Existence of God proven using Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says: "Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove."

More from Perry Marshall's article at www.perrymarshall.com...

Marshall makes assumptions about the Universe based on current theory.
I disagree with the patently theist view of modern cosmology, namely the "Big Bang" theory.
I disagree with the Author's premise that the Universe is bounded.
I believe the Universe is unbounded, infinite and ultimately unknowable - attributes Marshall assigns to God.
And if this is true, it invalidates the premise thereby disproving Perry Marshall's result and while that doesn't disprove God, it doesn't add any logical reason for the existence of one either.

Anyway, the article is interesting and I think worthy of discussion. The comments there are also quite good.

It defiantly is, thanks again smack for posting it. I would like to see someone try to debunk this. So far I think someone said in the article that it hasn’t been either.

reply to post by Maddogkull


While I think Marshall's logic is sound I disagree with the result - in other words, he has the math right but the numbers he's plugging in are wrong - specifically the assumption based on modern cosmology that the universe is bounded.

I believe (Belief:what all philosophy is based on - science too) that the universe is unbounded, infinite and therefore no circle can be drawn around it. The Universe in this instance takes on all of the characteristics that Marshall assigns to God, therefore GOD is not needed. QED.

Originally posted by Maddogkull
It defiantly is, thanks again smack for posting it. I would like to see someone try to debunk this. So far I think someone said in the article that it hasn’t been either.

It isn't proof of God. It's counter-proof that there can be definitive proof of the non-existence of God. It's proof that the question of the existence of an ultimate absolute is unanswerable in terms of derived truth and must be affirmed or denied axiomatically. It is proof of the trancendental nature of a God, should a God exist, and if you don't call it God, then this "thing" that might otherwise be called "God", which renders the whole thing simultaneously meaningless and meaningful, in my opinion.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


I like your take on it, but I'm pretty sure Marshall expects us to derive a different meaning - that God exists.

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

I like your take on it, but I'm pretty sure Marshall expects us to derive a different meaning - that God exists.

Hehe. It kind of leaves it all up to Marshall to decide for himself, sort of like it's supposed to be.

Want overwhelming evidence tantamount to proof of the existence of God? Then spend a few weeks studying the research at this website:

www.smphillips.8m.com...

You will never need to ask this question again.

Yeah I am not smart enough to comprehend all the stuff that the website says. Your welcome to explain it to me, in a language I can understand. It is up to you.

reply to post by Smack

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says: "Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove."

This won't be taught in many Physics or mathematics classes, because it's pointless drivel.

Let's all assume pixies live in Andromeda and call it a theorem.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by john124]

He's proven god yet hasn't recieved any attention from the media, I wonder why?

Originally posted by micpsi
Want overwhelming evidence tantamount to proof of the existence of God? Then spend a few weeks studying the research at this website:

www.smphillips.8m.com...

You will never need to ask this question again.

Bravo for the brainwashing attempt, but sorry fancy little pictograms ordered all nice and neatly doesn't prove god's existence. Did you really spend weeks reading these few pages?!

Some of the christmas tree geometry looks fun to impress a child, but that's all it is, nothing more.

More in depth mathematics doesn't prove god exists either, but that's not the purpose of maths or geometry. To have that distorted into pseudo-science isn't helpful to anyone.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by john124]

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by micpsi
Want overwhelming evidence tantamount to proof of the existence of God? Then spend a few weeks studying the research at this website:

www.smphillips.8m.com...

You will never need to ask this question again.

Bravo for the brainwashing attempt, but sorry fancy little pictograms ordered all nice and neatly doesn't prove god's existence.

Some of the christmas tree geometry looks fun to impress a child, but that's all it is, nothing more.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by john124]

john124, I think he was referring that link for people who's heads aren't filled with quicksand.
Yeah, to understand those geometries you first need some semblance of an education.

Funny how you thought of being entertained like a child when seeing all those funny geometries and numbers bandied about

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Smack

 

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says: "Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove."

This won't be taught in many Physics or mathematics classes, because it's pointless drivel.

Let's all assume pixies live in Andromeda and call it a theorem.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by john124]

Wait a second! Many a scientist and philosopher will be disheartened to learn this news.
Yale

Harvard

Princeton

Dismissed, Sir!



[edit on 14-3-2010 by Smack]

Originally posted by john124
Let's all assume pixies live in Andromeda and call it a theorem.

Let's all call something a theorem after calling it an "assumption". A theorem is a logical inference from a set of axioms or other previously establish statements.

Don't squeeze the lemmas!


[edit on 3/14/2010 by EnlightenUp]