• Gregory
    4.7k
    My basic premise of this thesis is this: If we can know God perfectly, we can prove everything in mathematics once we fully know him and Godel's theorem will not apply.

    Religious ideas of God vary from religion to religion. Eastern Orthodox, many Lutherans, and even some Catholics believe that God knows us immanently. He is not just transcendent as most Catholics and the most traditional of Jews think of him. Many see God as the space in everything just as if it was the presence of Jesus walking on earth. For them he is throughout time and not just the cause of time. The orthodoxy call this God's "energy" (the study and practice of this is hesychasm).

    For most of these Christians though God nature is unknowable in it's substance but paradoxically perfectly knowable through the energies. This is one of those mystical paradoxes religious writers speak of. But it is true not all Christians believe we can know God fully. Aquinas for example thought otherwise. The premise at the beginning is coming for the perspective of those who think that we can know God or anything at all with full conceptual understanding.

    Now if we are filled with divine knowledge in a mystical experience, why would Godel's argument prove we couldn't prove all of mathematics while in that state of rapture. Or to put it differently for the more secular minded, does Godel prove that God or an alien cannot prove all of mathematics, or just the very specific species of humans that have existed for 200,000 years?
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    [D]oes Godel prove that God or an alien cannot prove all of mathematics [ ... ] ?Gregory
    God is a member of the Null Set.
    Godot is coming, be patient!
    Gödel diagnolizes us all.
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    Gödel diagnolizes us all.180 Proof

    I think he has a flawed argument. He get's into language games. Self-reference such as Russell's paradox is about how language can backfire. If we gave a barber the "barber paradox rule" he can ask for clarification in order to know what to do. Self-reference with pure numbers instead of language was what Godel was after yet we ultimately can clarify what we mean through language. Of course we can doubt axioms. But how would you prove a proposition was unprovable of itself such that God couldn't prove it to himself. And some of the Church Fathers spoke of the "deification" of man, which means that man will fully understand God and therefore know everything? How does Godel know they are wrong?
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    God is a member of the Null Set. Re: Banno.
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    So Banno proved there is not God?
  • Banno
    25.2k
    Godot is coming, be patient!180 Proof

    Nothing to be done.
  • Banno
    25.2k
    @Manuel, The OP is an opportunity to apply Austin's approach... It crosses mathematical logic and religion. Care for a go?
  • jgill
    3.9k
    Now if we are filled with divine knowledge in a mystical experience, why would Godel's argument prove we couldn't prove all of mathematics while in that state of rapture.Gregory

    What are thoughts that we should capture
    While in the throes of blissful rapture
    That soothe the pain of incomplete
    With certain knowledge
    Now replete
  • Manuel
    4.2k


    I've read very little Austin. And mathematical logic is something I cannot do at all, it's beyond me I'm afraid. The only philosophy of language I can do are the people I mention in my profile and a little Wittgenstein, though nowhere near your level.

    As for the OP, I can't even comment much. I don't understand what "prov[ing] everything in mathematics" would even entail.

    So you can go ahead and go wild, if you like.
  • Banno
    25.2k
    So you can go ahead and go wild, if you like.Manuel

    I don't think so. Just thought you might enjoy giving it a go. A something to give the impression we exist, if you like.

    After all, that's what we do.

    Let us do something, while we have the chance!
  • Banno
    25.2k
    ESTRAGON: I can't go on like this.
    VLADIMIR: That's what you think.
  • Manuel
    4.2k


    And I'd gladly participate if it didn't include Gödel.

    I'm sure other threads will appear that will offer the opportunity to highlight a problem in language use.
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    My point is that God, if he exists, knows of and knows the proof of everything. In a divine way of course. If the mystics are right who say we will fully understand God, then "Godel "logic" won't apply anymore to that state of mind although our natures would remain human. Is directly contrary to what Godel thought he had proved for all human thought? Is thinking as a human but with God's thought not covered by Godel's theorems?
  • Banno
    25.2k
    My point is that God, if he exists, knows of and knows the proof of everything.Gregory

    You think god knows the proofs of those statements for which there is no proof.

    You might like to think on that some more.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    You might like to think on that some more.Banno
    Giving out more rope again. I'll go on for now, but just for the encore of spasms.
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    You think god knows the proofs of those statements for which there is no proof.Banno

    He can prove everything I imagine. He is logical perfectly atomized into simplicity, as theists might say. So 1) God's existence cannot be disproved, and 2) and you can't disprove that we can fully understand what God is. Therefore Godel's theorems only apply to human thinking while in a natural state and not to it embedded with the divine. Theists say the full explanation of reality must be a God who is embedded in everything and even closer to me than I am to myself because he is all around me, and in a sense even more myself than I am myself. The conclusion seems to be the nearer one get's to God, the less Godel logic fully applies. My favorite philosopher is Hegel, who say everything can become rational. He follows the mystical philosophy of Jacob Boehme. The Absolute has full knowledge of everything covering everything but in a higher manner
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    In Eastern Orthodox hesychasm they believe that the seat of the soul is in the belly button. They control the breath and the heart beat (as they pray the Jesus prayer) and force the mind/soul through the pre-frontal cortex, and allegedly out thru the nose so that divine Energy can enter. By this ability they are able to "see God" literally with their eyes they say. The Energies of God can communicate to the intellect although not with "...His essence, which exceeds even His uncreated energies, since this essence transcends all affirmation and all negation". So we will not think as God but with God, understanding everything that can be thought while remaining human. This is their religion. Godel was speaking about natural knowledge, not supernatural abilities
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    If God then [all sorts of magical woo].

    Literally the laziest argument on the face of the earth.

    It can't be argued against either, because God is simply a magical gap filler that can plug whatever hole, as needed. Bollocks.
  • Banno
    25.2k
    You haven't understood Gödel.

    You think god knows the proofs of those statements for which there is no proof.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.8k
    If we can know God perfectly, we can prove everything in mathematics once we fully know him and Godel's theorem will not apply.Gregory

    From that it is apparent that you don't know what Godel's theorem is. Your commentary is relevant to what you think Godel's theorem is but not relevant to Godel's theorem.
  • Banno
    25.2k
    Yep.

    What's to be done? Will @Gregory stop and do some more work on understanding Gödel, or double down with more poor argumentation?

    Nothing to be done.Banno
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.8k


    The latter. I guarantee it.
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    Through God they say we can know all truth through God himself as truth. So there won't be any abstract truth hidden but all understood under truth, beauty, and goodness. 1+1=2 will be understood in its relation to everything and understood on a meta level. Gödel was trying to find a way to make a line in between what can be known and what can not and whether his logic is loopy or sound, it doesn't take into consideration infused knowledge

    If you want to post on this thread at least address what I say and if you don't like the idea of God at least be up to saying so
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    What I've said only would make sense to someone who has thought spiritually
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.8k
    What I've said only would make sense to someone who has thought spirituallyGregory

    So, according to you, a necessary condition for making sense of your idea is thinking spiritually. But meanwhile a necessary condition for making sense of Godel's theorem is knowing what it is.

    if you don't like the idea of God at least be up to saying soGregory

    What I don't like is people spouting about Godel's theorem without knowing what it is. If you're not up to finding out what Godel's theorem is then at least be up to saying so.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.8k
    Gödel was trying to find a way to make a line in between what can be known and what can notGregory

    Where did you read that?
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    I’m beginning to come round to that opinion.
  • Banno
    25.2k
    if you don't like the idea of God at least be up to saying soGregory

    I don't like the idea of god.

    I'm pretty sure I've not hidden that view.

    It seems that those who have thought spiritually see sense in nonsense.

    I don't think that a good thing.
  • Banno
    25.2k
    So there you are again. I'm glad to see you back. I thought you were gone forever.

    Together again at last! We'll have to celebrate this. But how?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.