If one religion is false, then all religions are false.
Prove Gödel wrong.
>The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (i.e., any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
Every outlook is missing a part of the truth.
Understand that and you will realize that outlooks and philosophies are just lenses that can be useful in certain situations. Now this way, now that way.
Entertain any idea, and believe none of them.
Then how about utilising the lens of mathematical logic?
There is a reason it has shaped philosophy and general logic in the most profound way ever seen since it's recent introduction.
See: the history of logic.
so the teachings of the one true God is inherently superior and absolutely true than the teachings of a lower deity
it doesnt mean the lower deity doesnt exist though, it only means they are posers and tricks
>If one religion is false, then all religions are false.
By that logic, if one religion is true, then all religions are true. Being that many religions are mutually exclusive and contradictory to each other, that would be a logical paradox. Thanks for playing, but you obviously don't understand what Gödel means with the incompleteness theorem.
that's a shit question
false teachings = not the truth therefore doesnt exist
but if you mean that all the paranormal elements of the religion dont exist like a nihilist would say, then that's way too fucking vague and the question is fucking garbage
no, did you catch this part?
>The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
if the lower dieties are "posers" as you say, then they aren't true. meaning that they cannot demonstrate that the 'one true god', lets call it the hypergod, they cannot say that the hypergod is true.
if the child objects are not true, the hyperobject is not true
>but if one of them is false (lets say wiccan is false, or christianity is false) then all of them are false.
uh, no. I don't think you know how to logic. The entire premise of trying to apply a mathematical theorem to religion is inherently flawed. How would wiccan or christianity being false, say, prove that hinduism is false?
Saying "if one religion is false, then all religions are false" is completely illogical, and implies that either all are right or all are wrong. Yes, they COULD all be wrong, but they can't all be right, and one could be right while the others are false. Let's say, hypothetically, that Norse mythology is correct. If that were the case, then that would make the monotheistic religions automatically wrong, but then by your "logic", the monotheistic religions being wrong would mean that the Norse beliefs are wrong too.
You demonstrate no correlation, no causation, no logical connection, and completely misunderstand and misapply a mathematical theorem to something completely unrelated. Please do yourself and the world a favor, and go back to school you uneducated pleb.
it goes nowhere and is fucking retarded, it only takes into account itself and we gotta refute it based on the set criterias and not with actual occult/theological knowledge
Are Mirrors Real If Our Eyes Arent Real
the only devil, in this finite universe we have the collective obligation of occupying, and pleasure of understanding, is not knowing mathematical logic.
you are the universe, so come to understand yourself.
uh, the point is that occult, and theological knowledge is fundamentally incorrect, brah.
there is much greater power promised in mathematical logic than there ever was in theological doctrine.
not him, but...
>this is a pseudo philosophic question
You don't understand mathematical theorems, you don't understand philosophy, you don't understand logic, and you don't even understand the difference between a statement and a question. Confirmed for either retarded, or fail troll. 0/10, either way, you are just sad.
another way of saying it is: the only way any belief system that possibly be true is for it to be able to be proven from an extrinsic, logical fact, meaning a "formal proof", as opposed to an "informal proof".
and MY point is, that you are applying a false dichotomy and intellectual dishonesty. You are ignoring non-dogmatic beliefs, properties of correlation and causation, and Gödel himself is explaining the function of internal consistency in regards to math. You're lack of understanding of the man you are quoting and the subject he is speaking of only shows your own ignorance. Let me put this simply
>the point is that all of it is wrong, because they all only rely on themselves (e.g. a belief in fundamental mathematics) to demonstrate its own consistency or correctness.
See how wrong that sounds? He is trying to explain that math is unable to prove itself without relying on itself. Take a closer look and actually read what he says. Stop skimming over it and misapplying it to a completely unrelated subject.
> For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.
>...shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
He is specifically talking about mathematics, and how it is true even though it cannot prove itself or it's consistency outside of the system of mathematics itself.
Fucking hell, I don't even know how I can simplify this any further. Please be a troll, I don't want to believe you are really this retarded.
>the language for describing reality
not him, but remind me how a mathematical proof *shouldnt* be applied to all aspects of reality again?
>A number of features distinguish modern logic from the old Aristotelian or traditional logic, the most important of which are as follows: Modern logic is fundamentally a calculus whose rules of operation are determined only by the shape and not by the meaning of the symbols it employs, as in mathematics. Many logicians were impressed by the "success" of mathematics, in that there had been no prolonged dispute about any truly mathematical result. C.S. Peirce noted that even though a mistake in the evaluation of a definite integral by Laplace led to an error concerning the moon's orbit that persisted for nearly 50 years, the mistake, once spotted, was corrected without any serious dispute. Peirce contrasted this with the disputation and uncertainty surrounding traditional logic, and especially reasoning in metaphysics. He argued that a truly "exact" logic would depend upon mathematical, i.e., "diagrammatic" or "iconic" thought. "Those who follow such methods will ... escape all error except such as will be speedily corrected after it is once suspected". Modern logic is also "constructive" rather than "abstractive"; i.e., rather than abstracting and formalising theorems derived from ordinary language (or from psychological intuitions about validity), it constructs theorems by formal methods, then looks for an interpretation in ordinary language. It is entirely symbolic, meaning that even the logical constants (which the medieval logicians called "syncategoremata") and the categoric terms are expressed in symbols.
>not him, but remind me how a mathematical proof *shouldnt* be applied to all aspects of reality again?
Nice strawman, but I never said that. I'm pointing out OP's misunderstanding and misapplication of the incompleteness theorem. The way it's being used to "prove" all religions wrong would also "prove" that mathematics is wrong. You might as well be saying "If B =/= A, then nothing = A", which is, of course, wrong. I'll quote it again:
>there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.
I'm among those who DO believe everything can be ultimately reduced to, and explained by the logic of mathematics, and your suggestion that I was implying otherwise because I pointed out the misapplication is insulting. Go back to school and learn something, doing copying excerpts from wikipedia is a far cry from understanding the subject matter.
>(e.g. a belief in fundamental mathematics)
nigga thanks for the sensible chuckle
>how it is true even though it cannot prove itself or it's consistency outside of the system of mathematics itself.
because *my* logic (and Gödel's) are derived from a constructed theorem, created independently from, lets for simplicity's sake say "independent from religion", and proven as true. it's like a machine that can take any input, and process it to produce an output. when my "machine" takes the input "religion" it produces the output "If one religion is false, then all religions are false."
that is because it is, as pointed out by >>17177152
a theorem constructed by formal methods (meaning the methods are data-agnostic, they will work for any data) which seeks out an interpretation in ordinary language.
and furthermore, not to embarrass you, but you were using the theorem incorrectly because the difference between religion and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem are that G-bro's theorem can demonstrate it's own consistency in a formal way (which i just did in an informal way with religion as an input), while religious canon/claims/beliefs cannot.