Agnosticism is debunked using advanced methods of Science

[questfortruth]

"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?

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. The paranormal activity in the solar system is proof for devils, the proof for aliens would be an observation of them or their activity at distant star-systems and galaxies. Hereby the possibility, that aliens come from parallel dimension do not cancel the fact, that the beings are observed only at solar system; thus they are devils by definition. It is better to use Occam's or Hitchens razor not against Loving God, but rather against aliens: because there is no extraordinary evidence for them, they are believed to be absent.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is so within the mathematics terms and philosophy of the Mathematical Community.

No, the philosophy of math logic only proves math theorems, that may be useful for applications of technology, sciences and everyday uses.

But within my definitions, derivation, and conclusions, it goes consistently beyond mathematics.

Personal anecdotal subjective interpretation to justify what you believe and nothing to do with math. Beyond math is not math.

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.

This is a self-definition to justify what you believe. You know a circular argument. You cannot falsify, prove, nor demonstrate anything by means of a negative hypothesis, which is what you are trying to do.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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. The paranormal activity in the solar system is proof for devils, the proof for aliens would be an observation of them or their activity at distant star-systems and galaxies. Hereby the possibility, that aliens come from parallel dimension do not cancel the fact, that the beings are observed only at solar system; thus they are devils by definition. It is better to use Occam's or Hitchens razor not against Loving God, but rather against aliens: because there is no extraordinary evidence for them, they are believed to be absent.

By your definisjon? Or other scientists you can give link to saying the same as you do?

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

You can't prove Gödel's theorems by using a totally different context. The theorem's are about certain types of formal systems.

What you've actually "proved" in the OP's "Proof of the Second Incompleteness Theorem" section is that if there are absolutely undecidable things, then there are things that can't be decided. Congratulations, I'd never of guessed.

You also seem to have muddled up the first and second theorems. The second one is about being able to prove consistency.

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.

Then your definitions lead directly to contradictions and absurdities.

 

[questfortruth]

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 I would perfectly get to know the abyss, I would become an atheist. Most dedicated one. But I am speaking from theist position:
Please separate idols from God. Simply follow your (I am speaking not to you, but quoting my book, it is not preaching!!!!) heart: do you think, that God is Atheistic Nothing, or is He something? Because He has a name, then He is a person; thus, Atheism is wrong. Then what do you feel in your heart, is He loving person or not? Because He is better in Love than any other person, then He must be Omnipresent and Omniscient.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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. The paranormal activity in the solar system is proof for devils, the proof for aliens would be an observation of them or their activity at distant star-systems and galaxies. Hereby the possibility, that aliens come from parallel dimension do not cancel the fact, that the beings are observed only at solar system; thus they are devils by definition. It is better to use Occam's or Hitchens razor not against Loving God, but rather against aliens: because there is no extraordinary evidence for them, they are believed to be absent.

This reasoning is flawed as I explained earlier. The Fermi Paradox and Occam's Razor has no baring on what might be possible. Also your use of Occam's Razor and Hitchens Razor is biased because you will not apply it to God because if done, then by that reasoning God doesn't exist.

 

[questfortruth]

a) You can't prove Gödel's theorems by using a totally different context. The theorem's are about certain types of formal systems.

b) What you've actually "proved" in the OP's "Proof of the Second Incompleteness Theorem" section is that if there are absolutely undecidable things, then there are things that can't be decided. Congratulations, I'd never of guessed.

c) Then your definitions lead directly to contradictions and absurdities.

a) One can surely find something useful for Gödel, because I have my own results: I relied on logic and reason. Thus, one can prove Gödel even without speaking within the Mathematical convention.

b) I see it differently, I have far more text than the trolling "if there are absolutely undecidable things, then there are things that can't be decided".

c) 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. Because Reality is not an illusion, the two true things can not contradict each other. Therefore, any set of axioms is consistent. If axiom will be shown non-true, it can not be called axiom any longer. Again, all 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.

By your definition? Or other scientists you can give link to saying the same as you do?

I have defined the two words "devil" as one seen in the solar system, and "alien" as one seen in other star-system. One can not argue over the choice of definitions. Work then within my definitions of the words. For the sake of conversation. One can not disprove a definition, the definitions are the starting points for conversation. If a conversation can not start, the definitions can not be disproven; because disproof comes inside the conversation.

 

[questfortruth]

Also your use of Occam's Razor and Hitchens Razor is biased because you will not apply it to God because if done, then by that reasoning God doesn't exist.

I disagree, because the inventor of Occam's Razor is theist, and used it to show a case for Theology.

 

[Spirit of Light]

a) One can surely find something useful for Gödel, because I have my own results: I relied on logic and reason. Thus, one can prove Gödel even without speaking within the Mathematical convention.

b) I see it differently, I have far more text than the trolling "if there are absolutely undecidable things, then there are things that can't be decided".

c) 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. Because Reality is not an illusion, the two true things can not contradict each other. Therefore, any set of axioms is consistent. If axiom will be shown non-true, it can not be called axiom any longer. Again, all 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.


I have defined the two words "devil" as one seen in the solar system, and "alien" as one seen in other star-system. One can not argue over the choice of definitions. Work then within my definitions of the words. For the sake of conversation. One can not disprove a definition, the definitions are the starting points for conversation. If a conversation can not start, the definitions can not be disproven; because disproof comes inside the conversation.

Sorry @questfortruth but you could be speaking greek to me and I would have understood more then i do from your answers in this thread.

 

[blü 2]

Please separate idols from God.

Please distinguish imaginary being from real beings, ones that have objective existence.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I disagree, because the inventor of Occam's Razor is theist, and used it to show a case for Theology.

And his use of it was biased then. Or if he thought it only applied to everything besides God then his reasoning is flawed. Plus Occam's Razor is not reflective of reality or possibilities of reality.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I have defined the two words "devil" as one seen in the solar system, and "alien" as one seen in other star-system. One can not argue over the choice of definitions. Work then within my definitions of the words. For the sake of conversation. One can not disprove a definition, the definitions are the starting points for conversation. If a conversation can not start, the definitions can not be disproven; because disproof comes inside the conversation.

The point of language is to use common sounds and symbols to represent concepts so that all of us can understand one another in a specific language, otherwise we have a tower of Babel scenario, which is apparently happening here. All that matters is the concepts represented by words so the word itself is only relevant as representations of the concept it represents. Therefore if you change the concepts of what certain words represent to most people by your use of them, then don't be surprised if people do not understand what you mean.

 

[questfortruth]

Please distinguish imaginary being from real beings, ones that have objective existence.

​

And his use of it was biased then. Or if he thought it only applied to everything besides God then his reasoning is flawed. Plus Occam's Razor is not reflective of reality or possibilities of reality.

I disagree, because the inventor of Occam's Razor is theist, and used it to show a case for Theology. The Science has not from Moon fallen, the Science of the modern era is a child of the Middle Ages; thus, God can not be cut off by Occam's Razor.

This is a self-definition to justify what you believe. You know a circular argument. You cannot falsify, prove, nor demonstrate anything by means of a negative hypothesis, which is what you are trying to do.

Do not quote text-book without applying it to my case. I see no connection.

 

[questfortruth]

The point of language is to use common sounds and symbols to represent concepts so that all of us can understand one another in a specific language, otherwise we have a tower of Babel scenario, which is apparently happening here. All that matters is the concepts represented by words so the word itself is only relevant as representations of the concept it represents. Therefore if you change the concepts of what certain words represent to most people by your use of them, then don't be surprised if people do not understand what you mean.

A definition is not necessarily a global thing, my definitions are active only within my paper and current conversation. In another my paper would be different definitions for "devil", "alien".

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

'God' is a relatively modern word. So was God nameless before this? Is a being defined by its label?

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

Yes. But choose any polytheistic belief system you prefer.

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

Rubbish. I'm an atheist and I make claims all the time, including that this statement is factually inaccurate, and logically inconsistent.
If you mean that 'atheism' makes no claims, I would argue that this is not true.

As for 'God does not exist' it depends entirely on how you define God, I suppose.

The original statement is "God exists", without it there were be no opposite statement. Thus, it is enough to prove the original statement.

Phht.
In one sentence you reduce discussion of God to a binary decision between monotheism and atheism. You also assume monotheism predates all else.
I think our polytheistic friends here might quibble on both counts.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Logic, is taking a serious hit today.

Nah, logic is at home due to social distancing rules. We should all applaud her absence, and her consideration for our safety.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

You actually believe there is a teapot orbiting around the Sun?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I disagree, because the inventor of Occam's Razor is theist, and used it to show a case for Theology. The Science has not from Moon fallen, the Science of the modern era is a child of the Middle Ages; thus, God can not be cut off by Occam's Razor.

Nope just because a concept inspires an idea in someone that doesn't mean that the concept is exempt from that idea. Bad logic.

 

[Samael_Khan]

A definition is not necessarily a global thing, my definitions are active only within my paper and current conversation. In another my paper would be different definitions for "devil", "alien".

I agree, not global, because different cultures use terms differently because of the natural evolution of language.

Why did you change the definitions in the first place if it leads to confusion? And why would a magazine called "science magazine" use the term devil to explain beings in our solar system anyway?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Unless you're counting in a binary number system, of course. Then you have 111.