Agnosticism is debunked using advanced methods of Science

[questfortruth]

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

Dear Revoltingest, can I use your comment in my paper, which I am sending to "Science"?

 

[columbus]

Application to Agnosticism

Agnostics are making one claim: God is not decidable. But if one can neither prove nor disprove God, then God exists.

This isn't true.

I believe in God. By that, I mean "The answer to the question 'Why is there something, rather than nothing, is God." But I'm an agnostic non-theist because it's obvious that humans don't know anything important about God, not even whether God exists now or not.

Religion is fiction. "Theists" is the generic term for people who believe in such fiction. "Agnostic" is a generic term for people who don't. "Atheist" is also a generic term for people who believe that they know something important about God.
Tom

 

[Samael_Khan]

Dear Israel, can I use your comment in my paper? Soon I submit it to "Science".

You can do what you want with it providing that I get the quote credit

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Nice to see my prediction in the last "fundamentally misundeestands scientific principle and claims it proves God exists" thread was correct.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dear Revoltingest, can I use your comment in my paper, which I am sending to "Science"?

Sure.
All I ask for is context & accuracy.

 

[questfortruth]

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.

There are scientific methods to check for a less advanced life as well. One determines the bio-gases in atmospheres of the planets. No such case is found.

Nope. Agnostics have made one observation: god is not defined. Therefore it is nonsensical to try to decide.

No, not agnostics, but IGnostics.

 

[columbus]

You can do what you want with it providing that I get the quote credit

You might also expect that it's quoted accurately, in context, not just quote mined.

Trust me, I've dealt with theists before. Lying for God is a thing.
Tom

 

[Samael_Khan]

Dear Israel, can I use your comment in my paper? Soon I submit it to "Science".

Don't forget, context and accuracy too!

 

[Samael_Khan]

There are scientific methods to check for a less advanced life as well. One determines the bio-gases in atmospheres of the planets. No such case is found.

Sounds like a stretch especially with how large the universe is. All it means is that we haven't found life forms in space that we have examined. Or that we cannot prove or disprove whether they have cloaking devices that interfere without examination methods.

 

[Samael_Khan]

You might also expect that it's quoted accurately, in context, not just quote mined.

Trust me, I've dealt with theists before. Lying for God is a thing.
Tom

I was part of a religion that had an official name for lying for God called "Theocratic Warfare".

 

[questfortruth]

Sounds like a stretch especially with how large the universe is. All it means is that we haven't found life forms in space that we have examined. Or that we cannot prove or disprove whether they have cloaking devices that interfere without examination methods.

The space observation due to light-speed limit v<c is looking into past history. Then even if now the aliens can hide from us, they were ordinary beings polluting the cosmos some billion years ago.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

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.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Sounds like a stretch especially with how large the universe is. All it means is that we haven't found life forms in space that we have examined. Or that we cannot prove or disprove whether they have cloaking devices that interfere without examination methods.

Life "out there" might be so different from what human beings think of as life too, that when searching for life, they have been searching for the wrong answer?

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

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

 

[Samael_Khan]

The space observation due to light-speed limit v<c is looking into past history. Then even if now the aliens can hide from us, they were ordinary beings polluting the cosmos some billion years ago.

We cannot prove or disprove that the aliens invented a device that could manipulate our perception of "space observation due to light-speed limit v<c which allows us to looking into past history" so that we couldn't detect their pollution of the cosmos some billions of years ago.

 

[questfortruth]

Life "out there" might be so different from what human beings think of as life too, that when searching for life, they have been searching for the wrong answer?

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

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Then I guess the axe mudering psycho clown hiding behind you exists. Run for your life!

 

[Samael_Khan]

Life "out there" might be so different from what human beings think of as life too, that when searching for life, they have been searching for the wrong answer?

Exactly!!!! I am beginning to think that you can comprehend my line of reasoning more than most people these days!

 

[questfortruth]

Friends, can I use your precious comments in my paper for Science Magazine?

 

[Samael_Khan]

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

Occam's Razor contradicts your OP.