It is not hearsay. His notes are dated, he gave the proof to someone else to publish 29 years later. What he said is documented in a diary at the time. The proof was given to TWO different people.
Here is some more hearsay for you. "Morgenstern's diary is an important and usually reliable source for Gödel's later years, but the implication of the August 1970 diary entry—that Gödel did not believe in God—is not consistent with the other evidence. In letters to his mother, who was not a churchgoer and had raised Kurt and his brother as freethinkers,[3] Gödel argued at length for a belief in an afterlife.[4] He did the same in an interview with a skeptical Hao Wang, who said: "I expressed my doubts as G spoke [...] Gödel smiled as he replied to my questions, obviously aware that his answers were not convincing me."[5] Wang reports that Gödel's wife, Adele, two days after Gödel's death, told Wang that "Gödel, although he did not go to church, was religious and read the Bible in bed every Sunday morning."[6] In an unmailed answer to a questionnaire, Gödel described his religion as "baptized Lutheran (but not member of any religious congregation)." Of course when I tell you he knew God was here, that is first hand hearsay.
He wrote it at the time he got the proof to publish, and the proof was kept private for ~30 years for the stated reason.
So he quotes he doesn't want people to believe he believes in God; yet he makes a model to give a mathematical equation for God; which he himself explains and advertises. Maybe your short sightedness once again fails you. If you could think outside the box; it's probably his fear that his peers won't take it seriously. Because you have one mention in his diary, yet he was public in saying it was an equation for God probability. You are discredited once again... Nice reach btw... You must have long arms
It's not a mathematical model. What bullshit are you going to claim is true next? Hawking is agnostic failed already.
It's proven wrong all over the place. You won't admit it if you see it. I've already debunked it a few times in this thread. So did barfo, without really trying. It's that obviously wrong. God doesn't exist. Therefore, the axioms he proposes are not undoubtable facts, or intuitive ones. His argument is not a mathematical model, either.
Even barfo gets it. The "theory" starts with "assume god exists." How about we assume he doesn't. Now prove he exists. I mean, you're going after the Nobel Prize here, and you have a physicist who says you're on the right track. Or some other nonsense.
Lmao of course you did because you believe it did. And barfo didn't talk about this "model". Now show me the link that explains this model does not work?
He did talk about the model. He shot it full of holes with only a cursory glance at it. It's that blatantly bogus.
Lmao Denny says Bogus! http://m.spiegel.de/international/g....wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof The math is perfectly accurate and can be retested over and over again with the same results. Try and keep up
Here is the Denny argument: "Assume singularity existed". Now let's make a model that can identify this probability. Oh shit there isn't?!?! Well fuck it "it is because Denny says he read it!"
It's not math, it's logic. Apparently you don't know the difference, or what the latter is. His proof is specifically "modal logic." barfo has done a perfectly fine job of debunking the logic argument Godel made. It starts with "assume there is a god" and ends up with "therefore there is a god." The logic relies on the axioms ("agreed upon" facts) that aren't actually agreed upon. It doesn't prove what you think it does anyway. Otherwise, prove it does
Key point when you know Denny is in over his head is when he sides with barfo! Lmao! Bro, it is 100% math... Stop trying to cling on a semantic argument! Hahahhaa
It took me 5 seconds to find someone else who may explain it to you better. I give barfo credit when it's due. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive112013.html So, what exactly did Gödel prove? The proposition in question really was proven, so the headlines are right to say so. However, it was proven from the premisses given by Gödel, and it's in the interpretation of those premisses that the problem of what to make of it all lies. In fact, since all five of the "axioms" make use of an undefined predicate, it's not even clear what they mean. Calling it a proof of the existence of God is one interpretation, and it was presumably Gödel's interpretation, but it's not the only possible interpretation, nor is it forced on the skeptic. The premisses are not at all like the axioms of logic or mathematics, that is, they're not self-evidently true nor does denying one lead to self-contradiction. All that anyone who doubts the existence of a god needs to do is reject one or more of the axioms. -- I reject them. So did barfo. Duh.
