How do you know that God exist’s?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JMJ

hurdlr23,**
Quote by hurdlr23** –**

“God is a simpler explanation. Using Hackam’s Razor ( I think that’s what it’s called, someone else can check me on that), the simpler theory is usually right, so I’m going with God. QED”
Ockham’s razor

Ockham’s Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily’’. In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple’’, but in reality the Razor has a more subtle and interesting meaning. Suppose that you have two competing theories which describe the same system, if these theories have different predictions than it is a relatively simple matter to find which one is better: one does experiments with the required sensitivity and determines which one give the most accurate predictions. Common usage; “'With all things being equal, the simplest explanation/answer is normally the right one”

Robert J. Hanlon

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”

Finagle’s Law
:

The generalized or ‘folk’ version of Murphy’s Law, fully named “Finagle’s Law of Dynamic Negatives” and usually rendered “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong”. May have been first published by Francis P. Chisholm in his 1963 essay The Chisholm Effect, later reprinted in the classic anthology A Stress Analysis Of A Strapless Evening Gown: And Other Essays For A Scientific Eye (Robert Baker ed, Prentice-Hall, ISBN 0-13-852608-7).

Murphy’s Law:

The correct, original Murphy’s Law reads: “If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it.Later changed to: “What ever can go wrong will go wrong”

Edward A. Murphy, Jr. was one of McDonnell-Douglas’s test engineers on the rocket-sled experiments that were done by the U.S. Air Force in 1949 to test human acceleration tolerances (USAF project MX981). One experiment involved a set of 16 accelerometers mounted to different parts of the subject’s body. There were two ways each sensor could be glued to its mount, and somebody methodically installed all 16 in a replacement set the wrong way around. Murphy then made the original form of his pronouncement, which the test subject (Major John Paul Stapp) mis-quoted (apparently in the more general form “Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong)” at a news conference a few days later. Within months ‘Murphy’s Law’ had spread to various technical cultures connected to aerospace engineering. Before too many years had gone by variants had passed into the popular imagination, changing as they went. Most of these are variants on “Anything that can go wrong, will”; this is more correctly referred to as Finagle’s Law. The memetic drift apparent in these mutants clearly demonstrates Murphy’s Law acting on itself! This statement has often been referred to as Hanlon’s Razor, though the author himself has remained relatively unknown.

Yours in Christ,
 
Jimmy B said:
JMJ

**Quotes taken from: Originally Posted by **Jimmy B

It’s as simple as 1+1=2******

”How could God exist in the past, present and future? Is it merely faith that we can believe this, or is there an explanation?”

***”There are not very many “truths” as we know it. People can be wrong and often are. Science can be wrong and often is, example “the world is flat”. The only truths are math and God.” ***

”A mathematical formula is often referred to as a “truth”, a constant. God has been referred to as the “Truth”…The truth the(life)light and the way. God is infinite and numbers are infinite.”

”The simplest mathematical formula (truth) 1+1=2,”


“1+1=2 existed before the universe. It will exist when we are all long gone and it exist now, in the present, because we know is exists. No matter what has ever happen or what will ever happen 1+1 will ALWAYS! Equal 2. It is a truth. Like God.”

**Yours in Christ

Before I use any mathematical model for the existance of God, I review **Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem - **“That all logical systems of any complexity [including 1+1=2] are, by very definition, incomplete.” Any mathematical statement cannot prove itself.

You’ll never be able to understand yourself, according to Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying only what it already knows about itself (unless it relies on outside sources).

I think all mathematical models for the existance of God prior to Goedel are suspect.
 
+JMJ+

Kevin Walker.

Your Quote-

“Before I use any mathematical model for the existance of God, I review **Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem - **“That all logical systems of any complexity [including 1+1=2] are, by very definition, incomplete.” Any mathematical statement cannot prove itself.

You’ll never be able to understand yourself, according to Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying only what it already knows about itself (unless it relies on outside sources).

I think all mathematical models for the existance of God prior to Goedel are suspect.”

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem

In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn’t be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms … of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you’ll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

Gödel’s Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths … It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you’ll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.

Kevin,

I think the point Gödel is trying to make is;

Garbage in – Garbage out.”

I believe he is writing about “experimental” math, “unprovable” mathematical theorems.

I challenge him, or anyone else to show that, one object placed next to another object does not equal two objects. This will happen whether one understands math or not. This basic mathematical problem is not a mathematical theory, it is a mathematical truth. No “Garbage in – Garbage out “issue here. One object will always be one object, 1+1=2! 1+1=2 is not complex.

Your Quote – “That all logical systems of any complexity [including 1+1=2] are, by very definition, incomplete."

Respectively Submitted,
 
I don’t “know” God exists. However I can say C.S.Lewis went a long way towards convincing me he does.

Love and objective truth came from somewhere. I’m betting on God.
 
Kevin,

I think the point Gödel is trying to make is;

Garbage in – Garbage out.”

I believe he is writing about “experimental” math, “unprovable” mathematical theorems.

I challenge him, or anyone else to show that, one object placed next to another object does not equal two objects. This will happen whether one understands math or not. This basic mathematical problem is not a mathematical theory, it is a mathematical truth. No “Garbage in – Garbage out “issue here. One object will always be one object, 1+1=2! 1+1=2 is not complex.

Your Quote – “That all logical systems of any complexity [including 1+1=2] are, by very definition, incomplete."

Respectively Submitted

Hi Jimmy B,

Oh no, absolutely not. “Garbage in - Garbage out” is computer programming jargon, and has nothing to do with the philosophical profundity of Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

Try this thought experiment regarding the ‘Reality’ of numbers. Place an apple on a table, then write ‘One (1) Apple’ on the blackboard. Remove the apple from the table, then erase the word ‘apple’ from the blackboard. Now look at the table and the black board. Where is ‘one’ on the table? Its on the blackboard but not on the table?

As you know, numbers are abstractions which do not exist in reality, so we represent the concept of numbers in the English language by the words One, Two, Three, …etc. We use these concepts to represent the amounts of physical objects, One Apple. You can pick up an apple, but you cannot pick up a One (or a Two or a Three, etc.).

1+1=2 cannot be proven given the rules contained within mathematics itself. 1+1= 1.1; 1+1=1.2; 1+1=1.3 and onward onto infinity, but it will never reach 2. therefore, according to Godel: 1+1=2 is not true.

This is not another example of Zeno’s Paradox, which is simply based on causuistry; Goedel’s Incompletness Theorem works out logically.

I’m no Mathematician by any means, but Kurt Goedel won international acclaim and acceptance with this theorem - it works.

So, once again, I view any argument for the existance of God based on mathematics as suspect because of Godel.

In my humble opinion, Kevin
 
+JMJ+

http://personal.bgsu.edu/~edwards/csltime.gif

04SEP47 -Time Magazine Cover
C.S. Lewis Quotes -

“100 per cent of us die, and the percentage cannot be increased.”

“Reality, in fact, is always something you couldn’t have guessed. That’s one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It’s a religion you couldn’t have guessed.”

“God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form…The perfect surrender and humiliation was undergone by Christ: perfect because He was God, surrender and humiliation because He was man.”

“Reasoning is never, like poetry, judged from the outside at all.”

“It still remains true that no justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous.”

“As long as this deliberate refusal to understand things from above, even where such understanding is possible, continues, it is idle to talk of any final victory over materialism.”
 
hrdler23, Wrote"Now you go back to the big bang, where particles friction produced energy, and the universe forms. Where did the matter come from?

Either it was just there, and everything was just magically there for eternity without the existence of a diety of any sort, rather than complete nothingness.

God is a simpler explanation. Using Hackam’s Razor ( I think that’s what it’s called, someone else can check me on that), the simpler theory is usually right, so I’m going with God. QED

Much earlier in this thread I too asked. Where Did The Matter Come From In The First Place? And you will find two spellings for the Englishman OCCAM O’CCAM…it I think was Robert of O’Occam it doesnt matter. You stated his principle correctly. Take the simmplest solution, it is usually best.
 
+JMJ+

It looks like I got a few people worked-up on this thread, but in a good way. I’m learning a lot. Here is a sampling of a few, quotes, theories and persons, so far, from this thread. Veeeeeeery interesting!

Three Laws of Motion

The Prime Mover
**:**

Sir Isaac Newton**
Thomas Aquinas*** Summa catholicce fidei contra gentiles*********

R.C. Sproul ****

Why is there something rather than nothing?”

“The statement, “God exists,” is a precisely stated proposition. Thus, it is either true or false. The simple fact is, either God exists or He does not. There is no middle ground.”
“It is meaningless to say that something is a cause
if it yields no effect. It is likewise meaningless to say that something is an effect if it has no cause. A cause, by definition, must have an effect, or it is not a cause. An effect, by definition, must have a cause, or it is not an effect”
Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Alvin
Plantingais
(professor at Notre DameUniversity)


*“given all we know about the world today, the idea of God has an enormous explanatory power, and thus faith in God is more rational than atheism”
“Many people claim to have experienced God, and this should be trusted unless there is any reason to doubt it.” *
“one should trust that one’s own experiences are reliable unless some defeater exists, and he claims that the many reports about religious experience should be trusted.”
Richard Swinburne


CARTESIAN
MACHINES

Quotes from - John Nash
Expression of Purpose in Evolution ******
Albert Einstein:****
"Yes, we have to divide up our time like that, between our politics and our equations. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever."**

Elijah** at the cave, 1 Kings 19:12-13, “I am here.” Grace makes our belief in that answer as strong as iron. Revelation, including through our inspired Church, fills in the details. Amen.**

Psalms 139:17-18**
17. “How precious to me are your designs, O God; how vast the sum of them!” ****
18. “Were I to count, they would outnumber the sands; to finish, I would need eternity.”**

Maimonides** postulated: “Let us frankly adopt tentatively, he says, the Aristotelian idea of the eternity of the world,* i.e*., the eternity of matter and motion. We can then prove the existence of an unmoved mover who is pure spirit, for none but a pure spirit can have an infinite force such as is manifested in the eternal motion of the world.”
“Thus Maimonides accepted provisionally the eternity of matter and motion, but provisionally only.” **
 
+JMJ+

Kevin,

Thank you for your response
.

Your quote –

“Try this thought experiment regarding the ‘Reality’ of numbers. Place an apple on a table, then write ‘One (1) Apple’ on the blackboard*. Remove the apple from the table**, then erase the word ‘apple’ from the blackboard. Now look at the table and the black board. Where is ‘one’ on the table? It’s on the blackboard but not on the table?”*

In math we call this “subtraction”.

1+1 still equals 2, that is, until you do some subtraction, remove the apple.

Your quote -

“Oh no, absolutely not. “Garbage in - Garbage out” is computer programming jargon, and has nothing to do with the philosophical profundity of Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem”

“Garbage in – Garbage out”, is common Jargon, not the sole possession of “computer programmers”. The point I was making is that in theorems, several approaches might be taken to tackle a problem. With unknowns, one might inject a wrong formula (information), through a process of “trial and error” and “process of elimination”, in order to try and solve a problem.

When you work a problem backwards from the correct (known) answer, you will find no errors in the information which is the basis for a correct conclusion. If you start with “garbage” (bad information) you will end up with “garbage”, bad (wrong) answers, “Garbage in-Garbage-out”. Besides, it is a lot easier to say and write “Garbage in-Garbage-out”. I tried to use it here as a colloquialism to express a thought.

Respectfully Submitted,
 
With thanks to Radio Replies, Vol 1

On having Biblical evidence - Some people think that evidence must be seen and touched, as an animal sees a patch of grass and eats it. But men are not mere animals. They have reason, and can appreciate intellectual evidence. For example, the evidence of beauty in music or in painting is perceived by man’s mind, not his senses. An animal could hear the same sounds, or see the same colours, without being impressed by their harmony and proportion. Apart from the Bible altogether, reason can detect sufficient evidence to guarantee the existance of God.

Non-biblical evidence for the existance of God.

Causality - The universe, limited in all it’s details, could not be it’s own cause. It could no more come together with all it’s regulating laws the the San Francisco Bridge could just happen, or a clock could assemble itself and keep perfect time without a clockmaker. On the same principle, if there were no God, there would be no you to dispute it’s existence. A second indication is drawn from universal reasoning, or intuition of men. The universal judgement of mankind can no more be wrong on this vital point than the intuition of an infant that food must be conveyed to the mouth. The stamp of God’s handiwork is so clearly impressed upon creation, and ,above all, upon man, that all nations instinctively believe there is a god. The truth is in possession. Men do not have to persuade themselves thet there is God. They have to try to persuade themselves that there is no God. And no one yet, who has attained to such a temprary persuasion, has been able to find a valid reason for it. Men do not grow into the idea of God, they endeavor to grow out of it.

Sense of Moral Obligation - In every man there is a sense of right and wrong. A man knows interiorly when he is doing wrong. Something rebukes his conduct. He knows that he is going against an inward voice. It is the voice of conscience, dictating to us a law we did not make, and which no man could have made, for this voice protests whether other men know our conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we wish to do, warning us beforehand, condemning us after it’s violation. The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver who has written his law in our hearts. And has God alone can do this, it is certain that He exists.

Demands of Justice - The very sense of justice among men, resulting in law-courts, supposes a God. We did not give ourselves our sense of justice. It comes from whoever made us, and no one can give what he does not possess himself. Yet justice cannot always be done by men in this world. Here the good often suffer, and the wicked prosper. And, even though human justice does not always succeed in balancing the scales, they will be balanced some day by a just God, who most certainly must exist.

Andy
 
With thanks to Radio Replies, Vol 1

On having Biblical evidence -

Some people think that evidence must be seen and touched, as an animal sees a patch of grass and eats it. But men are not mere animals. They have reason, and can appreciate intellectual evidence. For example, the evidence of beauty in music or in painting is perceived by man’s mind, not his senses. An animal could hear the same sounds, or see the same colours, without being impressed by their harmony and proportion. Apart from the Bible altogether, reason can detect sufficient evidence to guarantee the existance of God.

Non-biblical evidence for the existance of God.

Causality - The universe, limited in all it’s details, could not be it’s own cause. It could no more come together with all it’s regulating laws the the San Francisco Bridge could just happen, or a clock could assemble itself and keep perfect time without a clockmaker. On the same principle, if there were no God, there would be no you to dispute it’s existence. A second indication is drawn from universal reasoning, or intuition of men. The universal judgement of mankind can no more be wrong on this vital point than the intuition of an infant that food must be conveyed to the mouth. The stamp of God’s handiwork is so clearly impressed upon creation, and ,above all, upon man, that all nations instinctively believe there is a god. The truth is in possession. Men do not have to persuade themselves thet there is God. They have to try to persuade themselves that there is no God. And no one yet, who has attained to such a temprary persuasion, has been able to find a valid reason for it. Men do not grow into the idea of God, they endeavor to grow out of it.

Sense of Moral Obligation - In every man there is a sense of right and wrong. A man knows interiorly when he is doing wrong. Something rebukes his conduct. He knows that he is going against an inward voice. It is the voice of conscience, dictating to us a law we did not make, and which no man could have made, for this voice protests whether other men know our conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we wish to do, warning us beforehand, condemning us after it’s violation. The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver who has written his law in our hearts. And has God alone can do this, it is certain that He exists.

Demands of Justice - The very sense of justice among men, resulting in law-courts, supposes a God. We did not give ourselves our sense of justice. It comes from whoever made us, and no one can give what he does not possess himself. Yet justice cannot always be done by men in this world. Here the good often suffer, and the wicked prosper. And, even though human justice does not always succeed in balancing the scales, they will be balanced some day by a just God, who most certainly must exist.

Andy
 
Kevin Walker:
Hi Biblereader,

You’re correct that the premise *“Nothing can move itself” *was the accepted assumption by 10th thru 13th century philosophers and theologians still heavily influenced by Aristotle.

But in the world of science, isn’t Newton’s first law of motion: That a body at rest tends to remain at rest; proof that the physics based Prime Mover argument Nothing can move itself, is true?
The Newtonian/Relativistic analysis of physics at the macro level is pretty good precedent.

However, the other side of physics – quantum mechanics – is still not completely causal, and so not good precedent. Though some say that the new Superstring Theory finally joins the determinism of Newtonian/Relativistic physics to the fundamental uncertainties of particle behavior, the mathematics of quantum mechanics is still inherently probablistic, and the secret of whether the still-not-clearly-predictable twists and turns of quanta are causal in nature – moves initiated by a prior mover of some sort – still seems to be buried forever beneath something called The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

No matter what, if one believes that God is a “Dasein” – an entity with the quality of “being there,” so that He is “something” and “not nothing,” one MUST believe that it is NOT true that “nothing can move itself.”

Again, the problem with the Prime Mover “proof” of God’s existence (and with ALL of Aquinas’ “proofs”) is that the terminal finding of the “proof,” God, ALWAYS violates the main operating premise.

God is ineffable – “not mentally grab-bable.” We can’t get our mental arms around Him. And that ineffability strikes at the heart of what we call “proofs” of God’s existence.

I think that Aquinas’ arguments imperfectly *point at *God, and then we ask, in response, “Is He there?,” and then the grace of faith jumps into our hearts and enlivens and makes certain our belief and so we think, “YES! HE IS!,” with a grace-empowered certainty that is stronger than the certainty of mathematics or physics.

When I studied physics in college, I was shook up by the basic notion, in relativistic physics, that “1 + 1 =/= ‘does NOT equal’] 2!” – part of the essence of Einstein’s intuitive leap when he jumped to the concept of Special Relativity. I learned that that, in this physical reality God gave us, it is not even reliable that “1 + 1 = 2”!
 
No matter what, if one believes that God is a “Dasein” – an entity with the quality of “being there,” so that He is “something” and “not nothing,” one MUST believe that it is NOT true that “nothing can move itself.”

When I studied physics in college, I was shook up by the basic notion, in relativistic physics, that “1 + 1 =/= ‘does NOT equal’] 2!” – part of the essence of Einstein’s intuitive leap when he jumped to the concept of Special Relativity. I learned that that, in this physical reality God gave us, it is not even reliable that “1 + 1 = 2”!

Hi Biblereader,

I like your reasoning. But I do not believe that God is a *Dasein. *

I believe that God is an omnipotent and anthropomorphic intelligent entity. God can do *anything *by the very definition of his being omnipotent [Yes, God can create an object so heavy that even he cannot lift it, and still be able to pick it up. Because God is not confined to the physics which he created for us].

As I posted in another thread, Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem has determined that the mathematics statement 1+1=2 is not true, which is why I hesitate to use any mathematical argument for the existance of God.

Therefore, if God is standing outside of something he hasn’t started yet, and if it is true that “nothing can move itself” then God is that impetus for the first motion.

According to the limited physics of man, if something is moving, it is to be implied that something else moved it. So how did the universe and all life on Earth get started in the first place?

I do understand your critique of the Moses Maimonedes Prime Mover Argument, that the first premise is contradicted by an already moving entity, but it holds true when you consider that in the 1100s when this reasoning was proposed, it was understood that God was outside the physics he gave to man.

I disagree with the constant effort of trying to reduce God to a simple reasoning system to force him to be comprehensible to mere man. We will discover the nature of God when he permits it.

Once again, in my humble opinion and simple life observations.
 
+JMJ+

Kevin thanks for your response,


Kevin Walker -

Your Quote –

“As you know, numbers are abstractions which do not exist in reality, so we represent the concept of numbers in the English language by the words One, Two, Three, …etc. We use these concepts to represent the amounts of physical objects, One Apple. You can pick up an apple, but you cannot pick up a One (or a Two or a Three, etc.).”

”1+1=2 cannot be proven given the rules contained within mathematics itself. 1+1= 1.1 “ –

**Response: (****wrong answer- 1+1 = 2 / 1.0 + 0.1 = 1.1) **

**“**and 1+1=1.2;”

Response:** (wrong**) 1+1 = 2 / 1.0+ 0.2 = 1.2}

-“and 1+1=1.3 and onward onto infinity, but it will never reach 2. Therefore, according to Gödel: 1+1=2 is not true.”

Response:

1.0 + 0.3 = 1.3 not 1.0 + 1.0 = 1.3. (This is incorrect)

1.0 + 1.0 = 2.0 (1+1=2)!

1+1=1.3, is wrong. 1.0 + 0.3 = 1.3 (correct answer)

**Wasn’t Gödel aware of fractions?

There are a few examples in math, in which one has to “round- off” an answer to a useful decimal point. Example: 3.14 / 3.141 / 3.1416…. all equal pie. However 1+1=2 (period) no need to round 2, (the answer), unless you change the question.

Your Quote-

“Try this thought experiment regarding the ‘Reality’ of numbers. Place an apple on a table, then write ‘One (1) Apple’ on the blackboard. Remove the apple from the table, then erase the word ‘apple’ from the blackboard. Now look at the table and the black board. Where is ‘one’ on the table? Its on the blackboard but not on the table?”

Response:

How is
“One (1) Apple” **on the blackboard? In your example you erased the word apple from the blackboard. **

Just wondering?

Respectfully Submitted,
 
40.png
BibleReader:
No matter what, if one believes that God is a “Dasein” – an entity with the quality of “being there,” so that He is “something” and “not nothing,” one MUST believe that it is NOT true that “nothing can move itself.”
how so? aquinas believed that god is something and also that he did not move himself.
40.png
BibleReader:
Again, the problem with the Prime Mover “proof” of God’s existence (and with ALL of Aquinas’ “proofs”) is that the terminal finding of the “proof,” God, ALWAYS violates the main operating premise.
what is the main operating premise of aquinas’ proofs?
40.png
BibleReader:
When I studied physics in college, I was shook up by the basic notion, in relativistic physics, that “1 + 1 =/= ‘does NOT equal’] 2!” – part of the essence of Einstein’s intuitive leap when he jumped to the concept of Special Relativity. I learned that that, in this physical reality God gave us, it is not even reliable that “1 + 1 = 2”!
how can a physical theory such as special relativity provide evidence against a necessary truth such as 1+1=2?
 
Response:

How is
“One (1) Apple” **on the blackboard? In your example you erased the word apple from the blackboard. **

Just wondering?

Respectfully Submitted,


Hi Jimmy B,

I don’t think Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem is wrong, so accordingly 1+1=/=2.

And to answer your question: “How is ‘One (1) Apple’ on the blackboard?” Yes, the word ‘Apple’ was erased from the blackboard, but not the word ‘One’.

The word Apple was erased, not the word One. An apple is not a One.

The apple was physically removed from the table, and the English representative for that object, the word ‘Apple’, was correspondingly removed from the blackboard. Yet while the English word for a mathematical abstraction ‘ONE’ still remained on the blackboard, there is no ‘one’ on the table.

Because mathematics is dealing exclusively with abstractions, we assume, a priori, that numbers exist for the ease of understanding. Goedel just reminded us that not only is mathematics using nothing, but that nothing cannot prove itself (mathematics uses outside sources, logic for instance, to prove a mathematical statement.)

So I still hesitate to use a mathematical argument for the existance of God based on Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem. And this first dawned on me in my mathematics and philosophy courses at UMass.

So whaddya think? 🙂
 
john doran:
how so? aquinas believed that god is something and also that he did not move himself.

what is the main operating premise of aquinas’ proofs?

how can a physical theory such as special relativity provide evidence against a necessary truth such as 1+1=2?
Hi,

I believe that it was Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem which proved that all mathematical statements, no matter how small, cannot prove themselves. So according to Goedel, 1+1=/=2.

I kinda like Goedel’s theorem.

Thanks!
 
Kevin Walker:
I believe that it was Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem which proved that all mathematical statements, no matter how small, cannot prove themselves. So according to Goedel, 1+1=/=2.
godel doesn’t show that 1+1 does not equal 2; he shows that 1+1 cannot be proven to equal 2…

one plus one does, in fact, equal two.
 
Kevin Walker:
Because mathematics is dealing exclusively with abstractions, we assume, a priori, that numbers exist for the ease of understanding. Goedel just reminded us that not only is mathematics using nothing, but that nothing cannot prove itself (mathematics uses outside sources, logic for instance, to prove a mathematical statement.)
godel was actually an unabashed philosophical idealist who believed that numbers actually exist as abstract objects - that the number 1, for example, actually exists “out there” as a kind of platonic form…
 
+JMJ+

**Kevin, **

Math problems can be represent in many forms, “pie-charts”, “graphs” and the use of objects (for counting). In your example, the apple is used to represent “One”, one object. Children, when first learning basic math, are taught by using objects that represent numbers. If a child were to place “One stick” along side another “stick”, he would now see and observe, “Two sticks.” 1+1=2.

A child could place one “stick” down, count it and say “One stick” when another “stick” is placed next to it, he could touch the first “stick” and say “one”, continue to count, using the objects in front of him (representative numbers) to do so, touch the second “stick” and then say “Two” and so on. To learn subtraction he could start with “Two-sticks” then when “One” is removed, 2-1=1. “One stick” plus “One stick” equals “Two sticks”. The is a form of representative math, a tool used for understanding a math problem in a tangible sense. The child can actually touch the representative “One” (object) and pick-up the second object, hold it, look at it and see it. Then he could physically count “Two” objects. Math doesn’t have to be presented in an abstract form. Therefore the Apple in your example is “One”; it represents “One” object.

Respectfully Submitted,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top