Yeah where is his photo

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see the terrible consequences of America's opiate epidemic.

I’m going to hazard a guess that you weren’t a math or a philosophy major.

You're telling me you have a way to scientifically prove math? Please show me how you can use the scientific method to prove math.
- Math is a language describing the fundamentals of our world and nature. God is a completely fabricated fairytale. You don't need a proof of English to see it exists, you do need evidence to proof that the big bad wolf is real. That's the difference, fuck you people need actual education.....
  
  Math is based on logic, we can't prove it scientifically because it's not something which is empirically verifiable but provable through deduction. If we are happy with logic to prove math what is wrong with logical arguments for God? I'm not against science or needing to prove your theories. I'm only against the notion that if you don't have empirical proof for God then God doesn't exist.
- No, I’m saying that you’ve boldly gone into the territory that physicist and Nobel laureate Wolfgang Pauli called “Not right, and not even wrong.”
  
  So, what would you expect a “proof of math” to look like?
  
  So, what would you expect a “proof of math” to look like?
  
  In a jar, distilled to a bright colourful liquid at -218°C

I mean, math is more bunch of agreements and consequences, that come from that.

I agree

Geometry is not a thing?

I give you an orange and then i give you another orange, how many oranges do you have empirically.

I will need a research grant and 3 interns.

After extensive testing we have a 95% confidence of mean of 2.
Sure. I observe 2 oranges. I can also observe the world around me. Although observation is a part of the scientific method it is not the scientific method it self. Perhaps what I said can use more clarification, take Pythagorean theorem. This is not something which is proverable through science or observation but rather mathematically through logic. Its not something which you can put under a microscope.
- Not directly since there are no perfect triangles but it ties into sine and cosine which ties into the equations that govern light. Which are always true no matter how often we measure them.
  
  Right, so in Math we have axioms and we build upon those axioms and construct theorems which are deductively true. They are not true in the same way a scientific theory is. My point is, not everything that can be true needs empirical verification. Math is one example.
  
  While what you say is true, tautological arguments are not useful in and of themselves. Internally consistent mathematics is not a useful construct unless we can empirically discover structures that those mathematical systems model. Einsteins theory of relativity is not impressive without the empirical discovery that the it is/was a better model than the existing Newtonian models that proceeded it.
  
  To argue that internally consistent tautologies are true and are of equivalent usefulness is a bad faith argument that inappropriately equates two logical constructs.
  
  I agree with what you're saying. The reason why I said what I said originally is because there is a decent number of people who only consider science as the only way to truth. Despite logic for example being accepted and needed to do any science.
  
  The problem is that you failed to adequately disambiguate your position from nonsense. The position you presented is a poor one and an unwelcome thing to try and defend in this community. Additionally, your presentation of the subject was combative instead of illuminating and your statement about "true things" is just a bad presentation of a thing we have excellent proofs of without the hand waving.
  
  Frankly, it was difficult for me to differentiate your argument from a bad apologist argument.
  
  I went back to my main comment and read it. I don't think I conveyed any "nonsense". Perhaps I could've presented things differently? Sure. Also, to say that I've been combative in the discussion while you are doing just that is ironic.

You can empirically prove math like you'd empirically prove other things - make predictions based on math and test these predictions. But it seems like you are expecting these proofs to be like mathematical proofs - uncompromising logic that leaves no room for getting false positives by chance. They won't. They'll be like all other empirical proofs - "mere" scientific theories that must forever live with the possibility - however improbable - that the universe somehow aligned to make all the predictions come true even though the hypothesis they were derived from is wrong.

But this is not a property of the math we were trying to prove. This is just the nature of the empirical proofs. Implying, based on that, that math is less verifiable than all the physical observable things (like frozen oxygen) is ridiculous - the proofs for these things suffer from the exact same problem!

The (poorly) argued point they are trying to make is the distinction between the empirically identified congruences between the math and the internally consistent tautological truth of the math itself.

The reason I bring this up is your point about math modeling empirical evidence is an important distinction. Where their argument truly breaks down is the idea that all internally consistent tautologies are of equal value to us as humans. This is obviously false.

And frankly, their other argument about this showing that true things exist without empirical proof is offensively stupid since we already have much better proofs demonstrating that true things exist without proof.
- we already have much better proofs demonstrating that true things exist without proof.
  
  Isn't this a contradiction? These "much better proofs" are proofs - which means that these "true things" are not "without proof".
  
  Also, I'm not sure what "things" you have in mind here, but I'm fairly certain they don't "exist" in the same sense math does. Math exists in the same hard sciences do - any mathematical discovery, just like discoveries, is a rule that reality follows. Of course, I'm not implying that the mere formulation of this rule by human researchers is what gives it the power to govern the universe - we are just discovering laws that were already there.
  
  Other things that are derived from human thought (rather than empirical evidence) and do not fall under the wide umbrella of math, don't exist the same sense. You may claim that justice exists, but it'd be silly to expect the universe to obey to principles of justice. It won't be silly to expect it to obey to mathematical principles.
  
  Had @NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world brought something like justice as their example, we could have talked about the meaning of existence and what does it mean for God to exist in the same way justice exists. But they didn't - and I really try to avoid formulating other people's claims for them, because even if I get it right they may still find (or invent) some nuance I got slightly wrong, leverage that to claim I understand nothing about their philosophy, and derail the entire conversation to revolve around that.
  
  They didn't mention these other "true things" that "exist without empirical proof". They mentioned math. And math can be proven empirically using material evidence and the scientific method (of course, you need to make sure you are not trying to prove the parts of math that are crucial for the scientific method itself, because then your proof will be circular...)
  
  Godels proof is quite clear. There are infinitely many assertions that are true but have no proof. Those assertions can be mapped to extant things. This is not an area that requires deliberation. If you are unfamiliar with the incompleteness theorum we can discuss it more. The fantastically great thing about this work is that it was the pursuit of a "complete" purely philosophical logic derivation of mathematical principles (the continuation of the work by Bertrand in the Principia Mathematica).
  
  The thing here is we are arguing two different points... You are arguing that empirical evidence can demonstrate the usefulness of models to explain more empirical evidence... Which is true. I am arguing that philosophy builds models. You aren't wrong(except that part about not trying to prove the parts that are crucial for the scientific method... You are just wrong about that) and I am not wrong. We are arguing different things.
  
  Godel's proof is about our inability to prove some theorems mathematically, but that does not mean we cannot prove them scientifically. Such proofs, of course, will suffer from the same problem all scientific proofs have - a certain probability that even though our model is wrong, somehow by pure chance our tests ended up showing otherwise (in technical term - non-zero p values)
  
  except that part about not trying to prove the parts that are crucial for the scientific method… You are just wrong about that
  
  I'm not saying that one must never attempt to prove these foundations. What I'm saying is that if you try to prove them empirically (as oppose to how they are usually proved - mathematically) using the scientific method, you will run into the circular reasoning fallacy:
  
  -----> foundations >------ / \ proves proves \ / --< scientific method <---

Damn. Does your church have room for one more?