🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 23:29:41 UTC No. 16485258
Mathematician Kurt Godel reformulated Anselm of Cantebury's ontological proof of God into an axiomatic proof, giving it some more credibility IMO. Picrelated. Thoughts? Perhaps the proof indicates a geometry instead of God, possibly the universe or comparable phenomena. Also could we get some book recommendations of where to go from here?
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 23:31:21 UTC No. 16485268
>>16485258
godel was the most based-schitzo, even though group-theory is fake
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 23:31:52 UTC No. 16485275
>redefine "God" to mean something provable yet utterly unrelated to the normal meaning of the word
>yep god is real guys
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 23:35:55 UTC No. 16485303
Go play video games
DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 23:41:22 UTC No. 16485324
>>16485258
>God, by definition
what kind of meme definition is this shit?
from a linguistist perspective, It's just ONE OF MANY names given to the higher power in reality that humans can interact with. fuck off
I don't accept such concensus
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 23:46:39 UTC No. 16485347
>>16485258
Basically that's only proof against an omnipotent non-interventionist god. It takes as given that god must be as great as possible and that if he weren't allowed to exist in our reality he wouldn't be great enough.
Consider that the universe, as we understand it, is part of god in the same way that the feces in my large intestines are part of me. Would god be all powerful if he were unable to keep the universe separate from him? God cannot be a a slave to constipation.
Consider god as the set of all sets which by our understanding cannot exist. If god cannot contain all, god is not omnipotent and omnipresent, and would not be god. Therefore, god must contain all. Can such a set remove sets from itself?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unive
DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 23:47:56 UTC No. 16485352
>>16485347
>muh sets
kys, you memester
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 03:58:45 UTC No. 16485845
>>16485275
Anything is possible if you give yourself permission to redefine words.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 04:13:58 UTC No. 16485859
>religion vs science thread
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 05:03:26 UTC No. 16485920
>>16485258
Why can't people just intuit that God exists as I was able to?
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 05:09:34 UTC No. 16485927
>>16485258
Pic related. No greater good can be conceived
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:29:30 UTC No. 16485991
>>16485275
>provable
Its not though, you would have to prove that there is a specific largest finite number to prove no greater can be conceived.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 06:56:53 UTC No. 16487592
>>16485920
Why can't you intuit that retards like you wouldn't exist if God designed humans?
Oh wait, I already answered that one myself.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Nov 2024 06:58:16 UTC No. 16487598
>>16485991
>prove that there is a specific largest finite number
Number of subatomic particles in our universe.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 06:54:45 UTC No. 16488898
>>16485258
>giving it some more credibility IMO
YO is irrelevant. the "proof", like all these "proofs", is circular, trying to define gawd into existence.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 07:04:36 UTC No. 16488909
>>16485920
You don't appear to be intuiting anything by relying on sketchy fraudulent art pieces like the picture you posted as your justification, if anything you got grifted.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 07:05:38 UTC No. 16488911
>>16487598
What about the number of subatomic particles in our universe plus one?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Nov 2024 07:09:33 UTC No. 16488914
>>16488898
Circular proof is the most satisfying kind, the only other options are no proof, because I say so, or some infinite chain of causality whose source can never be verified.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 15:22:32 UTC No. 16490501
>>16485347
>the universe, as we understand it, is part of god
Heresy known as panthiesm. Not required for a God.