Quote from: CoinCube on April 29, 2018, 05:29:56 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on April 29, 2018, 02:33:03 AM

Just because our universe is incomplete (not all truths can be proven mathematically)... is not a proof of God. I think people jump the gun on the incompleteness theorem.

Same argument as because the universe was created, and we don't know how and why it was created, there must be something out there that created it.

You are projecting your desires (of filling in the gaps in knowledge) on the outcome of your deduction. Don't feel bad, Newton did it, and many other smart people after him. Still the reasoning is wrong, regardless of who proclaims it.

I agree with you on the fundamentalism. You don't need religion for that.

I never claimed to prove God. The incompleteness theorem which is part #1 of my Empiric Argument for God is not proof of God.

Instead it is proof that there are things in this universe that can never be proven yet are true. From this fact we must conclude that our inability to prove a truth is not by itself sufficient grounds not accept it. Ultimately all knowledge traces back to assumed axioms.

How then do we determine if an unprovable axiom is true?
Is God such an axiom True yet unprovable?

To answer these questions we must develop a coherent theory of truth. That is part #2 of my argument.

I don't claim to have a proof of God. Personally I think that is impossible. What I have shown is that it is logical to believe in God even if we cannot now or ever prove his existence.

You state that I am projecting my desires (filling in the gaps in my knowledge) with the outcome of my deduction. To this charge I will give an honest answer.

That is a logical conclusion to draw only IF one adopts an entirely different worldview then I and ASSUME other "truths".

For no matter what worldview you use to launch your critique you are guilty of the same projection. At the bottom of your worldview whatever that may be lies at least one and possibly many "truths" that at best cannot be proven and at worst are false and self-contradictory.

Faith cannot be avoided. We can deny we have it and pretend it does not exist but only at the cost of deluding ourselves. In the worst case situation we are not even consciously aware of our a priori truths. Then we are blind to our own beliefs.

At the end of the day we choose who we are.

Again with this shit? You and the guy who wrote the article are using the incompleteness theorem wrong. I already discussed this with you, you can't apply the theorem to anything you like. There is even a book written specifically talking about how people are applying the theorem in the wrong ways.

''Real world situations usually display an amazing degree of complexity, unlike basic statements of arithmetic.

Unfortunately, most attempts to extend Gödel's theorems outside of math end up mired in these types of problems. Because these theorems were developed particular to say something about number theory (more broadly, formal systems)''

''Instead it is proof that there are things in this universe that can never be proven yet are true'' It is not proof of that either.