No, we did not say non provable is not knowable. It is just true that some truth can be known but not proved. And that does not mean that it is supernatural, just unprovable.(yet true)
As an instance Godel gave the sentence, "This assertion is not provable".
It may well be true, as Godel showed but it is not provable as the sentence asserts. This is also not a triviality, as Godel pointed out. Such logic led to the completeness theorem that was a sea change in logic at the time. As we and others have shown, it led to the understanding that no system could prove itself.
So we did not throw provability out with the bathwater of unknowability. We preserve truth as knowable, and we preserve logic and assumption as fair. We can still work our way through Godel's proof of the prime or all powerful, and see that the proof is valid, IF we assume the nature of being beforehand. After all, were we ever arguing that a God would have anything but an all powerful nature. Evidently the universe, if created was not made by lesser beings. Interestingly one proof of God assumes a lesser being as a straw man. Cannot have it, it would appear, ergo greater beings exist.. i.e. Gawd almighteeee...
Truth by its very definition is knowable. If we cannot know it, we cease to argue or understand, as all understanding is based on truth and non truth. Capiche?
EC<:-} |
