Agnosticism is debunked using advanced methods of Science

[ratiocinator]

The statement "God does not exist" is not complete. The full meaning of the statement is:
"God, who exists, does not exist"

Nonsense. Every well formed sentence in a formal system (remember you started with Gödel) has a negation. In practice, if you define "God" in some way that allows you to produce the "God exists" sentence, then NOT "God exists" must also be valid.

Therefore, it is enough to consider the statement "God exists" to prove Him.

False.

Google: "missing antimatter paradox".

Welcome to the incredible shrinking god of the gaps. Sorry but unknowns in science don't mean goddidit.

 

[blü 2]

Creatures have names and false names (nicknames). The Being, whose true name is God, He is True God. That is the unique Being, other "gods" are idols.

You appear to have misunderstood what I said, which was:

"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.".

If you can't provide a definition of a real god, such that we could determine whether any real candidate were God or not ─ and so far no one has done so that I'm aware of ─ then the expression "real god" does not denote any real thing, hence is meaningless.

So before we get involved in mathematical arguments about real things, you first have to show that something real is involved at all ─ as distinct from something merely conceptual / imaginary.

I invite you to do so by providing that definition.

And if you can't, then I point out that all you can be talking about is something without a strict definition, something imaginary rather than real, and therefore incoherent for purposes of discussion.

 

[questfortruth]

You appear to have misunderstood what I said, which was:

"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."

1. Beings have names and nicknames. A nickname is a false name.
2. God is defined as Being.
3. Thus, He has a Name.His name is God.

How it is good to know God's true name? It is the only possibility to speak to Him: "Dear God, if you hear me, please forgive my wrongdoings." I am not converting you.

I'm confused. Who is 'God' in Norse Mythology?

I am talking only about theistic religions. Does the consensus put Norse gods into such a category?

Nonsense. Every well formed sentence in a formal system (remember you started with Gödel) has a negation. In practice, if you define "God" in some way that allows you to produce the "God exists" sentence, then NOT "God exists" must also be valid.

The atheists say, that they make no claims, therefore the „God does not exist“ has no meaning. The original statement is "God exists", without it there were be no opposite statement. Thus, it is enough to prove the original statement.

 

[blü 2]

1. Beings have names and nicknames. A nickname is a false name.
2. God is defined as Being.
3. Thus, He has a Name.His name is God.

How it is good to know God's true name? It is the only possibility to speak to Him: "Dear God, if you hear me, please forgive my wrongdoings." I am not converting you.

It's not a question of knowing what God might call [him]self.

It's a question of knowing what real thing one intends to denote, when one says "God".

For example, if I say mandrill, or violet, or chickadee, we'll both know what real thing is being referred to, such that if we find a suspect, we can determine whether it's a mandrill or a violet or a chickadee, or not.

But the idea of a real god is incoherent, so there's no definition of a real God such that if we find a real candidate we can tell whether it's God or not.

Thus, though I can tell whether this keyboard I'm typing on is a mandrill, violet or chickadee or not, though I can even tell whether it's a unicorn or not, I can't tell whether it's God or not.

Because there's no concept of a real God ─ a fact which compels the conclusion that concepts of God are only of an imaginary being ─ or more precisely, an element of the set of imaginary beings "Gods".

So save the maths and the logic until we're talking about something real ─ which presently we're not.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I meant try to take mine, and see how happy you feel after

No no no, I do not want to be further cause of other's misery if I can help it.

 

[ratiocinator]

The atheists say, that they make no claims, therefore the „God does not exist“ has no meaning.

When you use the word "therefore" it's customary to precede it with some sort of justification for the statement following it. These two statements are totally unconnected.

The original statement is "God exists", without it there were be no opposite statement.

Which changes things not one jot.

Thus, it is enough to prove the original statement.

Nonsense.

 

[questfortruth]

It's not a question of knowing what God might call [him]self.

1. There is only one person Dmitri Martila. It is a unique name. It is the definition of me.
2. God is the name of God. It is the perfect definition. One can google about who is God. But there is a problem: many imposters have stollen the name of God. They are idols. Please separate idols from God.

 

[Spirit of Light]

1. There is only one person Dmitri Martila. It is a unique name. It is the definition of me.
2. God is the name of God. It is the perfect definition. One can google about who is God. But there is a problem: many imposters have stollen the name of God. They are idols. Please separate idols from God.

Is God a person?

 

[questfortruth]

Is God a person?

only a person has name.

 

[Sunstone]

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

My Forum! My Forum! My Beautiful Forum! What has been done to you!

 

[questfortruth]

My Forum! My Forum! My Beautiful Forum! What has been done to you!

I am digging deeper than usual user.

 

[questfortruth]

A set of axioms by itself doesn't produce statements (at least not in a way that is relevant to Gödel's theorems), you need a full formal system to do that, with axioms, an alphabet, a grammar, and rules of inference. What is decidable within such a system depends entirely on the system itself. A statement being undecidable is not a property of the statement, it depends entirely on the formal system in which it is expressed.

Hence you have gone no way at all towards proving Gödel's theorem. It was not known, before Gödel's proof that it was impossible to capture all of number theory within a formal system in which every statement was either true or false (completeness). The necessary of undecidable statements in a consistent, recursively axiomatizable formal system, that is complex enough to encompass number theory, was a consequence of his proof.

You also seem to have confused consistency with completeness.

By the way you can always construct a formal system in which any statement you want is true and if you have an inconsistent formal system, then every statement can be proved within it.

It is so within the mathematics terms and philosophy of the Mathematical Community. But within my definitions, derivation, and conclusions, it goes consitently beyond mathematics.

This doesn't even make sense. Axioms aren't defined as "undecidable things" and undecidable things are not always true.

We need to define what is Truth. A thing is called True if it will never be found false.
By that definition of Truth the undecidable things are always true.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It is so within the mathematics terms and philosophy of the Mathematical Community. But within my definitions, derivation, and conclusions, it goes consitently beyond mathematics.


We need to define what is Truth. A thing is called True if it will never be found false.
By that definition of Truth the undecidable things are always true.

What make you think/believe mathematic holds the truth? Does it explain the unseen, example spiritual realm?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Logic, is taking a serious hit today.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

"prove". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you seem to think it means.

Also, ever heared of the argument from ignorance?

 

[blü 2]

1. There is only one person Dmitri Martila. It is a unique name. It is the definition of me.
2. God is the name of God. It is the perfect definition. One can google about who is God. But there is a problem: many imposters have stollen the name of God. They are idols. Please separate idols from God.

You still don't get it.

God can be either real ─ have objective existence, be found in the world external to the self ─ or God can be purely conceptual / imaginary.

If you can't give me a definition of a real God which will allow me to determine whether any real candidate (eg my keyboard) is God or not, then there is no coherent concept of a real God.

So you have only the concept of a purely conceptual / imaginary God.

And that's a trivial thing to waste arguments on, whether they're sound arguments or false ones.

 

[questfortruth]

What make you think/believe mathematic holds the truth? Does it explain the unseen, example spiritual realm?

Mathematics must be consistent, because Reality is not an illusion, and mathematics has in its origin the adding of the physical stuff, thus numbers are the Physics. If you have 5 fingers stretched and add 2 fingers, then you have 7 fingers.

 

[Revoltingest]

Seriously now do you think this can explain why Trump does not need to wear a mask? If he is truly a reptile inside he may not be affected by the virus (no offence intended to any reptiles in this message).

My post was about proof of God.
Perhaps Trump eschews masks as proof that he's mammalian?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Mathematics must be consistent, because Reality is not an illusion, and mathematics has in its origin the adding of the physical stuff, thus numbers are the Physics. If you have 5 fingers stretched and add 2 fingers, then you have 7 fingers.

Physical stuff is that a scientific term

 

[Revoltingest]

That happened some time ago. These creatures have to ingest disinfectant to survive in our atmosphere.

That would explain....