Have you every rationalized why you differ with a man like Kurt Gödel? Since you admit to different skill level in math with him, how do you justify arriving at the opposite result in this question?
Could that be considered a certain "ignorance"? I'm not calling you out in a negative way. Just because we may be ignorant to the spiritual level, could mean that we just can't see it. Possibly through conscious evolution, you start understanding the realm more easily?
It could certainly be ignorance. I am confined by what I know and am therefor ignorant of quite a bit. But I can't base my conclusions on what I don't know. That why, although I am an athiest, I am always open to changing my mind if I learn something that negates my previous belief.
There are plenty of Nobel laureates (all brighter than me) who believe in God and who don't believe in God. I will generally put more weight to the words of brilliant people, but I don't simply accept their conclusions without contemplation either, especially if many brilliant people disagree.
I only know of two people that have applied mathematics to the question of Gods existence, Mags and Kurt Gödel. Do you think neither have the weight to bring you to reconsidering your conclusions?
Not from what I have seen. Kurt Gödel may have been one of few to originally apply math to the question, but many other brilliant people have dissected that work and found problems with some assertions and conclusions. The issue is far from settled so no, the conclusions of of Gödel are insufficient for me. As far as mags goes, his best argument is one he has yet to use, his wife.
Keep in mind there are 4 mathematical models for God. I know Godell's is more famous, but the concept is "you can build a model for the existence of God"; which was argued could not be the case
I would be interested to hear who these people are that disagreed with Gödel. We are speaking of mathematics, assertions disagreed with would be very interesting, deducing assertions from math work is very unusual.
I am not sure what the reference is to - there should be no disagreeing with Godel's theorem of incompleteness - they were proved mathematically by Godel in 1931 by basically showing a mapping of any problem space to different numerical spaces and proving that there is always a rule that can not be proved by existing axioms. The theorem is proved conclusively mathematically, people that do not agree with it simply do not grasp the math. Godel used a standard method of "proof of impossibility" - the only issue is that it is a really complicated method to get there - but it is proven and have been verified many times over by following the math. (*) Proof of impossibility requires showing one example that breaks a rule to render prove it impossible to enforce. Godel showed a way to map any closed system to an irrational number space and showed that the order of groups within irrational numbers proves that there is always that instance that breaks the rule. (You will have to excuse me for trying to simplify it - it was more than 20 years since I tried to go through the paper and got to a point where I actually understood the basic mathematical concepts in it). People can disagree with how Godel later tried to describe his personal belief in god etc... - but the theorem itself is proven mathematically.
But the math could also be used to factor God into the equation. So the concept that there are no scientific models to go by for God's existence is false. Or you can take the concept of God logically.
http://io9.com/5526583/if-the-universe-is-expanding-whats-it-expanding-into http://io9.com/how-to-make-it-to-the-edge-of-the-observable-universe-i-513334876
Ok, I did the Google. I only find Further. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...mages&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl
