God cannot be proven to exist. But we can try to discover mechanisms that would allow for much of what is attributed to god and religion to be possible. Goedels theorem may be one of these mechanisms.

Perhaps the best we can do is to believe that when someone else says they have met god, that they are correct. But that is hardly proof.

Then we also have the problem of basic Buddhism, which probably is the source of the most refined models of reality beyond the physical, saying that there is no god.

So if we believe in the most sophisticated (in my opinion) understanding of the greater reality, then there is no god.

However the mechanisms of that greater reality may still exist. But proof will not exist, especially when we cannot even prove that electrons exist, except as a convenient concept.

Probably the mention of Goedel was in reference to the belief that his incompleteness theorem makes it impossible to prove anything true rigorously. Even that may not be true.

Frankly I think we should abandon the idea of proof and just look for the evidence that something may have greater or lessor probability of being true. It's all probability.

Regards,

Richard

• There's inherent problems with a probablistic account - harvey1 - March 28, 2002 - 19:32 UTC
  • Probability - yanniru - March 28, 2002 - 22:10 UTC
    • I just take opportunities as they come - harvey1 - March 28, 2002 - 22:34 UTC
      • It is a contradiction to seek proof of the ultimate - dolphin - March 30, 2002 - 03:14 UTC
        • Any aspect of the universe is connected to t concept 'ultimate' - carefuluniverse - March 30, 2002 - 04:01 UTC
        • Sorry Alan; I think we speak for most of me here when they say. - spazcon - March 30, 2002 - 23:28 UTC
          • Did I say anything about saving the world? - dolphin - March 31, 2002 - 00:34 UTC