Soleron said:
Immortal said:
I hadn't heard of it, but I know the concept already. I don't quite see how you're inferring your third statement, though. How is an axiom true if it cannot be proven to be so (okay, I just contradicted the definition of an axiom, but whatever)? It's just an assumption if it can't be proven, isn't it? Also, doesn't saying that rather destroy this thread? That something is true when it can't be proven... I think you can see the contradiction between that statement and the OP. I personally agree that taking the existence of a God or gods as an axiom is utterly ridiculous, but that's just an opinion. Also, while this is irrelevant, I'd argue that maths is actually more secure than physics. Physics, in most cases, has more to do with the real world (like your example of gravity), which just throws plenty more assumptions into the mix. You do realize, though, that we're sitting on a useless argument if we discuss what's "more true"? If I just want to be rotten, I can ask you how things are said to be more proven than others and who decides this based on what reasoning which has what qualifications to play a role like this in deciding such important matters. And then I can throw you a few more whys and wherefores until you get sick of arguing.
Also, when I was talking about math, I meant the completely nonsensical abstract stuff (like the fourth spatial dimension, an obsession of mine). It doesn't matter whether it can be proven as long as it's confined within the logic concocted by my mind and owes no explanation to any questioning soul.
|
It was in a book called The Music of the Primes by Simon Singh. It said that if we could prove the Riemann hypothesis was undecidable (per Godel), then it would have to be true, because if it was false one could find a counterexample and the problem would not be undecidable. So if it is undecidable it is true but we cannot show from the axioms of maths that it is.
I'm not claiming I can show those things are more true. I'm just trying to say that the fact you can't have an absolute proof standard, not even with mathematics, doesn't mean it is useless to argue about anything. God can't be proven or disproven =/= 50% chance of god existing. Gravity can't be proven or disproven =/= 50% chance of gravity existing.
The incompleteness theorem means your personal logic can't be proven to be consistent either. Even if it's different to normal maths. I can also tell you don't have enough maths or physics education to understand what you are saying by fourth spatial dimension.
--
My main challenge to those of faith is:
if your god is a personal god that has an effect on the universe, why is the effect not measurable using science?
Alternatively if your god does not affect the universe, why is he deserving of worship? Your actions will have no effect.
|
