The Lords Prayer advert now banned in cinemas.

[lloydie]

And Eric Cantona is not God...



Though clearly Andy Tate is the Archangel Gabriel.

Posting that's beyond a permaban, you're going straight to hell young man.

 

[George Hannah]

B-, must try harder.

If you don't mind I don't think I'll bother in your case.

 

[Blue&whitestripes]

If you don't mind I don't think I'll bother in your case.

You mean you can't. Come on, if "it's been said" - clearly implying that the statement is a recognised one - then you must, surely, be able to say by whom.

 

[George Hannah]

Logical proof is by nature irrefutable. Gödel's proof isn't logical, it uses two assumptions without factual basis. One when he fails to define what is 'positive' and assumes that this undefined group contains God, one when he assumes that everything positive exists (the infinite universe argument again, the universe is finite by the way, we really need to get that clear.) He uses two leaps of faith, if you will and as a result ends up with a weak hypotheses instead of a logical proof.

Oh, greatest mathematician that ever lived? Don't make me laugh, anyone with the intellectual ability to work in applied physics today would rip him to shreds.

I said possibly the greatest but whatever the current crop of physicists have achieved it is on the back of work by him and his mates like Einstein. To suggest that he would be intellectually shredded nowadays is surprisingly ignorant. Also it's pretty ignorant not to recognise that infinity in maths is a different concept than infinity in philosophy as it is to pass off the prevailing view about a finite universe as in some sense proven. I should add that the idea that logical proof is irrefutable simply pushes the meaning of irrefutable to another loop. If an argument is irrefutable in the sense of being tautologous it is by definition trivial. Godel's argument for the existence of God clearly recognised that he was going beyond a purely logical proof.

 

[George Hannah]

You mean you can't. Come on, if "it's been said" - clearly implying that the statement is a recognised one - then you must, surely, be able to say by whom.

Ok, you plainly have not come across the sceptical school of philosophy, if you a want a current atheist proponent I would recommend
you read someone like Mary Midgley.

 

[aguero93:20]

Godel's argument for the existence of God clearly recognised that he was going beyond a purely logical proof

So don't present it as a logical proof then.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Godel's argument for the existence of God clearly recognised that he was going beyond a purely logical proof.

Beyond to what?

 

[aguero93:20]

Also it's pretty ignorant not to recognise that infinity in maths is a different concept than infinity in philosophy as it is to pass off the prevailing view about a finite universe as in some sense proven.

The concept of mathematical infinity has it's birth in philosophy. They're identical ideas. As for the universe being finite it's defined as the area bound by the laws of physics that exist within it, making it finite in nature. Omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible with the laws of physics.

 

[Blue&whitestripes]

Ok, you plainly have not come across the sceptical school of philosophy, if you a want a current atheist proponent I would recommend
you read someone like Mary Midgley.

I'll take your word for it that Midgley stated what you claimed earlier. However the thing with philosophy - as fascinating and thought-provoking as it can be - is that no school of philosophical thought, nor even a strand within that school of thought - is universally accepted as true.

I'll stick to science and facts.

 

[George Hannah]

The concept of mathematical infinity has it's birth in philosophy. They're identical ideas. As for the universe being finite it's defined as the area bound by the laws of physics that exist within it, making it finite in nature. Omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible with the laws of physics.

With respect your description of the universe as being contained within the measurable is simply wrong. The 'laws' are simply working scientific hypotheses which may change as more evidence becomes available. Similarly, the philosophical idea of infinity is clearly much richer than the mathematical concept.