Difference between revisions of "Talk:Undecidable"
From Conservapedia
(Created page with 'I'd like to create a small section that outlines the argument that mathematical undecidability provides a logical basis for religious faith. The argument is simply that we can pr...') |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I'd like to create a small section that outlines the argument that mathematical undecidability provides a logical basis for religious faith. The argument is simply that we can prove rigorously that there exist true statements that have no logical proof. Therefore the atheistic tendency to demand evidence for religious matters, like the existence of god, is not backed up by formal logic: if we know that there are true things that cannot be proven, then it is logical to sometimes have faith without proof. | I'd like to create a small section that outlines the argument that mathematical undecidability provides a logical basis for religious faith. The argument is simply that we can prove rigorously that there exist true statements that have no logical proof. Therefore the atheistic tendency to demand evidence for religious matters, like the existence of god, is not backed up by formal logic: if we know that there are true things that cannot be proven, then it is logical to sometimes have faith without proof. | ||
| − | What do you think? I don't know if anyone reads this page, but I wanted to throw this out there before making the edit. | + | What do you think? I don't know if anyone reads this page, but I wanted to throw this out there before making the edit. [[User:Aroth|Aroth]] 18:05, 14 September 2009 (EDT) |
Revision as of 22:05, September 14, 2009
I'd like to create a small section that outlines the argument that mathematical undecidability provides a logical basis for religious faith. The argument is simply that we can prove rigorously that there exist true statements that have no logical proof. Therefore the atheistic tendency to demand evidence for religious matters, like the existence of god, is not backed up by formal logic: if we know that there are true things that cannot be proven, then it is logical to sometimes have faith without proof.
What do you think? I don't know if anyone reads this page, but I wanted to throw this out there before making the edit. Aroth 18:05, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
