
  3. Thus, axioms are true, and, thus, the set of axioms are without self-contradiction, i.e. consistent.
Thus, a consistent set of axioms can not be proven.

The axioms are defined not as assumptions, but as undecidable but obvious things. Indeed, some axioms can be logically demonstrated [thus, gaining the status of theorems or facts].

Application to Fermat’s Last Theorem

Colin McLarty: „This paper explores the set theoretic assumptions used in the current published proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, how these assumptions figure in the methods Wiles uses, and the currently known prospects for a proof using weaker assumptions.“ What Does it Take to Prove Fermat's Last Theorem? Grothendieck and the Logic of Number Theory | Bulletin of Symbolic Logic | Cambridge Core

Such assumptions are not axioms, because they are not obvious things. Secondly, the Proof of Fermat’s Theorem is outside the axioms of algebra, because it supposed to use axioms of the set theory. Therefore, within the algebra the Fermat’s theorem is still neither proven, nor disproven. It is a strong candidate then for an undecidable statement of algebra [therefore the Hilbert’s Second Problem, which is talking about algebra axioms, is becoming solved through my arguments above]. Conclusion: Fermat’s Hypothesis was proven by another hypothesis-es („assumptions“), thus there is no proof of Fermat’s statement even in the set theory.

Application to Agnosticism

If one can neither prove nor disprove God, then God exists.

Application to Gnostic Atheism

The fact to accept: if one can neither prove nor disprove God, then God exists. Hereby because Gnostic Atheists hope for absence God, then God could be disproven. Because God could be disproven, then it is wrong to assign Burden of Disproof exclusively to theists. In such a case the atheists must accept, that God satisfies Popper’s Falsifiability criterion, thus the God is scientific.

More in the viXra:
Wiles Has not Proven the Fermat’s Last Theorem, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2005.0209
Can you prove or disprove invisible fairies?

Ciao

- viole
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Demonstrated in an alternative way, that the Theorems of Gödel are true, and hold not only for some special mathematical problems but in general (for any kind of statement in any kind of system/situation). As applications: Hilbert’s Second Problem Solved. Agnosticism is solved. The burden of Disproof is given to atheists. Andrew Wiles’s proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem (which is a hypothesis) uses unproven hypothesis-es of set theory (not the axioms of set theory), thus, the proof is debunked.

Proof of the Second Incompleteness Theorem

The set of axioms produces statements. Some are decidable, some are undecidable. To prove in full range the consistency of mathematics is to prove the validity of all statements, including undecidable ones. Latter to do is impossible by definition. Thus, it is not possible to prove, that mathematics is consistent.

Another way to prove the Gödel’s Second Theorem:

  1. Axioms are defined as undecidable things.
  2. Such things are true.
  3. Thus, axioms are true, and, thus, the set of axioms are without self-contradiction, i.e. consistent.
Thus, a consistent set of axioms can not be proven.

The axioms are defined not as assumptions, but as undecidable but obvious things. Indeed, some axioms can be logically demonstrated [thus, gaining the status of theorems or facts].

Application to Fermat’s Last Theorem

Colin McLarty: „This paper explores the set theoretic assumptions used in the current published proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, how these assumptions figure in the methods Wiles uses, and the currently known prospects for a proof using weaker assumptions.“ What Does it Take to Prove Fermat's Last Theorem? Grothendieck and the Logic of Number Theory | Bulletin of Symbolic Logic | Cambridge Core

Such assumptions are not axioms, because they are not obvious things. Secondly, the Proof of Fermat’s Theorem is outside the axioms of algebra, because it supposed to use axioms of the set theory. Therefore, within the algebra the Fermat’s theorem is still neither proven, nor disproven. It is a strong candidate then for an undecidable statement of algebra [therefore the Hilbert’s Second Problem, which is talking about algebra axioms, is becoming solved through my arguments above]. Conclusion: Fermat’s Hypothesis was proven by another hypothesis-es („assumptions“), thus there is no proof of Fermat’s statement even in the set theory.

Application to Agnosticism

If one can neither prove nor disprove God, then God exists.

Application to Gnostic Atheism

The fact to accept: if one can neither prove nor disprove God, then God exists. Hereby because Gnostic Atheists hope for absence God, then God could be disproven. Because God could be disproven, then it is wrong to assign Burden of Disproof exclusively to theists. In such a case the atheists must accept, that God satisfies Popper’s Falsifiability criterion, thus the God is scientific.

More in the viXra:
Wiles Has not Proven the Fermat’s Last Theorem, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2005.0209

So everything that we can think up which we cannot prove or disprove exists?

Isn't it the case that to make a definite claim that God exists or God doesn't exist, means that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, since God is out of the realm of examination? If agnostics are not making claims then they have no burden of proof to bare.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
By that reasoning....
If one can neither prove nor disprove reptilian aliens taking over
government, then reptilian aliens taking over government exist.
trumpmeme.jpg
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
So everything that we can think up which we cannot prove or disprove exists?
Yes, but do you want to disprove the genius of Dr. Gödel?!

Isn't it the case that to make a definite claim that God exists or God doesn't exist, means that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, since God is out of the realm of examination? If agnostics are not making claims then they have no burden of proof to bare.
They are making one claim: God is not decidable. Here comes the Gödel's result, due which the God exists.

This surprises you??? :)

No, this is making me cry out loud. The humankind hates to get Knowledge.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Yes, but do you want to disprove the genius of Dr. Gödel?!
Oh crap! Now I am worried about the Boogieman. :eek:


They are making one claim: God is not decidable. Here comes the Gödel's result, due which the God exists.
That is a good point. What they should say is that there is no evidence for God's existence based off the current information they know of. Making a definite claim about God's existence is wrong.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
How does theology prove such a thing?

Also, I can say that I cannot prove or disprove that aliens are not devils and angels, therefore my point is true.
One can prove, that the aliens are satan's army of sinful creatures. The way of proving: the Fermi Paradox tells us, that there are no traces of life in the cosmos. All activity of UFO is happening at Earth and solar system. It is our tempting devils then.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Luckily, they are not such advanced in disbelief as Gnostic Atheists. So, my paper can be of help either to become theist or downfall into gnostic atheism.

The idea of an atheist with esoteric mystical knowledge is cool concept for a fictional character. I tend not to agree with them though.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
One can prove, that the aliens are satan's army of sinful creatures. The way of proving: the Fermi Paradox tells us, that there are no traces of life in the cosmos. All activity of UFO is happening at Earth and solar system. It is our tempting devils then.

If I understand the Fermi Paradox correctly then that is only one of many possibilities and isn't conclusive. If humans are actually the most advanced species in the universe then other species wouldn't be more technologically more advanced than us. What is also presumed is that a more advanced civilization would care about space travel to traverse it.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Application to Agnosticism

Agnostics are making one claim: God is not decidable.
Nope. Agnostics have made one observation: god is not defined. Therefore it is nonsensical to try to decide.
The claim that Agnostics make is that one should hold judgement for anything that is undecided. (Or, in other words, don't jump to conclusions.)
 
Top