Agnosticism is debunked using advanced methods of Science

[questfortruth]

If someone says that they cannot prove or disprove something, they are saying that they have no evidence for it either way.

cannot ever or cannot yet, here is the difference!

 

[questfortruth]

You don't seem to understand what "proof" means. If anybody can show that UFOs are real in the sense that people are really getting abducted or whatever, rather than just the literal sense of unidentified flying objects, then somebody positing aliens is actually saying that there are signs of life in the cosmos, so Fermi doesn't apply.

aliens mean that they live far far away, in the other galaxies.

 

[ratiocinator]

aliens mean that they live far far away, in the other galaxies

In the Fermi sense, it just means from another planet. I guess in another solar system would be a reasonable generalisation but not necessarily in another galaxy.

Anyway, that's irrelevant, Fermi is about lack of evidence for aliens, so if we actually had evidence that they're here abducting people to give them anal probes, interfering with cattle, and drawing pretty shapes in corn fields, that would be evidence.

 

[questfortruth]

In the Fermi sense, it just means from another planet. I guess in another solar system would be a reasonable generalisation but not necessarily in another galaxy.

Anyway, that's irrelevant, Fermi is about lack of evidence for aliens, so if we actually had evidence that they're here abducting people to give them anal probes, interfering with cattle, and drawing pretty shapes in corn fields, that would be evidence.

No, it is proof of devils, not aliens. The aliens must be detected in other solar system.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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

Agnostics are making one claim: God is not decidable. But 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

But if one can neither prove nor disprove God, then God exists.

Based on the above logic then the fact that you can't prove or disprove that god is nothing more than a figment of your imagination means that god MUST be nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

 

[questfortruth]

But if one can neither prove nor disprove God, then God exists.

Based on the above logic then the fact that you can't prove or disprove that god is nothing more than a figment of your imagination means that god MUST be nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

If God does not exist, this could be proven. By constructing God-free model of reality.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If God does not exist, this could be proven. By constructing God-free model of reality.

Good... since that's been done we can conclude that god doesn't exists.

 

[ratiocinator]

If God does not exist, this could be proven.

It can be according to your own OP, that says

1. Axioms are defined as undecidable things.
2. Such things are true.

So all I have to do is adopt "God does not exist" as an axiom and it magically becomes true - QED.

Your whole OP was nonsense anyway as I (#32 and #34) and others have pointed out.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, it is proof of devils, not aliens.

You haven't produced any reason to think so. You haven't even given any reason to think that devils exist.

The aliens must be detected in other solar system.

Says who? Where they're detected certainly isn't part of the Fermi paradox.

 

[questfortruth]

It can be according to your own OP, that says

1. Axioms are defined as undecidable things.
2. Such things are true.

So all I have to do is adopt "God does not exist" as an axiom and it magically becomes true - QED.

Your whole OP was nonsense anyway as I (#32 and #34) and others have pointed out.

The statement "God does not exist" is not complete. The full meaning of the statement is:
"God, who exists, does not exist", because atheism is defined as blaspheme. Therefore, it is enough to consider the statement "God exists" to prove Him.

Good... since that's been done we can conclude that god doesn't exists.

Lie. Google: "missing antimatter paradox".

 

[Revoltingest]

In case of such doubt please use the Occam' razor: no evidence for aliens -- no aliens.

It doesn't really work that way.
But about the existence of aliens.....
If there are billions of galaxies, each of which has
billions of stars, there very well could be aliens
who are undetectable due to distance &/or time.
It makes sense to search for them, but to be
agnostic about their existence.

 

[blü 2]

The fact to accept: if one can neither prove nor disprove God, then God exists.

I say again:

God exists as a set of concepts, and of things imagined, in individual brains.

There is no coherent concept of a real God, such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it was God or not.

(By 'real' I mean not imaginary; existing in the world external to the self, aka nature, aka the realm of the physical sciences.)

Without that coherent concept your statements, whether soundly or faultily reasoned, can refer only to beings that are purely conceptual / imaginary.

In this context, such statements are not statements about reality and are trivial.

 

[gnostic]

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

Agnostics are making one claim: God is not decidable. But 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

Wow!

Why would one - or anyone - try to disprove agnosticism using scientific method?

Agnosticism is a philosophical position in regarding to the questions of “the existence of deity or deities” - an alternative position to theism and atheism - agnosticism IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC POSITION or SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.

The differences between agnosticism and both atheism and theism - is that theism and atheism approach the existence question on matter of “belief” or “lack of belief”, while agnosticism approach it from “knowing”.

That the existence and non-existence of deity is ultimately unknowable.

It a philosophical view, not a scientific view.

Theism, atheism, agnosticism and other -isms, whether they are religious -isms or philosophical -isms - they all have nothing to do with science, especially Natural Science.

You would use Scientific Method on explanatory and predictive models, like a hypothesis or theory, that are testable.

It would be useless and pointless to apply Scientific Method on any religion or on any philosophy.

 

[shunyadragon]

You have not read my viXra paper.

The ViXra article is so circular it bites'em in the butt.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Agnostics are making one claim: God is not decidable. But 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

Godel's theorems have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God.

Simply . . .

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system capable of modelling basic arithmetic. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics.

Math theorems are developed and proven based mathematical logic, and prove nor demonstrate nothing beyond that some of the Theorems may become useful as tools in science and technology.

You will have better luck reading Tea leaves in a Chinese restaurant.

 

[shunyadragon]

They are demons and evil spirits.

Paper cutouts that fooled Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and you. A match and they do not pass the test.

 

[gnostic]

The ViXra article is so circular it bites'em in the butt.

LOL

I don’t see how that is anatomically possible.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

By that reasoning....
If one can neither prove nor disprove reptilian aliens taking over
government, then reptilian aliens taking over government exist.

Yeah, so you say that like it's implausible, but I watched a documentary that suggested that it quite real.

Doctor Who - Wikipedia

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, you got it. But such aliens are devil and his angels: proven in Theology.

Theology?
I mean...'theology' doesn't prove or disprove anything, since it's an umbrella term for a wide range of beliefs, suppositions, etc.
Even assuming a religion or belief structure is correct, out of all the belief structures, it doesn't equate to 'theology' proving anything.

Is there a specific set of beliefs you believe proves this?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They are making one claim: God is not decidable. Here comes the Gödel's result, due which the God exists.​

Putting aside my issues with your conclusion for a moment, which God?