(((they))) don't want you to know about this goy.
>proves the existence of God through pure mathematics and logic
>incompleteness theorem; athiests utterly BTFO!
>proves all systems of belief require faith in something one cannot prove
>even Einstein bent the knee to Gödel
>positivism btfo
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
wwwmath.uni-muenster.de
twitter.com
that sad askenazi funeral of a face could never belong to any of /ourguys/
>sage
Kys stupid shill. Inform yourself before you post your bullshit. Lurk awhile and learn.
>proves the existence of God through pure mathematics and logic
Where? How? More?
which video proves god? I don't want to watch all 3
his ontological proof is primarily an exercise in autism, not an actual proof of God
>inb4 fedora athiest
>"""""proves""""" the paradox of Epimenides
I suppose it's necessary to reinvent the wheel from time to time, but it's not something I would hang my hat on as a scientist.
The celebration of this nothingburger is central to the post-modern mythology that science is superior to philosophy.
>I don't study mathematics: the post
The first video explains it best
You forgot the best part
>figures out america is ruled by a shadow government
>tells Einstein there's flaws in the constitution that would allow for fascist rule
>becomes convinced everyone is trying to poison him and willingly starves to death
There is no such thing as an exercise in autism, unless it's incoherent screeching...
Watch the first video at least.
LORD JESUS'S REALLLLL!!!!!!!!
Sage and report. Fucking slide threads
There is to much greatness for one user to tell. Thanks for sharing.
Great to see the JIDF back out in full force
Wow, I will be studying that page for a while. Thanks for the post!
There is a (((reason))) not many have heard of Gödel
He was a turbo-autist, but also a super-man, no doubt about it.
>proves the existence of God
Just no. Stop being idiotic.
All of science rests on assumptions one cannot prove, but must believe are true. You place your faith in that unprovable assumption, yet you seem unaware of this fact. Science cannot prove its own validity, it is only presumed by those who place their faith in it.
>Science cannot prove its own validity
Production of reproducible results and models that lend predictability to the input of variables isn't proof? Go back to school, Cletus.
Best mathematician ever.
>Just no. Stop being idiotic.
>Kurt Gödel
except he's not actually a Jew, and nothing he did directly forwarded the zionist agenda in any way whatsoever.
Just yes. Take the red pill, Brit shill. German idealism destroys British empiricism every time. You don't dare use your mind to discover truth, because
you need the lies of the enlightenment to feel good about your degeneracy.
if those cheek pouches grow bigger they might explode into a black hole and swallow us all
Alright OP, I'm giving these a watch. My background is in archaeology and cartogrophy. I'm an archivist for a couple of local museums, and I specialise in preservation of documents. But my knowledge of preservation/storage often takes me to arcaeological excavations. I learned about cartography in the RAF (I was an air cartographer); of course it involves goeometry, so touches on mathematics. But also the brain-sensory interface - what does it 'look' like etc. thqh, I often rely on a hunch or 'gut instinct', whatever that is.
Science is a method to validate or invalidate a theory. There is a difference between the method, and the theory. The method (science) assumes, as given, that which cannot be explained. Science can give us electronic devices, but it cannot explain what electricity really is. Think a little harder. Science cannot explain consciousness, but you use consciousness all the time. Try to raise your level of consciousness, it's possible.
In what world is the validation of a theory not an explanation?
Yes, he is our guy.
>Gödel
>Dödel
HöHö
What I'm trying to say is that, validating a theory or invalidating a theory, is not the same as explaining any given phenomena. Science assumes the intelligibility of the universe. That it can be known. It sets out to discover what can be tested. Whatever the result of a test, it does not explain the intelligibility of existence. Science relies on this fact, but it cannot explain this fact.