Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 10)
How to formalize this? Ignore Report Reply
Emma Secklebury - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 08:42:51 EST ID:8Yw0Br5B No.14438
File: 1414240971360.png -(27330B / 26.69KB, 280x345) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 27330
How to mathematically formalize that the belief in God is absurd because there are infinitely many "supernatural" beings that can exist, and God is just one of them, and that THERE ARE INFINITELY MANY BEINGS WHICH EXCLUDE GOD'S EXISTENCE out of possibility. Ex: Out of invisible flying goblins, invisible pink unicorns, invisible demon alien reptiles, etc.
>>
Sidney Brablingnirk - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:46:51 EST ID:uspvjvJI No.14439 Ignore Report Reply
God gave us mathematics. Attempting to use maths to disprove God is absurd.
>>
Polly Honeyhall - Sun, 26 Oct 2014 01:37:26 EST ID:X3Lvq/YY No.14442 Ignore Report Reply
>>14438
If you actually study mathematics you will realise that our Universe is too simple, and that combinatorics proove that if this was a Multiverse it would be more likely to be born in a Universe of Harry Potter and Frodo riding dragons to Azeroth because the complex Universe will out number the the simple ones like ours To Infinity. And if there is no multiverse there is a Creator. And something able to spawn our Universe is the definiton of God. Rekt
>>
Rebecca Nammlecheg - Sun, 26 Oct 2014 15:33:42 EST ID:grjkUGxI No.14444 Ignore Report Reply
So OP, if I understand it correctly..
You're saying there is no God because theoretically other beings might exist? That doesn't make sense. It's not so much I detected a logical mistake in your reasoning as it is your post is a total non-sequitur.

>Hurr I could make any flavour of ice cream therefore this particular flavour cannot exist

>>14442
>if there is no multiverse there is a Creator
lol'd
>>
James Divingwill - Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:16:21 EST ID:Dn4zhXKX No.14445 Ignore Report Reply
What you have there is a heuristic. If you want to disprove the Riemann Hypothesis, you need to do more than point to a class of related zeta functions that fail to have all their zeros on the critical line.

And besides, Kurt Gödel already proved God's existence.
>>
Isabella Hisslekadge - Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:14:49 EST ID:orekpRAb No.14446 Ignore Report Reply
>>14445
his axioms are bogus in that proof

but his incompleteness theorem on the other hand, leads me to believe in God
>>
Matilda Gavingspear - Sun, 26 Oct 2014 22:59:20 EST ID:grjkUGxI No.14447 Ignore Report Reply
>>14445
>ontological argument
>proof
The only thing it's proof of is that apologists have absolutely no standards
>>
Hannah Buzzfoot - Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:56:34 EST ID:Dn4zhXKX No.14448 Ignore Report Reply
>>14446
>>14447
No dispute here.
>>
Betsy Dartfield - Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:00:27 EST ID:Dk8yywxc No.14449 Ignore Report Reply
>>14448
>>14447

And what exactly are your problems with the axioms Godel chose for his proof? I think that at least an attempt at a rigorous proof is more praiseworthy than childish screaming about how much "bullshit" it is, all caps 16 year old atheist diatribes, and shortsighted appeals to multiple possibilities for what God is. First of all we couldn't even begin to understand what he is if he exists, and trying to box the possibilities of God between Yahweh and Allah is extremely presumptuous. We will never be able to understand the nature of God by necessity, and for that reason this is not the place for this discussion.

I am inclined to believe that even if God were proved by Godels construction, then the being suggested by it would not really be God.

I don't see how there are some people that look to mathematics for a disproof of God when stuff like the axiom of choice and cantor's axiom is commonly held to be true. Unprovable statements that mathematicians like are labelled as true for practical purposes all the time.
>>
Matilda Gavingspear - Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:21:14 EST ID:grjkUGxI No.14450 Ignore Report Reply
>>14449
>an attempt at proof is praiseworthy
>but don't attempt to prove anything here
Oh ok
>>
Thomas Sannerbanks - Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:17:43 EST ID:XE+Y0SbK No.14451 Ignore Report Reply
/pss/ thread on /math/ lol
>>
Beatrice Ceshstone - Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:15:53 EST ID:uspvjvJI No.14453 Ignore Report Reply
>>14451
>deductive reasoning and logic
>not linking math to philosophy

c'mon, son.
>>
Edwin Duckleworth - Fri, 07 Nov 2014 09:41:01 EST ID:Dn4zhXKX No.14468 Ignore Report Reply
1415371261282.gif -(20689B / 20.20KB, 600x186) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>14451
>>
Beatrice Micklebuck - Mon, 17 Nov 2014 03:01:56 EST ID:4956loFt No.14487 Ignore Report Reply
>implying invisible demon alien reptiles aren't real
>>
Nigger Punderson - Sun, 30 Nov 2014 12:21:58 EST ID:4TFt67DE No.14499 Ignore Report Reply
1417368118792.jpg -(140931B / 137.63KB, 447x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>14438

Proving god with mathematics is totally absurd. The Question of god is not empirical one, but a metaphysical one, and quite often misunderstood by people like yourself and rest of the other fedoras. Mathematics cannot answer the subjective nature of man, the question of our existence, morality and suffering(Which Theology or spirituality or philosophy can very well answer), but it answers only the objective nature of the world, and how it works, through reasoning and observation.
>>
Phyllis Goodman - Tue, 09 Dec 2014 08:41:07 EST ID:1lpdDKTS No.14507 Ignore Report Reply
I was under the impression that math—like, not statistics or other "applied" math, but pure hard logic—isn't based on empiricism at all. It's all theory.
>>
Lydia Gimmlehall - Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:09:31 EST ID:Dk8yywxc No.14508 Ignore Report Reply
>>14507

Well, many of the theories have their basis and motivation rooted in empirical observation
>>
Cornelius Bummlenud - Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:05:48 EST ID:L5NP4VLn No.14515 Ignore Report Reply
>>14438
What's God?
>>
Fanny Snoddale - Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:23:45 EST ID:dL8jDLUE No.14516 Ignore Report Reply
1418322225184.jpg -(25743B / 25.14KB, 990x233) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>14515
God is mathematics. Resurrecting itself through our application of it in technology.
NJ... Where art thou?
>>
Edwin Hattingworth - Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:39:16 EST ID:4aRbvkOu No.14774 Ignore Report Reply
>>14507
Mathematics is built on Aristotelian first-order logic, using Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory (along with the Axiom of Choice). The axioms of mathematics are *chosen* so that the natural numbers (i.e. the counting numbers) can be constructed logically, step-by-step, and end up with all the usual properties we expect natural numbers to have. Yes, it is "all theory," but that theory is rooted heavily in elementary observations we make about quantity and measurement.

While there are a few mathematicians who look at other axioms for the basis of their mathematical system (dropping the axiom of choice, for instance), even these don't stray far from the general intuition we expect from counting. Don't even get me started on how COMPLETELY unrelated mathematics and metaphysics are: math is *not* number-wizardry.
>>
William Drenkingold - Thu, 01 Dec 2016 03:46:14 EST ID:I4oaqfW8 No.15282 Ignore Report Reply
Psssssssssst. Here's something I understood when I was 17.

> Infinite exclusive gods can be thought of
> => probability of one of them existing is an infinitesimal

> Infinite non-exclusive gods can be though of
> => probability of any such god existing is 50%

It's really not that hard, folks.
/thread


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.