Return to Answer

However, if we can limit ourselves to FOL (and thus the search for "One True Set of Axioms," which is starting to sound like you original search for truth), I'd like to give Gödel some attention.

If we can limit ourselves to FOL, all we need is a set of axioms to create a formal system. This means the search is for "The One True Set of Axioms," which is starting to sound a whole lot like your original search for one truth. This search just needs a little linguistic nudge to make it mathematical. It is easy to show that if you take a set of axioms, and add a derived truth from them as an axiom, you get a consistent Formal System. You may be looking for a "minimal set of axioms to admit all truths in the universe under First Order Logic."

And with that in mind, I'd like to give Gödel some attention.

I believe the "one truth" you are working toward is more accurately phrased as a "Formal System" of truth, and you seek "One True Formal System". A formal system consists of:

However, if we can limit ourselves to FOL, I'd like to give Gödel some attention.

I believe the "one truth" you are working toward is more accurately phrased as a "Formal System" of truth, and you seek "One True Formal System of the Universe". A formal system consists of:

However, if we can limit ourselves to FOL (and thus the search for "One True Set of Axioms," which is starting to sound like you original search for truth), I'd like to give Gödel some attention.

This does not disprove any argument about monotheism. It does not even make dangerous statements such as "The bible is a lie because it claims provability about itself." What it does say is that claims such as "the Bible is true, and it says so" will inherit at least one of those five characteristics (gloss: self-referential text admits Peano arithmetic, so it is in Gödel's domain. Most all "book" religious people I talk to (Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc.) choose to accept "unprovable" as their characteristic of choice. It is completely admissible by Gödel for the Bible to be true and claim so, if it is unprovable using logic. Likewise, those who profess to believe in the Dao can trivially prove their belief, but the Dao is intractable (it is said "If you can write down the Dao, you have done it wrong").

This does not disprove any argument about monotheism. It does not even make dangerous statements such as "The bible is a lie because it claims provability about itself." What it does say is that claims such as "the Bible is true, and it says so" will inherit at least one of those five characteristics (gloss: self-referential text admits Peano arithmetic, so it is in Gödel's domain. Most all "book" religious people I talk to (Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc.) choose to accept "unprovable" as their characteristic of choice. It is completely admissible by Gödel for the Bible to be true and claim so, if it is unprovable using formal logic. Likewise, those who profess to believe in the Dao can trivially prove their belief, but the cost for this is that the Dao is intractable (it is said "If you can write down the Dao, you have done it wrong").