Indeed, it's not. It is of course crap, but it was at least written by someone other than a stoned teenager. barfo
Someone ought to challenge those math guys at the american math society to a debate at debate.org. If you use your material from whatgodwantsgodgets.com, you'll surely win!
It amazes me how the atheist will be so quick to call something like this crap, without using their brain. You skimmed trough it like some arrogant prick, and because it has God in it, instantly said "this is some bullshit!" Well I have news for you and your wannabe physics banter. I presented this to a physicist, that is an atheist to boot, and he said the effort is good and the models are "in the right direction". See the difference with a "person in the know", with formal training in the field would respect all models. That's how you can filter the "wannabes from the know"
Those players in the math society argue the point, but will not refute it. They aren't defendants from Mars like you are
I'd be impressed if you could explain the proof, step by step, in your own words. You'll try using Google for that, so don't bother.
Actually, as I said to barfo, i presented this to a physicist. I wanted to make sure these models had teeth before I posted them. He said "they are in the right direction". And unlike barfo, i explained clearly that this is by no means, the right answer, but a scientific model that could be expanded upon. Just like singularity theorem.
I skimmed through it like a guy who doesn't really give a crap. Here's a much more efficient mathematical model for you to use: Assume God Exists. It has the result you want, and more intellectual honesty than any of your other 'models'. How exciting for you I see. I'll endeavor to become "a know". barfo
Godell was one of the most respected mathematicians of his time. Your vision is thin, clouded with Martian DNA!
It was very exciting! It's nice that you admit that your "aren't in the know". Now we can discuss like peers.
Steven Hawking is an atheist. Yet you somehow found a quote that makes him appear to be a kool aid sipper. Things aren't what they seem, eh?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ng-Heaven-fairy-story-people-afraid-dark.html Heaven is a ‘fairy story for people afraid of the dark’, Professor Stephen Hawking suggestd yesterday. As well as saying there is no heaven or afterlife, the renowned scientist said that our brains switch off like ‘broken down computers’ when we die. His comments upset some religious groups, already angry at his statement last year that the universe was not created by God. -- by golly you'll claim you're right!
We've had this discussion earlier this year and you even said that you are agnostic. We described the concept. So you turning back to the atheist side? Oh I forgot, you change your opinion like a lizard sheds it's skin
I'm agnostic in the sense that if I saw an actual unicorn, I'd start believing they exist. My expectations are ZERO they do. I'm quite sure they do not exist. Heaven is the fairy tale Hawking says it is. There is ZERO evidence God created the universe. ZERO.
Heaven can be a fairytale as you suggest, but the concept of a designer is not that improbable as you suggest. As well, you also mentioning "there is no empirical evidence there is a god". Well I blew that out of the water. Enjoy your evening
The article discusses Incompleteness, not this axiom. The statement about Gödel being afraid is ridiculous. The man would not be afraid of anyone trying to prove god exists! He, knew it was a fact, no fear required. You have the fear, not the man that created the axiom.
You got it right. The fallacy is in the axioms. They're supposed to be undoubtable, but they are doubtable. I showed you that "God does not exist" is just as good a premise as "he does" right off the bat. Barfo figured it out without hardly trying. https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Gödel_s_ontological_proof.html The first version of the ontological proof in Gödel's papers is dated "around 1941". Gödel is not known to have told anyone about his work on the proof until 1970, when he thought he was dying. In February, he allowed Dana Scott to copy out a version of the proof, which circulated privately. In August 1970, Gödel told Oskar Morgenstern that he was "satisfied" with the proof, but Morgenstern recorded in his diary entry for 29 August 1970, that Gödel would not publish because he was afraid that others might think "that he actually believes in God, whereas he is only engaged in a logical investigation (that is, in showing that such a proof with classical assumptions (completeness, etc.) correspondingly axiomatized, is possible)."[1] Do the math for me... 1970 - 1941 is how many years did he sit on this masterpiece?
