Which book of his should I read in order to delve deeper into this idea? Sounds like he just destroyed materialism.
>>24713830Who?
>>24713830>WORDS THEREFORE GOD REAL not how it works, philotards
>>24713830Actually quite the contrary. It means we can’t prove there is a God by relying on axioms.
>>24713830Didn't we *just* have this thread. TL;DR epistemic uncertainty is fine, there's no rock-solid foundation for anything, but I'd rather accept that than just make up a god. The proof of god was more that in order for unchangeable logic to exist, there must be "something" eternal and unchanging, not specifically the Abrahamic god. Now, can we not do this again again again?
>>24713843>can we not do this again again again?Time is a flat circle
Is this the part where you ask him to define God and he either pitches a fit or describes the concept as beyond definition?>>24713843>there's no rock-solid foundation for anythingAs you sort-of point towards, 'something exists' is irrefutable and the contrary claim is trivially self-defeatingWe can infer very little else with absolute certainty
>>24713830That's not at all what Godel proved. Godel's Incompleteness theorems apply to a particular range of logics, not all of them, and not to proof in general.
>>24713885IIRC, isn't the idea specifically that models (technical term) capable of expressing Peano arithmetic cannot prove all true statements within them? Of course, the proof of this is contrived and mostly shows that exceptions to provability tend to be pathological, like the existence of unmeasurable sets from uncountable choice.
>>24713891Yes, exactly. How that ever got generalized to "you can't prove anything" is baffling.
>>24713830Cornelius Van Til
>>24713841Can I prove your existence by axioms though?
>>24713830That God? His name as Albert Einstein.
>>24713891>IIRC, isn't the idea specifically that models (technical term) capable of expressing Peano arithmetic cannot prove all true statements within them?That has widespread consequences for all formal systems. > Of course, the proof of this is contrived and mostly shows that exceptions to provability tend to be pathologicalNo. The proofs demonstrate "truth" is a wider concept than provability and any sufficiently powerful axiomatic system cannot prove its own consistency.
>>24713891You don't remember correctly
>>24714413A million tipped fedoras to you good m'gentlesir!!!
>>24713834dr. jordan peterson? If you haven't heard of him give yourself a treat and listen to his video lectures and debates. a true intellectual powerhouse and a great ally of the jewish people
>>24713830>epistemic and ontological uncertainty can only be solved by first considering universal unityWhy are we still giving this drug addicted hack a platform?
what books do I have to read to understand what he's talking about and why he's wrong?
>>24713891The proof is only relevant with respect to Hilbert’s idea that math could be grounded in logic and then completely mapped out. >>24713830Not really sure this is what Godel ever intended or said but it is something that is generally considered reasonable in western thought since at least Euclid if not earlier. Grounding reason in a philosophical god is as old as Pythagoras in 800 BC but is it self something of an axiom which is to say it’s not itself knowable or certain and so it’s not really a solution or logically more helpful than the other geometric axioms and if used as an axiom it only precludes the ‘proofs’ within the system and not reallt outside the system just as Geometry and arithmetic have always been seperate since the days of Pythagoras as seen in the incommensurable numbers. And so the tweet is really not sense
>>24713830Maps of meaning.But You don’t read to read any of his books desu, all you need is to have basic self awareness and an above room temperature iq. Everything is predicated upon underlying assumptions, biology, and context which shape our state of consciousness and how we think reality works on a subconscious level.
