[256 / 27 / ?]
Quoted By: >>11330171 >>11330174 >>11330175 >>11330178 >>11330180 >>11330182 >>11330186 >>11330193 >>11330200 >>11330205 >>11330217 >>11330224 >>11330250 >>11330253 >>11330273 >>11330290 >>11330294 >>11330297 >>11330300 >>11330306 >>11330307 >>11330315 >>11330340 >>11330341 >>11330347 >>11330351 >>11330364 >>11330385 >>11330388 >>11330403 >>11330416
If you define your God to be omniscient this proves that your God does not exist, you can change your definition but it technically proves your current iteration is not real
proof:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems
+ another hypothesis unproven:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_irreducibility
i can imagine that this principle plus the rest of physics can be extrapolated to prove that a God could not be omnipresent/omnipotent/etc.
in which case it no longer is what a God is defined to be. it's a mere demiurge (of course with 0 evidence for its existence)
proof:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems
+ another hypothesis unproven:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_irreducibility
i can imagine that this principle plus the rest of physics can be extrapolated to prove that a God could not be omnipresent/omnipotent/etc.
in which case it no longer is what a God is defined to be. it's a mere demiurge (of course with 0 evidence for its existence)
