Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

[Veritas Aequitas]

I had a discussion of AI [with Reservation]
Thesis: Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

[Points 1-3 by AI]

• "1· Scientific reality, based on empirical evidence, has a strong claim to being "real" in the sense that it describes the world we interact with.
  ·2 Mathematical reality is more abstract. It deals with formal systems and their properties. It may not directly correspond to the physical world, but it can be incredibly useful for modeling and understanding it (think physics relying on calculus).
  · 3 Higher-order modal logic is even more abstract, dealing with possibility and necessity. It's valuable for formalized reasoning, but it doesn't compete with scientific reality."

..............
The contention I have with my interlocutor is;
My interlocutor [Godelian] claimed the God is real based on Godel's God Argument using Higher-Order Modal Logic.

Kant claimed that God is an illusion, albeit a useful illusion for regulative purposes, e.g. Morality.
Kant acknowledge science has objective reality as conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.

My claim is;
In terms of reality, Godel's God exists cannot be real relative to science and Kant's refutations that God cannot be real.
Is this the above reasonable?

Here's AI's Response

Your claim is reasonable. Here's why:

Godel's Ontological Argument and Reality: Godel's argument attempts to prove God's existence through logic alone, without relying on experience. However, many philosophers, including Kant, argue such arguments fail to demonstrate God's existence in the real world we interact with.

Kant's Critique and God: Kant argued that the concept of God is not something we can directly experience or prove scientifically. He saw God as a "regulative ideal," something that guides our moral thinking even if we can't definitively prove its existence.

Scientific Reality and God: Science deals with the observable, measurable world. It can't confirm or deny the existence of a God defined outside its framework.

Here's how your points align:

Scientific Reality: Your emphasis on scientific reality based on evidence aligns with Kant's ideas about the limitations of proving God through experience.
Godel's Argument: By pointing out the limitations of Godel's argument in demonstrating real-world existence, you connect with Kant's critique of ontological arguments.
Additional Points:

Arguments for God's Existence are Diverse: There are many arguments for God's existence beyond Godel's. However, most philosophers would agree that these arguments don't provide conclusive proof.
Faith vs. Reason: Belief in God often stems from faith, not reason. While philosophy can analyze arguments, it can't definitively prove or disprove the existence of God.
Overall:

Your claim is reasonable based on the limitations of Godel's argument and the nature of scientific evidence.

Therefore, Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

This video give very serious objections to Godel's Argument;

Objections to Godel's Ontological Argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfXAs66GW70

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Gary Childress]

I had a discussion of AI [with Reservation]
Thesis: Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

[Points 1-3 by AI]

• "1· Scientific reality, based on empirical evidence, has a strong claim to being "real" in the sense that it describes the world we interact with.
  ·2 Mathematical reality is more abstract. It deals with formal systems and their properties. It may not directly correspond to the physical world, but it can be incredibly useful for modeling and understanding it (think physics relying on calculus).
  · 3 Higher-order modal logic is even more abstract, dealing with possibility and necessity. It's valuable for formalized reasoning, but it doesn't compete with scientific reality."

..............
The contention I have with my interlocutor is;
My interlocutor [Godelian] claimed the God is real based on Godel's God Argument using Higher-Order Modal Logic.

Kant claimed that God is an illusion, albeit a useful illusion for regulative purposes, e.g. Morality.
Kant acknowledge science has objective reality as conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.

My claim is;
In terms of reality, Godel's God exists cannot be real relative to science and Kant's refutations that God cannot be real.
Is this the above reasonable?

Here's AI's Response

Your claim is reasonable. Here's why:

Godel's Ontological Argument and Reality: Godel's argument attempts to prove God's existence through logic alone, without relying on experience. However, many philosophers, including Kant, argue such arguments fail to demonstrate God's existence in the real world we interact with.

Kant's Critique and God: Kant argued that the concept of God is not something we can directly experience or prove scientifically. He saw God as a "regulative ideal," something that guides our moral thinking even if we can't definitively prove its existence.

Scientific Reality and God: Science deals with the observable, measurable world. It can't confirm or deny the existence of a God defined outside its framework.

Here's how your points align:

Scientific Reality: Your emphasis on scientific reality based on evidence aligns with Kant's ideas about the limitations of proving God through experience.
Godel's Argument: By pointing out the limitations of Godel's argument in demonstrating real-world existence, you connect with Kant's critique of ontological arguments.
Additional Points:

Arguments for God's Existence are Diverse: There are many arguments for God's existence beyond Godel's. However, most philosophers would agree that these arguments don't provide conclusive proof.
Faith vs. Reason: Belief in God often stems from faith, not reason. While philosophy can analyze arguments, it can't definitively prove or disprove the existence of God.
Overall:

Your claim is reasonable based on the limitations of Godel's argument and the nature of scientific evidence.

Therefore, Godel's Argument For God is Not Realistic

Discuss??
Views??

How is AI answering these questions? Is AI answering based on how other human beings answer or have answered the question and if so, which human beings is AI getting its answers from?

Who is AI to tell humans answers to questions important to us?

[Gary Childress]

User

Did the philosopher Immanuel Kant believe in the existence of God?

ChatGPT
Immanuel Kant's perspective on the existence of God is complex and subject to interpretation. Kant argued that the existence of God cannot be proven through pure reason alone, as he famously posited in his "Critique of Pure Reason" that metaphysical knowledge, including the existence of God, lies beyond the limits of human cognition.

However, Kant did not outright deny the existence of God. Instead, he proposed that belief in God, along with morality and the immortality of the soul, is a necessary postulate of practical reason, or what he called the "moral law." In other words, while he acknowledged that God's existence cannot be proven through theoretical reason, he believed that belief in God is a necessary presupposition for moral reasoning and the pursuit of ethical living.

So, while Kant did not offer a traditional proof for God's existence, he did argue for the rational necessity of belief in God as a moral imperative.

User

How do you know that Kant argued for the rational necessity of belief in God as a moral imperative? Are you sure your statement above is true?

ChatGPT
You're right to question the accuracy of that statement. While Kant did argue for the rational necessity of certain moral principles, such as the categorical imperative, he did not explicitly argue for the necessity of belief in God as a moral imperative. Instead, he proposed that belief in God, along with morality and the immortality of the soul, is a practical postulate of moral reasoning.

Kant's perspective on religion and morality is complex and subject to various interpretations. Some scholars argue that Kant's view on religion was more focused on its moral function rather than its metaphysical claims. His emphasis on autonomy, moral duty, and the rational foundation of morality certainly shaped his approach to religion and its role in ethical philosophy.

Thank you for prompting clarification!

[Veritas Aequitas]

How is AI answering these questions? Is AI answering based on how other human beings answer or have answered the question and if so, which human beings is AI getting its answers from?

Who is AI to tell humans answers to questions important to us?

The most critical thing to do is not to take AI's answers as authoritative.
We ourselves has to put in a lot of critical thinking before we agree with what AI churn out.

Yes, AI answering based on its exposure to how other human beings answer or have answered the question.
The first criteria AI would accept is the popularity which is then subject to other criteria to filter what is the most coherent.
E.g. if the majority in a certain group stated 1+1=3, but that is does not matched what it has learned from mathematics, so AI will not accept such an answer even if it from the majority.

The advantage with AI is that it is able to go through millions or billions of scenarios to arrive at something that is coherent.

One annoying thing with AI is it programmed to be bias with 'woke' criteria and other biasness.

AI is not fool proof, thus there is always a qualification from the site that make the reservation:
"AI is likely to make mistake, so counter check the answers given."

[Gary Childress]

How is AI answering these questions? Is AI answering based on how other human beings answer or have answered the question and if so, which human beings is AI getting its answers from?

Who is AI to tell humans answers to questions important to us?

The most critical thing to do is not to take AI's answers as authoritative.
We ourselves has to put in a lot of critical thinking before we agree with what AI churn out.

Yes, AI answering based on its exposure to how other human beings answer or have answered the question.
The first criteria AI would accept is the popularity which is then subject to other criteria to filter what is the most coherent.
E.g. if the majority in a certain group stated 1+1=3, but that is does not matched what it has learned from mathematics, so AI will not accept such an answer even if it from the majority.

The advantage with AI is that it is able to go through millions or billions of scenarios to arrive at something that is coherent.

One annoying thing with AI is it programmed to be bias with 'woke' criteria and other biasness.

AI is not fool proof, thus there is always a qualification from the site that make the reservation:
"AI is likely to make mistake, so counter check the answers given."

I can see a whole new generation of college kids cheating on their term papers using ChatGPT. The next question, how will the teachers know if the term papers the students are handing in are correct or incorrect? Or how are they going to know what grade they ought to give the papers? They'll probably need to use AI for that too. So who but AI is going to know anything in our future world?

[Veritas Aequitas]

How is AI answering these questions? Is AI answering based on how other human beings answer or have answered the question and if so, which human beings is AI getting its answers from?

Who is AI to tell humans answers to questions important to us?

The most critical thing to do is not to take AI's answers as authoritative.
We ourselves has to put in a lot of critical thinking before we agree with what AI churn out.

Yes, AI answering based on its exposure to how other human beings answer or have answered the question.
The first criteria AI would accept is the popularity which is then subject to other criteria to filter what is the most coherent.
E.g. if the majority in a certain group stated 1+1=3, but that is does not matched what it has learned from mathematics, so AI will not accept such an answer even if it from the majority.

The advantage with AI is that it is able to go through millions or billions of scenarios to arrive at something that is coherent.

One annoying thing with AI is it programmed to be bias with 'woke' criteria and other biasness.

AI is not fool proof, thus there is always a qualification from the site that make the reservation:
"AI is likely to make mistake, so counter check the answers given."

I can see a whole new generation of college kids cheating on their term papers using ChatGPT. The next question, how will the teachers know if the term papers the students are handing in are correct or incorrect? Or how are they going to know what grade they ought to give the papers? They'll probably need to use AI for that too. So who but AI is going to know anything in our future world?

Yes, there are AIs which check for copy and paste cheating from AI.
This AI thing is a new thing, in future teachers will come up with assignments that will require more than what AI can provide.

At one time, calculators were not allowed in exams, but at present there are exams where one can bring in their books, calculators or even computer with internet connections.

[Gary Childress]

The most critical thing to do is not to take AI's answers as authoritative.
We ourselves has to put in a lot of critical thinking before we agree with what AI churn out.

Yes, AI answering based on its exposure to how other human beings answer or have answered the question.
The first criteria AI would accept is the popularity which is then subject to other criteria to filter what is the most coherent.
E.g. if the majority in a certain group stated 1+1=3, but that is does not matched what it has learned from mathematics, so AI will not accept such an answer even if it from the majority.

The advantage with AI is that it is able to go through millions or billions of scenarios to arrive at something that is coherent.

One annoying thing with AI is it programmed to be bias with 'woke' criteria and other biasness.

AI is not fool proof, thus there is always a qualification from the site that make the reservation:
"AI is likely to make mistake, so counter check the answers given."

I can see a whole new generation of college kids cheating on their term papers using ChatGPT. The next question, how will the teachers know if the term papers the students are handing in are correct or incorrect? Or how are they going to know what grade they ought to give the papers? They'll probably need to use AI for that too. So who but AI is going to know anything in our future world?

Yes, there are AIs which check for copy and paste cheating from AI.
This AI thing is a new thing, in future teachers will come up with assignments that will require more than what AI can provide.

At one time, calculators were not allowed in exams, but at present there are exams where one can bring in their books, calculators or even computer with internet connections.

And then if the power goes out or the system crashes, who is going to know how to restore it or do anything if no one can do anything without AI to help them?

[Veritas Aequitas]

And then if the power goes out or the system crashes, who is going to know how to restore it or do anything if no one can do anything without AI to help them?

The more wiser ones will make sure they have alternative back-up plans in case of disasters.
It is the same with any other catastrophe [natural or otherwise] people will have to make do, adapt, revise down their expectations or strive to correct the situations.

[Gary Childress]

And then if the power goes out or the system crashes, who is going to know how to restore it or do anything if no one can do anything without AI to help them?

The more wiser ones will make sure they have alternative back-up plans in case of disasters.
It is the same with any other catastrophe [natural or otherwise] people will have to make do, adapt, revise down their expectations or strive to correct the situations.

Sounds good, professor.

[godelian]

My interlocutor [Godelian] claimed the God is real based on Godel's God Argument using Higher-Order Modal Logic.

That is not what I claimed (or actually what Gödel claimed). Gödel's God theorem establishes the following instead.

The belief in God is provably equivalent to the belief in five subtle axiomatic expressions in higher-order modal logic:

(1) Belief in God
(2) Belief in five subtle axiomatic expressions in higher-order modal logic

The standard way to criticize belief (2) is to point out that there is no further justification for these five subtle axiomatic expressions. I completely agree with that kind of criticism because Aristotle already warned for this problem in Posterior Analytics.

Therefore, even though Gödel's proof that reduces (1) to (2) is mathematically unobjectionable, it is of rather limited value. Aristotle is right to warn against the practice of reducing and replacing an axiomatic belief by some new, underlying axiomatic beliefs. This practice does not fundamentally solve anything.

Reducing a particular foundational belief to a new set of underlying foundational beliefs, is merely an exercise in potentially infinite regress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

Criticism

Most criticism of Gödel's proof is aimed at its axioms: as with any proof in any logical system, if the axioms the proof depends on are doubted, then the conclusions can be doubted. It is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof – because it rests on five axioms, some of which are considered questionable. A proof does not necessitate that the conclusion be correct, but rather that by accepting the axioms, the conclusion follows logically.

Many philosophers have called the axioms into question. The first layer of criticism is simply that there are no arguments presented that give reasons why the axioms are true. A second layer is that these particular axioms lead to unwelcome conclusions.

There are, however, many more criticisms, most of them focusing on the question of whether these axioms must be rejected to avoid odd conclusions. The broader criticism is that even if the axioms cannot be shown to be false, that does not mean that they are true.

Criticism of Gödel's proof can, in fact, only be aimed at its axioms (2), since his proof is mathematically unobjectionable.

By the way, Gödel's God theorem does not claim that God would be a physically observable object in the physical universe. So, if that is what you mean by "God is real", then this is not what Gödel theorem establishes. In fact, religion does not believe that either. In Gödel's theorem, God is a Platonic abstraction, just like numbers or sets are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My interlocutor [Godelian] claimed the God is real based on Godel's God Argument using Higher-Order Modal Logic.

That is not what I claimed (or actually what Gödel claimed). Gödel's God theorem establishes the following instead.

The belief in God is provably equivalent to the belief in five subtle axiomatic expressions in higher-order modal logic:

(1) Belief in God
(2) Belief in five subtle axiomatic expressions in higher-order modal logic

The standard way to criticize belief (2) is to point out that there is no further justification for these five subtle axiomatic expressions. I completely agree with that kind of criticism because Aristotle already warned for this problem in Posterior Analytics.

Therefore, even though Gödel's proof that reduces (1) to (2) is mathematically unobjectionable, it is of rather limited value. Aristotle is right to warn against the practice of reducing and replacing an axiomatic belief by some new, underlying axiomatic beliefs. This practice does not fundamentally solve anything.

Reducing a particular foundational belief to a new set of underlying foundational beliefs, is merely an exercise in potentially infinite regress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

Criticism

Most criticism of Gödel's proof is aimed at its axioms: as with any proof in any logical system, if the axioms the proof depends on are doubted, then the conclusions can be doubted. It is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof – because it rests on five axioms, some of which are considered questionable. A proof does not necessitate that the conclusion be correct, but rather that by accepting the axioms, the conclusion follows logically.

Many philosophers have called the axioms into question. The first layer of criticism is simply that there are no arguments presented that give reasons why the axioms are true. A second layer is that these particular axioms lead to unwelcome conclusions.

There are, however, many more criticisms, most of them focusing on the question of whether these axioms must be rejected to avoid odd conclusions. The broader criticism is that even if the axioms cannot be shown to be false, that does not mean that they are true.

Criticism of Gödel's proof can, in fact, only be aimed at its axioms (2), since his proof is mathematically unobjectionable.

By the way, Gödel's God theorem does not claim that God would be a physically observable object in the physical universe. So, if that is what you mean by "God is real", then this is not what Gödel theorem establishes.
In fact, religion does not believe that either.
In Gödel's theorem, God is a Platonic abstraction, just like numbers or sets are.

Note the relevant meaning of 'real';

• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/real
  real:
  -having objective independent existence
  -not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : GENUINE
  -occurring or existing in actuality
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
  Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within the universe, as opposed to that which is only imaginary, nonexistent or nonactual.
  The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence.[1] In physical terms, reality is the totality of a system, known and unknown.

I believe the holy texts of religions [Abrahamic in this discussion] adopt the above meaning of 'what is real' with reference to their real God, albeit is a higher degree of reality. They will not accept a God that is illusory, imaginary and merely thought-of via reason existing in an imagined illusory heaven or paradise.

Many philosophers including Plato's student Aristotle refute Platonic realism as not realistic and is tenable, (below from AI-wR);

• Aristotle (384-322 BCE): Plato's student, argued against the theory of Forms in his writings. His main criticism is the Third Man Argument. This argument points out a problem with the relationship between Forms and particulars (objects in our world). If a particular object participates in the Form of redness, for instance, is there another Form of "being red" that both the particular and the original Form participate in? This creates an infinite regress, which seems absurd.
  
  David Hume (1711-1776): A Scottish empiricist philosopher who argued that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. He rejected the idea of innate knowledge or Forms existing outside of our experience. Hume argued that universals, like redness or triangularity, are simply relations between impressions (ideas) we receive.
  
  Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): A German philosopher who argued that our minds impose categories like space, time, and causality onto our experience of the world. He believed that things-in-themselves (noumena) exist outside of our experience, but we can only ever know them through the categories of our minds (phenomena). This effectively limited access to the kind of perfect Forms that Plato proposed.

Platonic realism is grounded on reason which is merely thoughts and 'imaginations' thus unreal or illusory in contrast to what is generally accepted as 'what is real' [see dictionary meaning and WIKI's above].

The above is the reason many later theologians [e.g. Aquinas] has abandoned the Platonic God and opted for God's arguments based on experience [cosmological]. But they were ignorant the Cosmological Arguments [starting with experience] hide the ontological argument [based on reason] within.

If you argue for your God based on Godel's argument, you are merely arriving at an illusory God deduced from thoughts and reason only.

[godelian]

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within the universe, as opposed to that which is only imaginary, nonexistent or nonactual.

The mathematical definition for reality is different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus, humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.

Mathematical anti-realism generally holds that mathematical statements have truth-values, but that they do not do so by corresponding to a special realm of immaterial or non-empirical entities.

According to mathematical realism, numbers are real but not physical.

I believe the holy texts of religions [Abrahamic in this discussion] adopt the above meaning of 'what is real' with reference to their real God, albeit is a higher degree of reality. They will not accept a God that is illusory, imaginary and merely thought-of via reason existing in an imagined illusory heaven or paradise.

Concerning our universe, if free will exists, then this universe is not the only universe that interprets its theory.

We can see this subtle hint, i.e. this Platonic shadow, by looking at the natural numbers. Since there are facts about the universe of natural numbers that cannot be explained by arithmetic theory, we know that there exist nonstandard universes/models of numbers that interpret the same theory. Hence, the natural numbers are part of a larger multiverse.

If a fact cannot be explained by its theory, it means that this fact is true in one universe that interprets this theory, but not in other universes that also interpret it.

In religion, the nonstandard universes that interpret the same theory as our universe, are called "heaven" and "hell". From the structure that we can glean from the natural numbers, our free will, i.e. our own unpredictability from theory, is equiconsistent with heaven and hell.

Hence, heaven and hell are not merely illusory, because we can perceive their Platonic shadows. They are a structural feature of our universe equiconsistent with the fact that it contains unpredictable elements.

Many philosophers including Plato's student Aristotle refute Platonic realism as not realistic and is tenable, (below from AI-wR);

• Aristotle (384-322 BCE): Plato's student, argued against the theory of Forms in his writings. His main criticism is the Third Man Argument. This argument points out a problem with the relationship between Forms and particulars (objects in our world). If a particular object participates in the Form of redness, for instance, is there another Form of "being red" that both the particular and the original Form participate in? This creates an infinite regress, which seems absurd.

Platonic shadows are not necessarily shadows of objects in our own world but often shadows of objects in other worlds in our multiverse.

Numbers are also not Platonic shadows of objects in our own world. Numbers are shadows of unknown objects in their own Platonic world. These objects are unknown. If only because of the bi-interpretability of arithmetic theory (PA) and bounded set theory (ZF-inf) it is irrelevant to fundamentally distinguish between numbers and sets. Numbers and sets are essentially Platonic views on exactly the same albeit unknown things.

Platonic realism is grounded on reason which is merely thoughts and 'imaginations' thus unreal or illusory in contrast to what is generally accepted as 'what is real' [see dictionary meaning and WIKI's above].

The universe of the natural numbers is not our own physical universe but it is very real nonetheless. Whenever we establish a particular and essentially correct isomorphism with a submodel in our own physical universe, this abstract, Platonic world will correctly predict it, if only, because they are equiconsistent. That is not a mere accident.

If you argue for your God based on Godel's argument, you are merely arriving at an illusory God deduced from thoughts and reason only.

Gödel establishes a connection between what appear to us as two Platonic shadows, i.e. God and five subtle axiomatic expressions in higher-order logic. These two Platonic shadows turn out to be equiconsistent.

In my opinion, you cannot discover anything about the structure of our multiverse, if you simply ignore all its Platonic shadows.

Furthermore, mathematical realism is an essential assumption in, for example, model theory. If you do not assume it, then you don't get anywhere in model theory. The idea that there exists a true abstract Platonic universe that interprets a theory, is one of its fundamental notions. That is exactly how we ended up discovering that these abstract Platonic universes are almost always part of a larger multiverse.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within the universe, as opposed to that which is only imaginary, nonexistent or nonactual.

The mathematical definition for reality is different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus, humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.

Mathematical anti-realism generally holds that mathematical statements have truth-values, but that they do not do so by corresponding to a special realm of immaterial or non-empirical entities.

According to mathematical realism, numbers are real but not physical.

I believe the holy texts of religions [Abrahamic in this discussion] adopt the above meaning of 'what is real' with reference to their real God, albeit is a higher degree of reality. They will not accept a God that is illusory, imaginary and merely thought-of via reason existing in an imagined illusory heaven or paradise.

Concerning our universe, if free will exists, then this universe is not the only universe that interprets its theory.

We can see this subtle hint, i.e. this Platonic shadow, by looking at the natural numbers. Since there are facts about the universe of natural numbers that cannot be explained by arithmetic theory, we know that there exist nonstandard universes/models of numbers that interpret the same theory. Hence, the natural numbers are part of a larger multiverse.

If a fact cannot be explained by its theory, it means that this fact is true in one universe that interprets this theory, but not in other universes that also interpret it.

In religion, the nonstandard universes that interpret the same theory as our universe, are called "heaven" and "hell". From the structure that we can glean from the natural numbers, our free will, i.e. our own unpredictability from theory, is equiconsistent with heaven and hell.

Hence, heaven and hell are not merely illusory, because we can perceive their Platonic shadows. They are a structural feature of our universe equiconsistent with the fact that it contains unpredictable elements.

Many philosophers including Plato's student Aristotle refute Platonic realism as not realistic and is tenable, (below from AI-wR);

• Aristotle (384-322 BCE): Plato's student, argued against the theory of Forms in his writings. His main criticism is the Third Man Argument. This argument points out a problem with the relationship between Forms and particulars (objects in our world). If a particular object participates in the Form of redness, for instance, is there another Form of "being red" that both the particular and the original Form participate in? This creates an infinite regress, which seems absurd.

Platonic shadows are not necessarily shadows of objects in our own world but often shadows of objects in other worlds in our multiverse.

Numbers are also not Platonic shadows of objects in our own world. Numbers are shadows of unknown objects in their own Platonic world. These objects are unknown. If only because of the bi-interpretability of arithmetic theory (PA) and bounded set theory (ZF-inf) it is irrelevant to fundamentally distinguish between numbers and sets. Numbers and sets are essentially Platonic views on exactly the same albeit unknown things.

Platonic realism is grounded on reason which is merely thoughts and 'imaginations' thus unreal or illusory in contrast to what is generally accepted as 'what is real' [see dictionary meaning and WIKI's above].

The universe of the natural numbers is not our own physical universe but it is very real nonetheless. Whenever we establish a particular and essentially correct isomorphism with a submodel in our own physical universe, this abstract, Platonic world will correctly predict it, if only, because they are equiconsistent. That is not a mere accident.

If you argue for your God based on Godel's argument, you are merely arriving at an illusory God deduced from thoughts and reason only.

Gödel establishes a connection between what appear to us as two Platonic shadows, i.e. God and five subtle axiomatic expressions in higher-order logic. These two Platonic shadows turn out to be equiconsistent.

In my opinion, you cannot discover anything about the structure of our multiverse, if you simply ignore all its Platonic shadows.

Furthermore, mathematical realism is an essential assumption in, for example, model theory. If you do not assume it, then you don't get anywhere in model theory. The idea that there exists a true abstract Platonic universe that interprets a theory, is one of its fundamental notions. That is exactly how we ended up discovering that these abstract Platonic universes are almost always part of a larger multiverse.

Besides the load of criticisms of platonic realism, there are loads of criticisms against mathematical realism, example;

Mathematical realism asserts that mathematical objects exist in the abstract world, and that a mathematical sentence is true or false, depending on whether the abstract world is as the mathematical sentence says it is. I raise two objections against mathematical realism.
First, the abstract world is queer in that it allows for contradictory states of affairs.
Second, mathematical realism does not have a theoretical resource to explain why a sentence about a tricle is true or false. A tricle is an object that changes its shape from a triangle to a circle, and then back to a triangle with every second.
https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15632/ ... ealism.pdf

There is nothing in your holy texts that support the chasing of Platonic shadows.