Proving God in 20 statements

[smfortune]

P.S. as per your link, a GUT is not a TOE.

I, and the link, never said GUT was TOE. Well, maybe the link did somewhere, I know I didn't. In my world GUT is intestinal tract and TOE is a digit.

I thought we were done? Or do you have something else that you believe will convince me that your fantasy belief is a reality and god actually exists? Perhaps another set of equations.

Here's the thing. You're welcome to your belief. I have no problem with that. Most of the people around me function with that belief and I don't take issue with them. They make reference to it often, sometimes inappropriately and insensitively, and I let it slide. If it works for them, fine.  However, I do take issue when my belief (or lack there of) is challenged. I think that was your intent in coming to AF. Correct me if I'm wrong but it came across as "Here is my proof, try to find the holes in it, find fault with it. If you can't (and you indicated up front that we [certainly I] would not be able to), smf wins, you loose."

OK, no holes found by me. What does that prove? Only that you're good at math and symbols. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing in your math, the logic, that changes a belief (at least this kind of belief) into a reality. You have still not demonstrated to me that god(s) exist(s). Math does not equal god.

On a side note and with no offense intended, good luck with your book and site. I hope the believers out there support you.

I remember Torkel Franzén in his excellent "Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse" presented the very same example as in the link. But Franzén and and Chu-Carroll make the same mistake by believing that incompleteness in a TOE is surmountable - Franzén (if I can recall correctly) made some ridiculous reference to the possibility of a TOE outside of mathematics. Incompleteness in a TOE is not surmountable. Stephen Hawking in 2002, "Gödel and the end of physics" finally came to the same conclusion, a TOE is impossible given the implication of Gödel. My proof is soundly grounded within formal systems and is without the ostrich's head buried in the sand denial of the impossibility of a TOE.

---

smfortune, you know how every model logic phrase can be reworded in language (they teach you to do this)? I haven't done this for years and will have be retaking the courses that taught this stuff.

Can you do us a favor and translate all the steps in plain English?

It's already there. Just skip the logic symbols and read the text. You'll get the gist.