god proven mathematically

[dspguy]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

The above sounds like a reference to Pascal's Wager, a tired bit of nonsense which we have repudiated numerous times in this forum. It is based on the fallacious idea that there are no negative consequences associated with living your life as though it is utterly subordinate to your post corporal existence.

That's it. Pascal's Wager. I couldn't remember what it was called. Right; it doesn't prove anything but I thought one of the takeaways from it is that you have "nothing to lose" by having belief in something. Sort of like game theory. In the last "game" of life, if you knew there was no tomorrow, why not say "sure, I believe in some divine entity" since there'd be no consequence if there is no afterlife. But there would be a benefit if there was an afterlife.

I'm not positing that we should all believe in something. In regards to the OP, I felt it added something to conversation.

[averysgore]

That is one of the worst articles I've ever read.

Godel proved that for any set of axioms, there is some theorem that is true, but cannot be deduced from those axioms. This is called Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Apparently that's too highbrow a concept for this author, who writes the much more intelligible "But two computer scientists have used computers to run such complicated which they say confirms that the equation does indeed add up."

[LargeKingCat]

Originally Posted by averysgore

That is one of the worst articles I've ever read.

Godel proved that for any set of axioms, there is some theorem that is true, but cannot be deduced from those axioms. This is called Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Apparently that's too highbrow a concept for this author, who writes the much more intelligible "But two computer scientists have used computers to run such complicated which they say confirms that the equation does indeed add up."

I chose it because I believed it would best make the April Fool's Day statement I sought, sounding somewhat legit on the surface, but based on fallacy somewhere

[PegE]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

It's more convincing that disproving Datrwinism with a jar of peanut butter.?

Or disproving atheism with a banana that the ignorant speaker didn't know was made the way it is by botanists who vastly improved the "god made" banana! lol