Nah. Freshman physics + pot: Wow, man, that equation is so cool, it's like all symmetric and shit. Freshman physics + LSD: That equation is a lizard that is my mother! barfo
Oh well, disagreeing is one thing, it matters little if you can't not prove the axiom is incorrect. No one has. "Any verified mathematical proof is “true”, if the axioms themselves are true and the steps follow the rules of logic. Benzmüller and Paleo’s paper certainly supports Gödel’s proof: Based on his axioms and modal logic, it is necessary that God, a being expressing all positive properties, exists. As noted above, one may still disagree with any axiom. If an axiom falls, then theorems depending on it would fall. Within modal logic, that would terminate the proof of God’s existence."
American Mathematical Society book review explaining the abuse of Godel's theorem. http://www.ams.org/notices/200703/rev-raatikainen.pdf
Godel designed it and used it to create a God model. Are you saying he doesn't understand the model he created?
Interesting that none of you tackled this model. Maybe it's because it's not freshman level physics? Lol
it's not a model. it's dribble. A. Some bit of science, often misstated B. It's like really really cool. Repeat A and B for 100 pages. Therefore, god exists. QED barfo
Instead of personal comments how about proving the axiom in error. http://www.decodedscience.com/modal-logic-proved-godel-right-god-exists/38801/2 The article you posted seem quite irrelevant.
Odd, that's not what I got from it. But as I explained earlier... They aren't "100% undeniable proof", just like the physicist that believe in singularity; yet cannot create a model to support the theorem. Just confuse the hell out of them and dribble, like you explain, and say "all hail singularity because it cannot be modeled, therefor it exists!"
Lol I read it too. It seems Denny searched for keywords and said "okay they said something negative and that's how I can disprove the theorem!"
You got it right, though. The axiom, "god does not exist" is just as plausible as any he uses. Therefore, the whole thing is a house of cards that tumbles to the ground, proving nothing. The articles about the edge of the universe suggest you can't get to the actual edge to have any sort of finite "thing" to describe from "outside." The american mathematical society article suggests that Godel's proof is misapplied to anything but mathematics. And I've read that Godel did not want to publish his "proof" because he was afraid people would abuse it to infer somehow that it proves "God" exists. What he proves is that the god between your ears exists, but not any supreme being.
