D'oh? Those are his theorems of incompleteness. They are not his proof of god, which is something else altogether. D'oh?
http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-928668.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer= Lmao bro, you think you can run the program without math? You are a complete laughing stock when it comes to debating...
Creation is not a positive? So I'm not negative for slitting your throat because your life is not positive? I mean what does it matter right?
You failed to read your link. And it says nothing to make your latest in a long string of errors somehow correct.
Perhaps it's just me, but looking back at the axioms and theorems in the OP, it appears that it is more a proof of God-like-ness rather than a proof of God. That is to say, the applications of the axioms and theorems to positive qualities point to the existence of a concept of God rather than to God Himself.
You still failed to read your own link. Wasn't there some mention of a caveat in there? If I were you, I'd omit that part too, or it would make you look even more clueless.
The positive can mean whatever you want it to be. And so you can input creation as a positive just as easily.
That's absolutely false. As I said earlier, creation good? If you agree that creation is good, then the axiom works. Wtf bro, are you arguing with yourself?
The computer program that modeled Godel's modal logic was the math. Not the argument itself. There's been a long running discussion about whether a machine could possibly think like a human. This sort of grandstanding is an attempt to show one day a machine might. That, and only that, is the significance of the program.
There are no arguments on that. But what was originally posted are tools to get closer to finding God. As I also explained from the beginning, that belief in God still requires faith (look back for proof with adul). I simply suggested that models are in place to actually take finding God empirically is completely valid
No. I don't agree that creation had a cause at all, or was from some nebulous "goodness." Your (Godel's) axiom is a stinking pile.
You said it wasn't math right? So if it isn't math, then it couldn't work as I keep posting. Just because you believe the model false, doesn't make it false on the math sense. If you go there, then as I already posted, models to suggest singularity are just as false. Do you want to go there?