Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Matheology � 254 repost of Matheology � 002
Replies:
7
Last Post:
Apr 21, 2013 3:05 PM




Matheology � 254 repost of Matheology � 002
Posted:
Apr 18, 2013 11:39 AM


[from: WMRePostingService@WTF.RU? another repost, with his second post, WM proves GOD exists]
Can the existence of God be proved from mathematics?
Gödel proved the existence of God in a relatively complicated way using the positive and negative properties introduced by Leibniz and the axiomatic method ("the axiomatic method is very powerful", he said with a faint smile). http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html http://userpages.unikoblenz.de/~beckert/Lehre/SeminarLogikaufAbwegen/graf_folien.pdf
Couldn't the following simple way be more effective? 1) The set of real numbers is uncountable. 2) Humans can only identify countably many words. 3) Humans cannot distinguish what they cannot identify. 4) Humans cannot wellorder what they cannot distinguish. 5) The real numbers can be wellordered. 6) If this is true, then there must be a being with higher capacities than any human. QED
[I K Rus: "Can the existence of god be proved from mathematics?", philosophy.stackexchange, May 1, 20129 http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2702/cantheexistenceofgodbeprovedfrommathematics
The appending discussion is not electrifying for mathematicians. But a similar question had been asked by I K Rus in MathOverflow. There the following more educationel discussion occured (unfortunately it no longer accessible there).
(3) breaks down, because although I can't identify (i.e. literally "list") every real number between 0 and 1, if I am given any two real numbers in that interval then I can distinguish them.  C GERIG
If you are given two numbers, then both can be given, i.e., belong to the countable set of finite expressions.  I K RUS
I voted down to close as "subjective and argumentative". Claiming that the wellordering axiom implies that someone can order the reals is really inane, in my opinion.  ANGELO
I agree. It is really inane. But most mathematicians don't even know that this belief is inane. We should teach them: It is really inane to believe that all real numbers "exist" unless God has a list of them.  I K RUS
God is not the subject of proof. Either you believe or not, but this is only a matter of faith. It would be too simple if a proof of existence or nonexistence existed. We should not have any choice. D SERRE
God is the subject of Gödel's proof. God is the subject of my proof. And I am very proud that I have devised a proof that can be understood by a cobblers apprentice (as Euler requested). That will pave my way into the paradise. We know: without God there is no paradise, not even Hilbert's. You rightfully remark, "we should not have any choice." And we have no choice  unless we have the axiom of choice. Now I will no longer respond to questions and comments and will withdraw into my hermitage. Bless you God.  I K RUS
Although I agree with the closing of your question, thanks for bringing up that webpage  it is interesting and useful. @folks  knowledge can come from many sources :)  F GOLDBERG
Yes that's certainly true, but unfortunately in MathOverflow it seems not always appreciated. This instructive question and discussion have been closed as spam and deleted immediately.
Regards, WM



