Mathematical Proof of God

There is always Gödel's ontological proof if you need a mathematical proof of God's existence.

>Gödel axiomatizes the notion of a "positive property" for each property φ, either φ or its negation ¬φ must be positive, but not both (axiom 2). If a positive property φ implies a property ψ in each possible world, then ψ is positive, too (axiom 1). Gödel then argues that each positive property is "possibly exemplified", i.e. applies at least to some object in some world (theorem 1). Defining an object to be Godlike if it has all positive properties (definition 1), and requiring that property to be positive itself (axiom 3), Gödel shows that in some possible world a Godlike object exists (theorem 2), called "God" in the following. Gödel proceeds to prove that a Godlike object exists in every possible world.

>ontological proof

Possibility of such is destroyed by Kant.

Existence is not a predicate.

>let time travel exist
>let there be a time machine that can change the past
>everything one person does with a time machine can be undone by another time machine
>peopel fight about who gets to say what history was, constantly changing it
>people who have time machines die of old age
>next generation does the same thing
>next generation does the same thing
>Who gets to make final decision on what history was?
>Have to take the limit of the back forth changes at infinity
>A person can't exist at infinity because there will always have been a finite number of generations of people
>God gets to say what history was

>>let time travel exist
>>let there be a time machine that can change the past
Illogical. Only one thing can be at a given point in spacetime.

That is true when you use real numbers to describe points in the gravitational manifold, but when you use hyperreal numbers to describe them, there are an infinite number of hyperreal points at each real valued point.

>Use the hyperreal channel to define the phase of the point.

Also, you are ignoring the path that appears in the Cauchy integral integral formula which could, in theory connect the future light cone to the past light cone in a causal way.

The single valuedness of points isn't even a good argument against history-changing time travel because even with real-valued points there are infinitely more points in the universe than an observer can travel through in a lifetime, and the maximum amount of information that can be collected by an observer is limited by that small, but still infinite number of points that he passes through while in the universe.

Note that the cauchy integral formula has absolutely appropriate to GR even though it is normally reserved for complex analysis, because the Lorentzian signature of the metric is obtained by defining distance in the t direction as imaginary

>x^0 = ict

Caucy integral formula tells you how to compute f(Z) so just set Z to be the origin where the past and future light cones always come together at the location of the observer no matter how the observer moves around

If you do that to explain then what he is doing is still not "time travel." Only one set of hyperreals would be at each point, so:
>everything one person does with a time machine can be undone by another time machine
still doesn't make any sense

>let there be time travel

It's a lemma. it makes perfect sense.

Once again, never forget that this proof (as all proofs) relies on its axioms being accepted.

obviously