Djevv said:
Well this level of understanding is up to your usual standard, unfortunately. How do you prove an axiom? ;D
Some axioms follow from previous proofs - like Pythagoras theorum follows from principles of Cartesian geometry. Sometimes of course we just accept them for the argument's sake - exactly as the German researchers did. Another obtuse smokescreen Djevy?
So finally though we both agree that the "scientists prove validity of Godel's proof with a macbook" only proves the internal logic is valid, and the axioms are themselves challengeable. Halleluhyah!
Even though your position has flip-flopped all throughout this discussion - some examples.
[quote author=Djevv]If the axioms are sound, so is the proof. Thats what they found. It is really no different to Pythagoras.[/quote]
[quote author=Djevv]You need to actually read what I wrote before you reply to me. Yes of course you are correct here it all comes down to the believability of the axioms. I have never denied this. But they are there for all to see. Which do you deny? Otherwise it is a proof.[/quote]
[quote author=Djevv]
A sound argument has valid logical form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms and the conclusion follows form the premises. So no you are not correct. The proof was written in modal logic which was found to be sound.[/quote]
And this is of course what the authors themselves stated explicitly about their works. They never set out to "prove God" and all your waffle about "I provided a mathematical proof of God" and "it was published in a scientific journal so it must be fully legit including all assumptions and axioms and proves God big-time".
Can't wait for your flippant one line response that doesn't engage with the argument though :hihi