Home » God and Gödel’s Theorem of Incompleteness

Sir Valiant for Truth's picture

HisWillness wrote:I'm sorry

Submitted by Sir Valiant for... on April 21, 2008 - 7:28am.

HisWillness wrote:

I'm sorry to say it's not. Sorry only because you say you've worked on it for so long.

Gödel's theorem is more about demonstrating that we'll never have exhaustive knowledge. The rest of the material looks like a "god in the gaps" set-up.

I thought as much. Even if it is a variant of the "god in the gaps" argument, that doesn't change the validity of this particular  form (about like it is also a variation of the first cause argument.) So is the application of Godel's Theorem of Incompleteness to the gaps argument original specifically?

EDIT: Godel's Theorem is also not a demonstration that we will never have exhaustive knowledge. It is simply that truth outruns formal provability. These two statements are fundamentally different. The one implies incomplete knowledge of a single system, the other implies that there must be a higher proof-system still.

Also, as an added paradox, how is it possible for a universe considered to be finite (about 15 billion light-years across) to have an infinite amount of knowledge to it?

 

 

EXC wrote:

Can an all knowing, all powerful god exist while Godel Theorem is true?

Isn't any god that is all knowing a violation of Godel's theorem?

An all powerful God has the power to prove all theorems of mathematics. He can make a formal system that is both complete and consistent.

So therefore if God, Godel's theorem has a contradiction. If Godel's theorem is true, then no God.

Seems to me your definition of God is the dude that can violate the laws of logic and Godel's theorem.

So all you've proven is that it is irrational and illogical to have the concept of God in your mind.

 

This criticism has already been answered in the original post.

 

Quote:

Part 2: Foreseen Criticisms and Rebuttals

 

 

Section 1: Preventing Ad Infinitum Regressions.

 

"God" completing logic and physics is all well and good, but what system will complete the axioms that "God" cannot possess? Is there an axiomatic system higher than God, even?

 

In this feature, this argument is analogous to the first cause argument, with the definite exception that a stop is possible in this case. There are at least two solutions that both stop Gödel’s Theorems from applying to everything in sight. One is that "God" Himself has a multiplicitous nature; the other is that "God" is not able to be logically probed.

 

Assuming "God" has a multiplicitous nature, then we are not looking at a singular entity, but rather several peer entities. Assuming that no one entity of God has a total axiomatic solution, then it follows that the statements that cannot be proven in one entity are provable in the other and vice-versa. This solution is admittedly circular, but both Gödel’s Theorem and "God's" finality are satisfied.

 

Conversely, it is possible that "God" is just not logically able to be probed. This solution explains that Gödel’s Theorem no longer applies to "God," but gives no specific mechanism on how it no longer applies.

Quote:

I find it a little...disappointing... to have a criticism brought up that I answered in the original post.

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <p> <span> <div> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <img> <map> <area> <hr> <br> <br /> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <table> <tr> <td> <em> <b> <u> <i> <strong> <font> <del> <ins> <sub> <sup> <quote> <blockquote> <pre> <address> <code> <cite> <embed> <obj
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text, URLs will automatically be converted to links.

More information about formatting options