Veeky Forums - History & Humanities

Why though?

He's saying God is real if you hold his values and morals in your heart. This your life is proof of God.

I don't see how you got that out of his text.

Maybe just deities?

Godel's Theorem doesn't work like that though.

pls no more meme philosphy

But thats not meme philosophy, its just bad philosophy.
Meme philosophy would be some misquote of Nietzsche that got spread on Facebook until people started living their lives according to it.
You know, like the "God is dead" quote printed on tshirts as if its a celebration of science, and not a lamentation of traditional decline.

It doesn't follow.
Godel showed that a model required axioms, but this has literally nothing to do with God. It just means that for a system of proof to exist it requires some axioms, like ZFC in maths. Maths doesn't require the existence of God and they seem to be able to prove things just fine. This is bullshit philosophy.

Although well done on the only vaguely analytic post I've seen at all. I'm not saying it's inherently better than continental as I do both.

>proof requires axiom
>as Godel prooved
this would be enough to tell him to fuck off because he doesn't explains jack shit but whatever, you need axioms to proove something, why not
>thus faith in god is a prerequisite for all proof
nani ?
how is faith an axiom
how is faith in "god" (define god por favor) an axiom
what is faith even doing in a mathematical demonstration

I think he means an axiom in the philisophical sense, not the mathmattical sense

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.[1] Presuppositionalists claim that a Christian cannot consistently declare their belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that God may not exist and Biblical revelation may not be true.

Godel was a mathematician, and still, an AXIOM is something you consider true to develop a proposition, the word faith is misplaced here IMO, and still, having "faith" in something doesn't means having faith in god, he not prooving shit, saying i=2 because "x found it look it up" isn't an argument.

>memefrog guy is a presuppositionalist

Top kek.
youtube.com/watch?v=1djO0IDViHE

This is not exactly accurate.

By the Muenchhausen Trilemma we know that there are three ways:

- Axiom/Dogma
- Circular argument
- Infinite regress

Oh, I'm not defending the shit argument by any means, don't misunderstand.

Not to mention that belief in God is not a necessity at all. Belief that we can perceive the real world with our senses is a much more straightforward assumption.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

For those who want to see Gödels proof and not just vaguely talk about it. Although it's flaws have already been summarized.

Please explain the difference? If a statement is well formed it can be written in formal logic, and mathematical axioms are also written in formal logic. Not trying to be a troll genuinely curious as to the difference.

Religious people trying to grasp for every straw in a time where it becomes painfully clear that all Religion is made up.

Munchhausen's trilemma was about foundations of knowledge, not about formal proof. You know that the sky is blue but there's no way you could give a formal proof of it.

If you haven't studied formal logic then basically you prove things in a model, and a model is just a collection of statements that function as axioms. You need them or else you can't prove anything.

>Hahaha, Yeah. Yeah.

I just meant it as a reply to "what is faith doing in a mathematical" etc.

To be honest I don't feel well versed enough in mathematics to contrast the two.

I assume it has something to do with the pragmatic view that inquiry and intellect is only activated in the presence of doubt. We hold a belief and form a habit until there is doubt, then, and only then do we actually think about whether that belief is "true" and thus set out to find proof that alleviates that doubt. Thus before you can set out to find proof of God you must have a belief of what God is, and then doubt it. Belief precedes proof.

Perhaps he is arguing that because of our doubt in God is pretty much constant and is never fully alleviated, our intellect and inquiry is constantly activated. This activation of the intellect and constant need for proof then extends to other elements of our lives. So the argument could be that all searches for proof or scientific fact is all an attempt to either get rid of or compile doubt in the belief in God.

What if one of my axioms is that God doesn't exist?

Its basically like Aquinas retarded logic. It doesn't make any sense unless you believe in god in the first place.

>Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom...

What if your axiom is incorrect or unproven? He rejects the axioms of postmodernism, but does he bother to give his own assumptions any thought.

Reminder that people still quote Aquinas as having proven Christianity is a true fact, in serious academic discourse.

His argument, not presented in the OP image, is like this: If something is useful, it is true. If it isn't useful, its not true.

He then goes on: hierarchy is true, equality is false. Thats where it gets political and he gets protested from teaching in some universities.

Then how am I suppose to make /pol/ tier off topic threads unchecked?

This thread is pure philosophy. Is it that bad?

He's not talking about faith you fucking retard, he's talking about the need for a cosmological constant by which all truths can be known to actually exist

Faith is different

Consciousness is constant enough, and you know that it exists.

>If a statement is well formed it can be written in formal logic, and mathematical axioms are also written in formal logic

The difference is that mathematics doesn't have semantics.

This is literally why A.I is such a problem to solve.

This guy is a hack who not only repeats what philosophers said before him centuries ago but goes onto misunderstand Godel completely.

I have ready his shitty book and in that book, it is clear he possesses no knowledge whatsoever about mathematics and the field of Logic.

Fucking embarrassing.

Here is an exert from a Goodreads review (haha goodreads) which shows him up to be the fraud he is:

>It was when I reached the middle of the book that this feeling fully crystallized. On page 235, Dr Peterson writes: "A moral system -- a system of culture -- necessarily shares features in common with other systems. The most fundamental of the shared features of systems was identified by Kurt Godel. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated that any internally consistent and logical system of propositions must necessarily be predicated upon assumptions that cannot be proved from within the confines of that system."

>That is most certainly NOT what Godel's Incompleteness Theorem states. I'd like to say that Dr Peterson has simply provided a naive oversimplification of the theorem, but that's not even the case. What Dr. Peterson has cited is a complete misrepresentation of Godel's work. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has nothing to do with proving the "assumptions" (axioms) of the system from "within the confines of the system."

>Dr. Peterson hammers on this mistake a page later when he describes the five postulates of Euclidean geometry. He writes: "What constitutes truth, from within the perspective of this structure, can be established by reference to these initial postulates. However, the postulates themselves must be accepted. Their validity cannot be demonstrated, within the confines of the system."

No matter what Godel meant, the statement "any internally consistent and logical system of propositions must necessarily be predicated upon assumptions that cannot be proved from within the confines of that system" is correct.

>If you ignore the mistake then there is no mistake

Really makes you thinky dink

so you have to be able to prove that 1+1=2 without math or am i getting it wrong?

The statement is correct. Whether Godel said it is another issue

Constants:
C1. Reality exists.
C2. I can observe it and spot patterns.

Propositions:
P1. Suppose that *math*

From C1, C2 and P1 follows all of physics.
It works very reliably, and predicts unknown events before we can observe them very reliably.
No divinity is necessary for this equation.

Math isn't real. We made up some rules, and the rules are good enough so that by following them you get the same result every time.
Numbers don't actually exist.

Whether a 'moral system' is a formal system in Godel's sense is debatable.

These are examples of (classical) mathematical axioms.

By assuming the axioms are proven (i.e. correct), things like the area of a square, Pythagoras' Theorem, and so on, are proved.

Godel showed that if you try to prove the axioms themselves correct within that system you can't. In other words some of your axioms are always unprovable assumptions, and your system is 'incomplete'.

>and so on, can be proved

typo

>the whole is greater than the part

Whole = 11
Part 1 = 15
Part 2 = -4

Part 1 > Whole

dead greeks getting REKT

Starting to make sense, thanks. Can you give me some examples of unprovable and provable axioms?

If its provable, its not an axiom.
It has to be unprovable to be an axiom.

So it just has to be assumed as proven?

An axiom is something that is known to be "true", without being proven to be "true".

Like the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow was to people for the longest time, before astrophysics had the full model working.
People knew it will rise, but they didn't KNOW. Yet they planned their days and lives around the idea that it will.

I like your idea a lot, but I think you went way too far off the OP question.
I feel like the OP assertion was about this:
To prove anythiing you need axiom.
To use axiom, you have to have faith in them.
Faith in God is the strongest tool and link everything.

That is wrong though, 15 is not a part of 11.

GUYS. Godels incompleteness thereom states a sufficiently strong system of axioms contains an inconsistent thereom. So you can't have a system of axioms that consistently explains everything because by it's power such a system must neccessarily contain an inconsistent statement. It says NOTHING about the provability of the axioms underlying the system.

Thankyou.

Were did C1 come from?

It is an assumption that comes from outside the sphere of the conclusion, as requested by the post I answered to.

Replace "God" with truth in his tweet and you will all agree

>Replace "God" with truth in his tweet and you will all agree

Nope, still looks retarded.

>(as Truthel proved)

Come on man why ya gotta bust my balls. But yes the tweet does make sense. Because you can't prove anything without an axiom because to have an understanding of "proof" you already accepted there an axiom that there is a "truth"

what, that's not what Godel proved...
Godel's proofs have no philosophical implications beyond mathematics

wait is he talking about Godel's version of St. Anselm's proof? That's still not how it works though

This is shit tier philosophy and if anything is an insult to philosophy more than it is proof of a god.

I don't need faith to say I exist. I think therefore I am. I don't need faith to see that 1=1 or that math is real.

>I am going to use philosophy to prove something exists
This has never worked.

>proof is not possible
>Gödel proved it
J U S T

>I don't need faith to see that 1=1 or that math is real.

Yes, you do.
Anyway, math isn't real. It doesn't exist, its an idea.
We suppose math, and move from that proposition. We don't prove math.

If anything exists, we would define existance as "reality".

I think, therefore I am. Therefore, something is.

Therefore, reality exists.