Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

[beenherebeforeagain]

After reading that, I now know less than I did before.
(Damaged some brain cells in the process.)

Yah...I'm surprised, given my current symptoms, that I was still able to make sense of it...

 

[Revoltingest]

Yah...I'm surprised, given my current symptoms, that I was still able to make sense of it...

I wonder about the utility of it.
But I dare not read further lest I put the few remaining brain cells at risk.

 

[james bond]

This particular problem laid out by Godel is still subject to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem...and it is something that the computer program could have come up with on its own, apparently...

It doesn't prove that God exists, only lays out a set of modal conditions that are logically consistent, so that if anyone were ever to supply the evidence to validate the propositions as true, THEN and ONLY THEN would it be an argument that God actually exists...

Having looked over what you said, I have to agree. I think mathematically you agree that it is proof? And that the axioms in the real world would be based on faith?

In this example, one would have to accept Premise 1.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Two computer scientists say they proved that there is a holy supreme force after confirming the equations.

In 1978, mathematician Kurt Gödel died and left behind a long and complex theory based on modal logic.

Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.

Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

Discuss.

I don't see science mixing with christianity.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I wonder about the utility of it.
But I dare not read further lest I put the few remaining brain cells at risk.

Logic is a useful tool, but like any tool, it has its place...which is where there's something "real" for it to be used on...I look on Modal Logic (and other kinds of logic that have been developed over the last hundred or so years) as perhaps tools that we don't have the right materials or situation for...and maybe never will...

Even though knowledge and reasoning have evolved since Kant, the central argument of the Critique of Pure Reason still stands: Reason needs empirical evidence in order to work; without empirical evidence, all Reason can do is make sure that Reason is clean and ready to be used. That appears to be what the authors of the study did, made sure that this particular tool is clean and ready to be used, should we ever collect any evidence to support the suppositions.

 

[sayak83]

Two computer scientists say they proved that there is a holy supreme force after confirming the equations.

In 1978, mathematician Kurt Gödel died and left behind a long and complex theory based on modal logic.

Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.

Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

Discuss.

Nothing here that wiki does not already cover in much clearer language.
Basic Point:- The axioms are all dodgy.
Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia

And in fact the computer showed that the proof was inconsistent.

In 2014, Christoph Benzmüller and Bruno Woltzenlogel-Paleo gave a computer-checked proof of modal collapse.[14]:97 lf In the same paper, they suspected Gödel's original version of the axioms[note 7] to be inconsistent; in 2016, they gave a computer proof that this version implies {\displaystyle \Diamond \Box \bot }

, i.e. is inconsistent in every modal logic with a reflexive or symmetric accessibility relation.[15]:940 lf

http://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/16/Papers/137.pdf

So basically, Godel's proof has been falsified.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I don't see science mixing with christianity.

Of course you don't. Satan is only concerned with the things of men and not with the things of God.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Having looked over what you said, I have to agree. I think mathematically you agree that it is proof? And that the axioms in the real world would be based on faith?

In this example, one would have to accept Premise 1.

well, it's A proof. But no, it is not proof that God exists.

The screenshot you have is not a proof of God. You'd be reasoning with an undefined term, because the first premise is arguable (someone could argue that it is impossible for God to exist, or that it is possible for God to not exist), and the evidences available are not conclusive in either case.

While the modal logic of necessity can be quite compelling, there is nothing the in possibility of God that means it necessarily exists.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Of course you don't. Satan is only concerned with the things of men and not with the things of God.

Why would he be concered with the lies of god?

 

[buddhist]

Are you mixing math and science? According to mathematics, Godel's argument would be proof.

"In mathematics or logic, an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful. “Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect” is an example of an axiom."

Well, it seems that the original article is mixing math and (pseudo) science, so my response.

 

[sayak83]

Having looked over what you said, I have to agree. I think mathematically you agree that it is proof? And that the axioms in the real world would be based on faith?

In this example, one would have to accept Premise 1.

No one does not have to accept any of the premises whatsoever. For, in that case the following counterargument also works:-

1) It is possible that God does not exist
2) If it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist in some possible worlds.
3) If God does not exist in some possible words, then God does not exist in all possible worlds.
4) If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist in the actual world.
5) If God does not exist in the actual world, then God does not exist.

We have proved A and not-A at the same time using the same argument. What this shows is that this type of argument does not work at all.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Nothing here that wiki does not already cover in much clearer language.
Basic Point:- The axioms are all dodgy.
Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia

And in fact the computer showed that the proof was inconsistent.



http://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/16/Papers/137.pdf

So basically, Godel's proof has been falsified.

Well, at least an AI system could identify the inconsistencies within the offered proof--all of which have long been recognized by philosophers and mathematicians studying it, apparently. Later refinements apparently can remove the inconsistencies, but it is no longer Godel's proof.

this version of the study is much different than the 2013 report, as this paper goes into detail about how the AI systems work to analyze philosophical assertions, and is much less about the conclusions reached.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It is possible that Leprechauns exist...therefore Leprechauns exist...

 

[Reggie Miller]

Why would he be concered with the lies of god?

You are ignored from this point on. May God bless you and keep you from the destruction of Satan.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

You are ignored from this point on. May God bless you and keep you from the destruction of Satan.

Destruction of Lucifer huh? If god was all powerful why can't he help those who are in need of help?

Also if I am ignored from this point on then you are afraid to know the truth. There is a truth about god but many choose to ignore it.

Btw don't tell me that I am going to be ignored at this point. You are the one who start the whole Lucifer thing. I didn't even mention about Lucifer until you did.

 

[Reggie Miller]

It is possible that Leprechauns exist...therefore Leprechauns exist...

It is possible that abiogenesis and macro-evolution occurred... therefore they must have occurred.

Touche.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It is possible that abiogenesis and macro-evolution occurred... therefore they must have occurred.

Touche.

But there is considerable evidence that they occurred...and there is only a holy book in evidence for the creationist or ID alternatives.

Again, apply the logical tool to supposition allows tremendous flights of fancy...but those flights get trimmed back considerably when one observes what is in the world and tries to build models to match those observations...

 

[Reggie Miller]

But there is considerable evidence that they occurred...and there is only a holy book in evidence for the creationist or ID alternatives.

Again, apply the logical tool to supposition allows tremendous flights of fancy...but those flights get trimmed back considerably when one observes what is in the world and tries to build models to match those observations...

There is considerably more evidence that God's word is true. 100% accuracy in the prophecies. The Bible is error free. Miracles do happen, even today. So don't tell me "some book" is the only evidence that the Bible is God's word.

 

[David T]

Two computer scientists say they proved that there is a holy supreme force after confirming the equations.

In 1978, mathematician Kurt Gödel died and left behind a long and complex theory based on modal logic.

Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.

Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

2 + 4 = God

Simple

That's not holy that's holey!!!

 

[David T]

There is considerably more evidence that God's word is true. 100% accuracy in the prophecies. The Bible is error free. Miracles do happen, even today. So don't tell me "some book" is the only evidence that the Bible is God's word.[/QUOTE

And that's what exactly? Lack of understanding the topic?