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.
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."
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.

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."
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.
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]
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]
Dismissed, Sir!