Your editorialized headline: Not possible in math. Read and understand Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Many have tried , most gone insane, incl . Kurt Gödel. Gödel proved it is not possible to do.
The study you linked proves no such thing, but is an interesting example of universal scaling laws.
Godel only said that a limited set of rules can't define infinite truth (it's analagous to counting to infinity, no matter how high you count, you're no closer than when you began). Godel didn't say that truth can't be discerned. Suppose God is infinite and exists, that doesn't mean we can't see evidence of God through math, the sciences, philosophy, or creation.
You do realize, that you basically stated what I stated, but in other words? Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves that no universal truth can be proven (with no assumptions). Only local truths (with assumptions).
Hence, no math proof of "God has been proven using math".
Really, go study the Gödel's theorem yourself (I have), and you will grok it.
You do realize, that you basically stated what I stated, but in other words?
I dont think so, at least with how you worded it. You said it's impossible to prove God. I said that it's possible to show God's existence through our limited understanding (which is what OP said, and you disagreed with). To repeat, Godel never said it's impossible to figure out truth, only that it's impossible for us to learn infinite truth (completeness of a system) using a limited set of rules.
Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves that no universal truth can be proven (with no assumptions). Only local truths (with assumptions).
Not really. For clarity, I'll post what Godel's incompleteness theorems say. Link:
Godel's first incompleteness theorem (as improved by Rosser (1936)) says that for any consistent formalized system F, which contains elementary arithmetic, there exists a sentence GF of the language of the system which is true but unprovable in that system.
Godel's second incompleteness theorem states that no consistent formal system can prove its own consistency.
The only thing Godel's theorems say, is that it's impossible for humans to create a limited/finite set of rules, to define all of reality/infinity. His theorems never say it's impossible to define truth, or figure it out (even as you worded it).
Hence, no math proof of "God has been proven using math".
Just because we can't count to infinity doesn't mean we don't know infinity (the idea) exists. Higher forms of math are impossible without the idea of infinity. In fact, Godel's theorems actually prove the existence of infinity, and the infinite aspect of reality. It shows that no matter how many rules we apply to a system/reality/creation, we're no closer to properly defining it than when we started, because there will always be some function/equation/truth outside of that rule set, which that rule set can't prove, requiring another rule, and another, and another, etc., which is exactly what counting to infinity is like.
We are covering old ground, covered already a hundred years ago by logicians.
Incompleteness theorem (1st) shows that there is no finite set of axioms that can be used to prove/disprove all true logical statements.
Hence, no way to prove ALL that is all and everything with finite set of axioms.
Now, we get to multiples of infinity. And again, we are in agreement: no (so far discovered) math system (even with multiple concepts of counting infinities) can prove god. There is no proof for "all that is" (even with mathematical concept of infinities of multiples of infinities) without unproven axioms that lead to inconsistencies.
I liked the paper linked, but claiming that it is a mathematical proof of god is just ludicrous.
Incompleteness theorem (1st) shows that there is no finite set of axioms that can be used to prove/disprove all true logical statements.
Agreed. That's what mathematicians and philosophers were trying to do before Godel proved they couldn't, through mathematics.
I liked the paper linked, but claiming that it is a mathematical proof of god is just ludicrous.
I don't think God (or infinite anything) can be mathematically proven definitively either. It's a simple philosophical problem for humans, as we're finite, imperfect, mortal creatures. We can't know everything, therefore some things we don't know can change our perceptions, the totality of judgement(s) we've derived through our limited knowledge.
However, I do think that God, or the effects of God, or the will of God, can be seen before reaching infinity. Even finite, imperfect, mortal creatures like us can discern and discover truth, and we can continually build upon it. We can't know everything, but we can continually learn, progressing toward infinite knowledge, without ever being able to reach it.
It's how I came closer to God. The foundational descriptors of God and truth are nearly identical. Truth is infinite, immortal, perfect, and unchanging. Truth is immutable and all powerful. Anyone who goes against truth is harmed or killed, depending on severity and circumstance. Sin is easily described as imperfection, going against truth. While not identical, God is extremely similar, such that truth could be best described as God's will in this universe.
This is how I see truth and God. The more we learn of truth, the more we learn of God and God's will.
I think that's where the disagreement lies. From what I can tell, you see God as an all or nothing thing, either prove infinity/God or not at all.
a) local truth (suggested words) within universal truth (perceivable sound)...the issue...oneself choosing to hold onto "truth" while ignoring that sound (entire; whole) moves every local instrument (partial) within.
b) universe aka VERSE - "line (inception towards death) of poetry (life)" within UNI (motion).
a limited set of rules can't define infinite truth (it's analogous to counting to infinity, no matter how high you count, you're no closer than when you began)
Counting implies holding onto finite units (partials), which in return tempts one to ignore being within infinite oneness (whole).
The trick...suggested analogism (an argument from the cause to the effect) tempts one to ignore being effect (life) within moving cause (inception towards death).
Ones consent (want or not want) to a suggested -ism, shapes an argument aka a conflict of reason (want vs not want) within ones mind/memory aka logic. This tempts one to view perceivable cause (momentum of motion) through the lens of suggested effects (affixed beliefs; upheld information; -isms etc.).
a limited set of rules
Unlimited (inception towards death) sets and rules limits (life) inherently. Being implies "free" will of choice within "dom"inance of balance aka free (living) within dominance (process of dying).
Others suggest rules (laws of men) to tempt one to ignore perceivable RULE, noun (Latin rego, to govern, that is, to stretch, strain or make straight) aka straight (inception towards death) governing winding (life).
Great post!
Your editorialized headline: Not possible in math. Read and understand Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Many have tried , most gone insane, incl . Kurt Gödel. Gödel proved it is not possible to do.
The study you linked proves no such thing, but is an interesting example of universal scaling laws.
Godel only said that a limited set of rules can't define infinite truth (it's analagous to counting to infinity, no matter how high you count, you're no closer than when you began). Godel didn't say that truth can't be discerned. Suppose God is infinite and exists, that doesn't mean we can't see evidence of God through math, the sciences, philosophy, or creation.
You do realize, that you basically stated what I stated, but in other words? Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves that no universal truth can be proven (with no assumptions). Only local truths (with assumptions).
Hence, no math proof of "God has been proven using math".
Really, go study the Gödel's theorem yourself (I have), and you will grok it.
Apologies for the late reply. Had family in town.
I dont think so, at least with how you worded it. You said it's impossible to prove God. I said that it's possible to show God's existence through our limited understanding (which is what OP said, and you disagreed with). To repeat, Godel never said it's impossible to figure out truth, only that it's impossible for us to learn infinite truth (completeness of a system) using a limited set of rules.
Not really. For clarity, I'll post what Godel's incompleteness theorems say. Link:
https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2005-4-page-513.htm
The only thing Godel's theorems say, is that it's impossible for humans to create a limited/finite set of rules, to define all of reality/infinity. His theorems never say it's impossible to define truth, or figure it out (even as you worded it).
Just because we can't count to infinity doesn't mean we don't know infinity (the idea) exists. Higher forms of math are impossible without the idea of infinity. In fact, Godel's theorems actually prove the existence of infinity, and the infinite aspect of reality. It shows that no matter how many rules we apply to a system/reality/creation, we're no closer to properly defining it than when we started, because there will always be some function/equation/truth outside of that rule set, which that rule set can't prove, requiring another rule, and another, and another, etc., which is exactly what counting to infinity is like.
I have.
Thank you for your reply.
We are covering old ground, covered already a hundred years ago by logicians.
Incompleteness theorem (1st) shows that there is no finite set of axioms that can be used to prove/disprove all true logical statements.
Hence, no way to prove ALL that is all and everything with finite set of axioms.
Now, we get to multiples of infinity. And again, we are in agreement: no (so far discovered) math system (even with multiple concepts of counting infinities) can prove god. There is no proof for "all that is" (even with mathematical concept of infinities of multiples of infinities) without unproven axioms that lead to inconsistencies.
I liked the paper linked, but claiming that it is a mathematical proof of god is just ludicrous.
Agreed. That's what mathematicians and philosophers were trying to do before Godel proved they couldn't, through mathematics.
I don't think God (or infinite anything) can be mathematically proven definitively either. It's a simple philosophical problem for humans, as we're finite, imperfect, mortal creatures. We can't know everything, therefore some things we don't know can change our perceptions, the totality of judgement(s) we've derived through our limited knowledge.
However, I do think that God, or the effects of God, or the will of God, can be seen before reaching infinity. Even finite, imperfect, mortal creatures like us can discern and discover truth, and we can continually build upon it. We can't know everything, but we can continually learn, progressing toward infinite knowledge, without ever being able to reach it.
It's how I came closer to God. The foundational descriptors of God and truth are nearly identical. Truth is infinite, immortal, perfect, and unchanging. Truth is immutable and all powerful. Anyone who goes against truth is harmed or killed, depending on severity and circumstance. Sin is easily described as imperfection, going against truth. While not identical, God is extremely similar, such that truth could be best described as God's will in this universe.
This is how I see truth and God. The more we learn of truth, the more we learn of God and God's will.
I think that's where the disagreement lies. From what I can tell, you see God as an all or nothing thing, either prove infinity/God or not at all.
a) local truth (suggested words) within universal truth (perceivable sound)...the issue...oneself choosing to hold onto "truth" while ignoring that sound (entire; whole) moves every local instrument (partial) within.
b) universe aka VERSE - "line (inception towards death) of poetry (life)" within UNI (motion).
Counting implies holding onto finite units (partials), which in return tempts one to ignore being within infinite oneness (whole).
The trick...suggested analogism (an argument from the cause to the effect) tempts one to ignore being effect (life) within moving cause (inception towards death).
Ones consent (want or not want) to a suggested -ism, shapes an argument aka a conflict of reason (want vs not want) within ones mind/memory aka logic. This tempts one to view perceivable cause (momentum of motion) through the lens of suggested effects (affixed beliefs; upheld information; -isms etc.).
Unlimited (inception towards death) sets and rules limits (life) inherently. Being implies "free" will of choice within "dom"inance of balance aka free (living) within dominance (process of dying).
Others suggest rules (laws of men) to tempt one to ignore perceivable RULE, noun (Latin rego, to govern, that is, to stretch, strain or make straight) aka straight (inception towards death) governing winding (life).
Sleight of hand: "take me to the magic of the moment(um)...in the wind of change (motion)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4RjJKxsamQ
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-god-be-proved-mathematically/
https://www.sciencealert.com/strange-mathematical-pattern-found-in-the-cells-of-the-human-body
The world is round. Dinos are probably giant bones. Intelligent design. Ontological over cosmological.