/sci/ - Science & Math

You mean atheists, not nihilists.

Nihilism would still work with a deity.

>>2282529
this. atheists are the cry babies who hate god.

all ateists are nihilists by definition tho because they beleieve in nothing lol

you know, I really have no idea what that means.

>Proof of God
>complete gibberish
makes sense

This was done by Kurt Gödel. Owned all the butthurt atheists.

Sure would be nice if any of the atheists on this board could actually understand logical notation.

Then you would have actually made a point.

Explain further.

And you've come to this conclusion through that...how? I'm being serious here. Mind deciphering that nonsense?

I'm a physicist and I hate crazy mathematical notation.

My mind goes all fuzzy every time I see an "exists in the set of" symbol.

blech

I need to calculate. Eigenvectors and eigenvalues for the motherfucking win.

>>2282564

The same person who also has a mental illness and starved himself to death.

Either way the proof assumes that all constructible universes are the same.

Something along the lines of

assume the following axiom:
>Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property rather vaguely: "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995)
We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying "the positive properties form a principal ultrafilter"):
>Axiom 2: If P is positive and P entails Q, then Q is positive.
>Axiom 3: If P1, P2, P3, ..., Pn are positive properties, then the property (P1 AND P2 AND P3 ... AND Pn) is positive as well.
>Axiom 4: If P is a property, then either P or its negation is positive, but not both.
Finally, we assume:
>Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm's argument.
Now we define a new property G: if x is an object in some possible world, then G(x) is true if and only if P(x) is true in that same world for all positive properties P. G is called the "God-like" property. An object x that has the God-like property is called God.

1. just because I can imagine 100€ in my pocket, dont mean it is there.
2. existence is not a property.

ITT: christfag posts an argument in mathematical notation, claims victory because no-one speaks it.

>>2282609

how else can they do it?

>>2282606
Same person that proved
Completeness Theorem
Incompleteness Theorem
Did work on Continuum Hypothesis


Several mathematicians had illnesses (mental) that doesn't discredit their work. Cantor was one of them.

>>2282609
Even for those of us who know mathematical notation, OP's argument is nonsense because he didn't define anything. G(x) is pretty straightforward, I assume that means "x is a god", but even that is just a guess.

>>2282620
Replace "God" with "Genital Warts". Do you now have genital warts?

>>2282640

why you attacking me, bro? I only pasted from wikipedia.

>>2282523
Df1 is wrong

There is no justification for it

>>2282620

sounds like they're just saying "If things exist, god exists", by defining god as that which is necessary for things to exist. But this is a huge assumption that has no grounding except to assume that god exists now in reality, which is what the argument is supposed to be proving.

Circular argument, if I'm not mistaken.

>>2282658
Yeah, the whole argument is laughable. It is not taken seriously by mathematicans, scientists, scholars, or anyone with an IQ over 95.

Everyone in here has been trolled. Godel didn't even believe in God and was just trying to demonstrate that anything can be shown in abstract logic.

There are no Christfags on /sci/ anyway, just trolls.

>>2282650
It's a definition, bro.

>>2282529
Not with an afterlife, though

>>2282679
Godel described himself as baptized Lutheran. Also no one in this thread understands Godel's mathematical work.

>>2282687

Well, a nihilist could say "what's the point of an afterlife?"

I'm some sort of existentialist/humanist myself, but deities don't produce more purpose than any human dictator.

>my face when he begs the question

This was on QI:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kndxsByVscA

>>2282684
There is still no justification for it.
I could define bullshit too.

def2. G(x) <-> OP is a fucking faggot

>>2282719

Well, per definition, a nihilistic believes that, given a finite amount of time, none of his actions will still have any influence. However, an infitely long afterlife would mean that his actions may have an infitely long influence on something.

>>2282850

I was using 'nihilist' as "someone who thinks there is no point to anything and no point doing anything".

An afterlife would exacerbate that.

>>2282850
Is this really the reasoning behind nihilism? It seems to be based on the naive view of time in which things not in the present are considered not to exist.

>Logical Reasoning
>Atheist

Pick one, you can't find people with both properties. The only "logic" atheist can do is from their philosophy professors going "I'm smart and I don't believe in God, thus if you want to be smart don't believe in God"

It proves that it's mathematically plausible for a God to exist. Since atheist's intellect rest solely on their non-belief, they ignore it and mock it as just some random scribes they can't possibly understand.....

"Sir, <span class="math">\frac{a+b^n}{n}=x<span class="math">, hence God exists" - Euler[/spoiler][/spoiler]

SHUT UP GOD DOESNT' EXIST ONLY DAWKINS EXISTS

"Sir, <span class="math">\frac{a+b^n}{n}=x[/spoiler], hence God exists" - Euler

>>2282523

the proof essentially defines god as existing and then claims he must exist as a consequence. the clever part is that existence is taken as a predicate so that it sets up an unsatisfiable set of conditions for god if god doesn't exist. since the propositions are unsatisfiable if god doesn't exist it then concludes that god must exist, but this is wrong because if god does not exist the proof includes a paradoxical statement and thus cannot be examined logically

A somewhat similar argument can be made for any proposition like this

Let B be a statement that you wish to prove and let X be the statement "the truth value of this statement is the same as the truth value of B"
with a little playing around you will see that the only way that this can be satisfied is if B and X are both true. therefore B must be true.

The flaw in the above 'proof' is that if B is false X is equivalent to the paradoxical statement "this statement is false" and thus cannot be examined logically.

>>2283094
It says nothing of the sort

>>2283094

Seems like a rehashing of the ontological argument; namely:

The definition of god includes existence, therefore god exists.

>>2283109
then what does it say?
when you say god has all positive qualities and existence is a positive quality then you are defining god to exist, and thats what godel did.

>>2283111
yeah godels argument is essentially a formalization of the ontological argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

I wonder if anyone noticed the implications of proving God's existence...

Question: If God is real and we can prove it, how can faith exist?

>>2283094 here
I just read a little bit more about the proof, apparently it is only supposed to prove that "if god is possible then he is necessary" which to me follows quite intuitively from the defining of god as existing but says nothing profound about whether god exists or not.

Could we use this to prove that Santa Claus exists?

Wow! I almost fell off of page 15!