Why can't atheists grasp higher maths and sciences?
>Two computer scientists say they proved that there is a holy supreme force after confirming the equations.
>In 1978, mathematician Kurt Gödel died and left behind a long and complex theory based on modal logic.
>Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
express.co.uk
quora.com
twitter.com
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality
Chaos Gods when?
All that meme evidence is fake you gay nigga
It will not be Jesus or Allah, or whatever among thousand of man made gods
that's for damn sure
UnIronically this.
>hurr durr I can imagine it therefore it's true >because invoking concepts makes it a reality somewhere right?
WRONG
>if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.
>can
so it's saying the possibility exists, not that it does exist?
>>if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality
what the fuck do equations have to do with semantic theoreticals?
Bumping just because OP pic made me laugh. Liberals continue to find ways to lower the bar
Because atheists also believe whatever (((they))) say. Evolution, climate change, earth is six gorillion billion years old because muh carbon dating
how can meme magic exist if the lord is fake
Doesn't this prove Kek more than it proves Jebus? Jebus is supposed to be the one and only all-powerful god. But this proves he isn't and proves the existence of Kek.
You're right
But there is no God but Kek, and Pepe is his prophet
>roughly 75% of accredited physicists are atheist
Can you stop posting this?
LET'S NOT TAKE IT THAT FAR
PROMISE ME YOU WON'T TAKE IT THAT FAR
meme magic couldn't exists if this was not true
I think it's funny when atheists say having a belief in God is for dumb people only to have smart people confirm there is.
>calculator can compute godel's form of Liebniz ontological argument
>this proves God is real
>Go on to give a bullshit understanding of the argument
Bait article.
>physicists
What do they have to do with anything?
Kek seems to really love attention. I suppose that's how his power is derived.
If invoking your imagination = reality, then maybe you could magic up a life where you aren't such a tremendous faggot OP
So Godel's Incompleteness Theorem confirms that the God of the Gaps is true?
Godel's ontological proof actually.
>"scientists" use math to prove things about reality
>the ontological argument matters more when expressed mathematically
>garbage in doesn't make garbage out
It's cute, I suppose, but mathematicians who look too deep at infinity have a tendency to go bonkers.
>went for the tldr bait
>didn't even bother to find out what this is about
I believe in God but I'm sure science cannot prove him
>this Nigga gets it
>"scientists" use math to prove things about reality
Yes. Logical proof of the logical nature of reality.
Modal logic, try it.
>use math to prove things
That's precisely what mathematical theorems do, user.
How will reddit ever recover
>hurr i'm a gaytheist because jews told me a bunch of smart people are durr
Neck yourself you fucking loser.
>computer """scientists""" confirm
Please stick to being codemonkeys who are about to be replaced by Pajeet and Chang and leave the mathematics to people who know what they're doing
Duh. You're less than retarded if you just realized this. All gods derive their power through attention, admiration, and invocation.
>muh ontological argument
its just a tabloid rehash of the ontological argument you c u c k
>the logical nature of reality
MATH has a logical nature. Mathematical analysis is important to the understanding of reality, but science is fundamentally empirical. I invoke Newton's Flaming Laser Sword on this. What cannot be settled by experiment or empirical examination is not science.
Yes and science is not all study of reality. It is just a major part of it.
Your point?
>What cannot be settled by experiment or empirical examination is not science
Einstein cucks absolutely btfo
And the proof of mathematical theorems is math, not science. Math is based on axioms, and the theorems that are true, false, provable, or unprovable depend on the axioms chosen, not on the nature of reality.
>use maths to prove things
First, there is no proof, only evidence..
Second. 3 people in 45+ years. FFS
What part of science is NOT the study of reality?
You mean how Relativity was devised to explain heretofore-unexplained observations of the world? And how subsequent predictions have been borne out, such as time dilation, gravitational lensing, and mass-energy equivalence?
>but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived
we know this for long time, but this is no proof that such role is fulfilled by something
keep failing at logic, theist dumbo
>There is no proof
en.m.wikipedia.org
>not the nature of reality
?
If the axioms and premises are true then it is an effective argument for reality.
What's your issue with Bell's Theorem?
>What cannot be settled by experiment or empirical examination is not science.
can you prove that scientifically?
Why do you keep trying to prove God?
I don't personally believe, although I'd like to, but isn't the whole point that faith is a necessary component in the modern age and their purposely isn't any direct proof of him remaining today so that you must rely on faith, thus demonstrating virtue? Doesn't something like this devalue that idea?
fucking this. gods depends on the faith and attention of their believers to "exist". when a god is forgotten, it could be considered "dead" (or latent), since people don't give it power.
>Relativity was devised to explain heretofore-unexplained observations of the world?
And it goes against the experiments. Quantum mechanics ruin relativity. The error margin is something around ten to the power of 120. Oh look, math.
>What part of science is not study of reality
Not what I said.
I said the study of reality as a whole is not just science, not that science isn't entirely stuff dealing with the study of reality.
FUCK YOU HERETIC
Why do theist always recur to complex logic loopty loops to prove god? I'm sure I can create my own logic chain of events where I prove Cthulu exists too.
Everything must be taken with some degree of faith.
Being able to demonstrate god in some means does not devalue the concept of faith - it reinforces your faith is not in vain.
Faith being trust, not blind. You trust your friends? You have reasons for this? But proof? Same difference, excepting non-personal deities.
1+1
god exists
checkmate athiests
its a shame they didnt tell us which gods existence they are confirming i mean wow its not like theres more than 1 of those depending which hemisphere you happen to be on in the current year
Kek confirms. Also explains why some religions are so against idolatry.
Because any discussion on this topic is ultimately going to boil down to sophism.
And you believe whatever nonsense your pastor tells you because muh faith
Yet another shining example of the average enlightened gaytheist argument when confronted with evidence that blows out his Science worshiping faggotry
>All these atheists going against science with half assed retorts when it goes against their beliefs
>They don't bother finding out what this is all about
>instead they go to their own personal dogmas and scream lalala can't hear you..
Nothing new under the sun..
End of Kali Yuga (the age of madness) soon.
Because most understandings of divinity taken seriously historically come from study of reality which leads to the finding of this 'divinity' through proofs like this. The proofs are not post-hoc rationalizations historically.
Second, because what we're dealing with it would be within the field of metaphysics and so theorems would be the norm.
Third, they're not really that complex. Usually the issue is they are trying to readapt arguments based in one classical system onto another.
k y s
y
s
mlp faggot
>If the axioms and premises are true then it is an effective argument for reality.
Don't confuse a map with the territory.
Even if math approaches truth, to think it is complete, to think that math fully accounts for what happens in reality is a matter of faith.
Reminds me of how some mathematicians and physicists are fine with the concept of infinity, others think infinity does not exist. Also reminds me of other physicists who think the universe IS math, which imo is confusing a description of something with the thing itself.
>theorems are faith based
You probably have a Hell of a time with the problem of induction then don't you
>If the axioms and premises are true then it is an effective argument for reality.
"Truth" is not an attribute of axioms in math or premises in logic. Truth is an attribute of statements about the real world, and truth is determined by observation and analysis, not by proposing axioms or premises that are assumed to be true.
>can you prove that scientifically?
That's a semantic statement, not a scientific one.
>And it goes against the experiments. Quantum mechanics ruin relativity. The error margin is something around ten to the power of 120
What experiments would those be? Generally, Relativity concerns large things, and quantum mechanics concerns small things, with overlapping areas either agreeing or residing outside what can be tested with current technology.
>logic loopty loops
Way to refute the argument.
It's because of this: if you were to work with mathematics, you'd have to prove stuff absolutely logically. The nature of this proof is interesting and varies from simple to seemingly endless complexity. However all proof is universal. If you can't refute it once, you can't do it ever. The principles also apply to reality around us,the mechanisms things work with...
Why are you surprised people seek to answer the big questions?
>science doesn't discover anything it only confirms what already exists in reality.
They don't care for science, they worship themselves.
People don't seem to have a problem with faith. Some people may attack faith, but even they have faith in some things. Faith that phenomenon that happened in the past will happen again in the future (sunrise, etc). Faith that there exists hidden evidence out there waiting to be found, faith in the existence of things unseen.
To say there isn't any direct proof of God today, depends on your definition of God. Would you know God when you see It? When it comes to God, what you are looking for depends on your preconceived notion of God. People have faith that their concept of God is accurate. If you believe God is an invisible magical sky fairy and you see no evidence of an invisible magical sky fairy, does that mean God does not exist? Only if God is in fact an invisible magical sky fairy, a premise which would contradict a conclusion that God does not exist.
To look for God and claim you have not found God is to have faith that you know what to look for. How do you know what to look for? How do you know where to look? Assumptions about God are taken on faith.
>Not what I said.
>I said the study of reality as a whole is not just science, not that science isn't entirely stuff dealing with the study of reality.
>science is not all study of reality. It is just a major part of it.
That's what you said, you just phrased it so terribly that the more standard grammar would have the cladistic relationship reversed..
I never said truth was an axiom itself, nor did I imply it.
And, again, you're supporting inductive logic and dismissing deductive logic out of hand. All academia in the west from its beginning to now uses both - induction and deduction (theories and theorems) to study the nature of reality.
If you want to dismiss a normal form of logic in the study of reality then please give argument and not just say "that's just how its done".
>math can prove god exists
>implying math exists
prove it. how do numbers exist? are they real? can you show me a number?
If god doesn't exist, then where did matter come from? Checkmate atheists
Alright I'll bite. So lets assume this argument is proven to be correct. Could this hypothetical god be c'thulu? yes or no
>>Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.
Pure solipsism is not an argument.
>However all proof is universal
All proofs are valid only within their axiomatic systems. Reality is not an axiomatic system.
>and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.
NO
I apologize then. I'm heading to bed soon.
Regardless, you get me now.
Well generally no as the argument argues for something of a specific nature not intrinsic to Cthulhu.
Christcucks not even once
>kiss and lick refugee feet
>send their wives to Africa for missionary(position) work
>worship Jews like they're prophets and give them all their money
>encourage their women to get blacked because all men are god's perfect children
>literally follow a communist cuck called the pope
>give their money and food to third world shitskins so they can out breed the white race
>openly embrace Muslims and let them pray in your churches
>open your arms to colored immigrants from all over the world
>protect illegal immigrants from ICE
You are helping to destroy the white race with your bullshit. When I was in Christain school I saw plenty of white girls fucking ghetto niggers because they're constantly told "All people are created in god's image, we're all his perfect little children.". You are all more worried about fags sucking each other's dicks than the destruction Western civilization.
>What experiments would those be?
Guess I was inaccurate; the error margin is between cosmological models based on relativity (the goal of the theory, so to speak) and the measured and observed Quantum principles
T. Michio Kaku
That's why they expect a new copernican revolution.
well son of a bitch, hes not here.
Maybe he killed himself after trump won, happy day!
>> A fucking jew
nothing to do here
For non mathematicians:
quora.com
Speaking of a chain of events...
If you believe in cause and effect, then every cause has a prior cause, going all the way back in the past, until there is either an infinite series of causes, or a cause with no prior cause (a first cause, a causeless cause).
People claim the universe is something like 13 billion years old, meaning that the past goes back 13 billion years until it stops, or time starts. Although with every new second, you could argue that the origin of time forever gets further and further away from now, so one could never reach it.
If there is an infinite series of causes, isn't that the same as eternity? Which suggests time is somewhat artificial. If a clock has to start somewhere (for example, after the clock is made), but time has no start, then it's possible that people have confused counting (which has a start) with time.
If there is a first cause, a causeless cause, why would every other cause that exists need a prior cause, but the first cause needs no prior cause? Unless the first cause is eternal. Again, a suggestion of eternity.
God is widely described as an eternal being, a thing that has always existed. God is also described as existing outside time, outside temporality.
Time arguably cannot start itself, so what could start time? What could cause the First Second? Although time arguably did not exist until there was an organism aware of it's passage, until memories existed. Without memory what is there? An eternal now?
>redditors are this triggered
Please look into divine conservation.
>Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.
Thats some real fuzzy logic
Run it through the modals and find out.
You seem to assume a great many things. Probably because you don't even know what kind of being God is believed (and claimed) to be. Instead you disbelieve in complex scarecrows, like cthulhu.
Not every god is a creator god.
Ofentimes when people speak of God, capital G, they are referring to an Absolute, the Creator, the Ultimate.
That God could be described as top-down (God is like a king or ruler) or bottom-up (the God underlying everything, underneath all things, beneath all things, the root).
>can't refute the fact he's a total cuck
>moves to insults and calls me a redditor instead
>Reality is not an axiomatic system
Is that based on axioms or axioms that change (and rely on deeper level axioms)? Or is it bullshit?
For the record, reality is not 'just' axioms, but real things linked together via axiomatic principles.
'I am. ' this has to be true.
Christianity never used to be like that, It was corrupted into this form by Jewish Jesuits.
>dismissing deductive logic out of hand
Deductive logic is the main tool of mathematics and logic, and it is useful in building those imaginary castles that provide tools for greater understanding of the real world, such as statistical analysis, computation, modeling, etc.
In case you missed the history of science, science only became productive when people realized that deduction is not an effective tool for deriving truths about the world. This is because reality is not obliged to adhere to the thoughts humans have about how it ought to work a priori. As such, deductive logic's only place in science is in mathematical analysis of empirical data, not anything to do with empirical data itself, which is the only useful input for determining what is true.
To give a different angle, deductive logic only produces "true" results when there are premises that can be taken unquestionably as true. As such, it is a mechanism to distribute established truth to uncertain statements, not a way to produce truth on its own. This is literally the fundamental nature of deduction, and the reason it's worthless for science without an inductive basis should be trivially obvious.
if we believe they are real
This damage control can be seen only in Salon journos, and Horizon threads on Sup Forums.
>be me in a corridor
>start to walk away from the end I entered
>the enterance is getting further away
>the corridor is now infinitely long
...
OP from the original thread earlier today. My observations were correct - they can't help but respond. It's like piranhas smelling blood in the water. Kikes are stupid easy to control because in reality they are just automatons with no real brain. Simple Beasts much like literal pigs. anyway i'm glad somebody reposted this. Just remember anything with the intersection of deity/math/science gets them to chimp out.
Keep up the good work. The day of the rope is at hand!
You shouldn't have done that.
Nice quads. Fine. There could be some divine entity out there. Its nature is important though. Humans beleive in deitys because their religions speak of some kind of relationship between their god and themeselves. If there is no way of knowing what kind of god this entity is, what's the point in keeping religion alive when saying "there is a god" is all we could ever claim to know for certainty? I could say this hypothetical god is a lovecraftian monster and I could be correct just like any other "prophet".
Yes. The problem of induction is that in inductive reasoning, all the premises can be true (every swan I have ever seen is white) while the conclusions (therefore every swan is white) can be false (black swans exist). Extrapolating past memories into future events can be a good predictor, but just because something happened in the past does not mean it will happen again in the future. Inductive reasoning is usefully evolutionarily, turning a singular experience into a general rule (one snake bit me, avoid all snakes), (that mushroom killed my friend, avoid all mushrooms), (that spider killed my sibling, avoid all spiders). It leads to useful stereotypes to avoid danger, but it doesn't account for every case. But taking things on a case by case basis can get you killed.
Evolutionarily, it's much better to falsely believe a threat exists and run away (a rock falls, a deer runs away from nothing) than to falsely believe a threat does not exist and not run away (a sound behind you, you get eaten). Agent detection evolved due to "the high cost of failing to detect agents and the low cost of wrongly detecting them." Some say agent detection is why humans believe in God.
But actually, nothing repeats. Every second, if you imagine every second of the entire universe as a still frame, never repeats. Each second of the universe is an entirely different configuration. But brains engage in pattern recognition, and often notice patterns, suggesting repeating phenomenon.
People certainly notice reoccuring phenomenon. The Greeks noticed these, and figuring they were not subject to death, immortal, were gods. So to the Greeks, seasons are a god, the ocean is a god, war is a god, beauty is a god, wisdom is a god. I guess you could trace from that to Ideas in Platonic idealism.
Reality is stranger than fiction.