Posted on 08/11/2015 6:03:41 AM PDT by xzins
“I believe in God but from a devil’s advocate point of view couldn’t the definition of “order” be a man-made construct based on his observations of symmetry thus the “proof “ of an “ordered” universe would be based on a false premise?”
No, we have demonstrated that the universe follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy). Statistical thermodynamics has shown that entropy is a representation of disorder, and one can’t have disorder without order. So the concepts must be inherent to the universe itself, for we only discover the laws of nature, we do not really author them ourselves.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to themFor since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools,and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Math is the language God uses to write down His Creation and written music is the sound of math singing.
Very true.
Saint Paul wisely wrote, "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known."
We believe as a matter of faith that God is infinite, yet we are intellectually incapable of fully understanding infinity. God created the Universe from nothing, yet our grasp of nothing is no better than our grasp of infinity.
When our Lord appeared on the road to Emmaus and was unknown to the Disciples, He went through Scriptures with them explaining all of the things that pointed to Him. These passages had been known to the Jews and studied for centuries, but it took Christ allowing others to see them for what they really were.
Does "proof" of God exist? Yes, I am certain it does. But I am also sure that our eyes have not yet been opened to see that proof.
Where is the math?
And this “proves” atheists are insane as they continually rail against a belief in a being THEY profess not to believe in. Think about it.
On it’s way to hell in a hand basket?
Good point. If god is really imaginary, like the tooth fairy, then why do people need to spend their entire lives trying to disprove Him? Insanity!?!
But I daresay I'm neither more nor less puzzled now, than the authors of those theories.
Can't prove it, of course. Just a hunch.
I read this to stay sane while in college with something that actually challenged my preferred mode of thinking (a verbal guy in a college with 55% engineers). It is a wonderfully entertaining book, with an enormous logical flaw.
I always looked at the atonement in a simpler way.
Jesus was unjustly killed, so He was owed. As compensation, He asked for us.
Having kept my faith like that of a child I’ve not questioned the Creator’s existence. I do question people who say that we can’t deal with the Creator without going through them and paying a toll.
And the resurrection is proof that God honored what Jesus intended to accomplish with His sacrifice.
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. ~ Romans 3:23
JESUS, the only one without sin, willing paid our debt to satisfy GOD.
Silly. It's not Gödel's proof is not some long standing theorem in need of proof like Fermat's Last Theorem. It hasn't been sitting around waiting for someone to solve it.
The problem with Gödel's theorem isn't solving it, it's that it doesn't mean anything. It's just making up a definition for X, labeling that "God", "proving" X, then saying you've proved "God", even though X wasn't God to start with.
Yes, and since He is the All Powerful and Eternal, His life is infinitely of higher value/cost than the entire Creation.
You might even say the game is rigged, in God’s favor of course. LOL!
That, along with the certainty of The Fear of God
was proven to my complete satisfaction 16 years ago.
When I married one.
No, not necessarily; though I think it's safe to say that the two men applied the insight differently.
In Proslogion, Anselm ((1033–1109), Archbishop of Cantebury, said something that Kurt Gödel likely agreed with:
"O Lord, you are not only that than which a greater cannot be conceived, but you are also greater than what can be conceived."But I don't believe he was trying to advance a mathematical proof of the existence of God. He was simply saying that faith in God is reasonable.
Anselm opens his Monologion with these words:
"If anyone does not know, either because he has not heard or because he does not believe, that there is one nature, supreme among all existing things, who alone is self-sufficient in his eternal happiness, who through his omnipotent goodness grants and brings it about that all other things exist or have any sort of well-being, and a great many other things that we must believe about God or his creation, I think he could at least convince himself of most of these things by reason alone, if he is even moderately intelligent."Anselm hopes to convince “the fool,” that is, the person who “has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’ ” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1) that there is, indeed, a God; and that this fact can be established by reason.
It has been pointed out that there are at least two ways to misunderstand what Anselm meant by his motto, fides quaerens intellectum — "faith seeking understanding."
First, Anselm isn't at all interested in replacing faith with understanding: If one takes ‘faith’ to mean roughly ‘belief on the basis of testimony’ and ‘understanding’ to mean ‘belief on the basis of philosophical insight’ [or arguably, on the preferred method of science, on the basis of direct observation and "falsification"], one is likely to regard faith as an epistemically substandard position; any self-respecting philosopher [or scientist] would surely want to leave faith behind as quickly as possible.
But as already mentioned, Anselm is not hoping to replace faith with understanding. Faith for Anselm is more a volitional state than an epistemic state: it is love for God and a drive to act as God wills. In fact, Anselm describes the sort of faith that “merely believes what it ought to believe” as “dead” (Monologion 78).... So “faith seeking understanding” means something like “an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God.”
Or in other words, faith seeking understanding is seeking active relationship with and to God. By knowing Him, our understanding is increased — our understanding not only of Him, but also of the nature of His works.
The second common misunderstanding of fides quaerens intellectum is that, because it begins with “faith,” not with doubt or suspension of belief, it must be an inferior method of acquiring true knowledge of the world. This is the sort of approach roundly rejected by the scientific method — at least supposedly.
And yet it seems to me everything that science does is based on faith of some kind — just not faith in God.
To put it another way, the minimal faith of the scientist is that the world is intelligible, and therefore, can be understood by an intelligent being. Of course, the scientist does not/cannot ask what is the cause of, or the reason for, the intelligibility of the world. Such a question is never asked: It is utterly beyond the scope of the physical sciences. But it can be mathematically probed.
Kurt Gödel seems to have picked up on the Anselmian insight regarding God as "that than which a greater cannot be conceived, but ... also greater than what can be conceived," and recognized its axiomatic character. An axiom is an irreducible statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true; in mathematics, it is a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based. Thus an axiom falls clearly within the realm of mathematical structures that can be mathematically proved.
As Brian Wilson writes, "the mathematical model composed by Gödel proposed a proof of the idea [of God]. Its theorems and axioms — assumptions which cannot be proven — can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven."
And computer scientists Christoph Benzmuller and Bruno Wolzenlogel Paleo evidently believe that is precisely what Kurt Gödel managed to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.