Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

[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

Discuss.

Not healthy, not Christian philosophical intellectual nonsense. And I would say the exact same thing if it was atheistic except say its way christian to an atheist ontological proof of God's non existence.



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. This is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof, because it rests on five axioms that are all questionable. The proof does not say that the conclusion has to be correct, but rather that if you accept the axioms, then the conclusion is correct.

 

[Ouroboros]

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. This is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof, because it rests on five axioms that are all questionable. The proof does not say that the conclusion has to be correct, but rather that if you accept the axioms, then the conclusion is correct.

Exactly.

I find it rather bothersome that a lot of believers need the logical and scientific proof or evidence for God's existence. Isn't faith enough? My understanding is that religious belief does not rest on evidence nor facts, but on an inner conviction. If God was to be "proved", then what would value would belief and faith have?

My view is that if you need proof to convince yourself of your belief, then your faith is weak. Strong faith doesn't need evidence. It's given by God. So this weakness would suggest God's inability to give faith.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Exactly.

I find it rather bothersome that a lot of believers need the logical and scientific proof or evidence for God's existence. Isn't faith enough? My understanding is that religious belief does not rest on evidence nor facts, but on an inner conviction. If God was to be "proved", then what would value would belief and faith have?

My view is that if you need proof to convince yourself of your belief, then your faith is weak. Strong faith doesn't need evidence. It's given by God. So this weakness would suggest God's inability to give faith.

I think it interesting that a genius like Gödel wanted to try and prove it mathematically.

 

[David T]

Exactly.

I find it rather bothersome that a lot of believers need the logical and scientific proof or evidence for God's existence. Isn't faith enough? My understanding is that religious belief does not rest on evidence nor facts, but on an inner conviction. If God was to be "proved", then what would value would belief and faith have?

My view is that if you need proof to convince yourself of your belief, then your faith is weak. Strong faith doesn't need evidence. It's given by God. So this weakness would suggest God's inability to give faith.

That belief-faith thingie is a huuuuuuuge!!!! I think right here is a great dialog topic verbally, I am not so sure it can be correctly discussed in a forum since this structure is way too dialectic in nature. I do wonder though if some new relevant narrative does eventually rise out of it like like an infinite set of monkeys pounding on typewriters eventually write war and peace. We arrive and go " Oh how did that happen? ".

 

[Ouroboros]

I think it interesting that a genius like Gödel wanted to try and prove it mathematically.

Sure. That I can accept. Interest and curiosity is a much more valid motivator.

 

[Milton Platt]

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'm not a mathematician...please explain how this demonstrates the existence of a god...and by the way, which god are we talking about?

 

[sayak83]

I think it interesting that a genius like Gödel wanted to try and prove it mathematically.

And failed...

 

[Tiapan]

Because GOD spelt backwards is DOG. Dogs must be the antichrists QED

 

[Reggie Miller]

I'm not a mathematician...please explain how this demonstrates the existence of a god...and by the way, which god are we talking about?

Read the article, I didn't write it.

 

[Revoltingest]

My view is that if you need proof to convince yourself of your belief, then your faith is weak. Strong faith doesn't need evidence. It's given by God. So this weakness would suggest God's inability to give faith.

From my perspective, weak faith is strength.
Because it leads to questioning things.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Typicial atheist mumbo jumbo.

No, it's called "logic." When you make a claim, you have to prove it. This is were Godal falls short.

we have to show the axioms hold true

No we don't. We should show that systematically gathred empirical data that has been rigorously tested and replicated holds true.

That would be where faith comes in.

To some, faith is useless. It is a substitute for fact.

 

[HonestJoe]

Maybe I'm not willing to offer my opinions on them.

They you can't really engage in the discussion you claimed to start the thread for. What was the point in posting the link in the first place?

 

[james bond]

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.

The point is it is a valid argument in mathematics similar to what Godel came up with. One of the beauty of mathematics is we question whether it is a man-made system or one found in nature. This should be evidence that God exists in nature.

As for your logical argument:

"It is impossible for God to exist." (Does the atheist make this argument? If so, then they are doing it without any evidence. Thus, it is possible that He exists.)

"It is possible for God to not exist." (Does the atheist make this argument? If so, then Premise 1 is also valid.)

 

[james bond]

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

Why is it pseudoscience?

 

[james bond]

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.

If your Premise 1 is true, then it is possible that God does exist.

Then there is the foolish argument of internet atheists that you can't prove a negative ha ha.

In real life, secular scientists refuse to consider the possibility that God exists and discard any theories as such or those using the Bible. They will not peer-review.

Logically, this would mean, "It is impossible that God does exist." which goes against theories of science.

 

[james bond]

No, it's called "logic." When you make a claim, you have to prove it. This is were Godal falls short.

No we don't. We should show that systematically gathred empirical data that has been rigorously tested and replicated holds true.

To some, faith is useless. It is a substitute for fact.

Godel does prove his equation. We have mathematicians and the notebook PC to validate. Your claim now is this is where Godel falls short. You have to show why.

What empirical data are you referring to? You're just pulling numbers our of a hat. Godel is accepted in logic and mathematetics with his theorems.

No, faith is not useless as atheists use faith, too. And you do not understand what facts are. Facts can be used by everyone. The way you use the word "fact" is the foolish way internet atheists use the word. It's to self-validate their own dumb argument such as, "Evolution is fact." The internet tells atheists what to say and brainwashes them. I just demonstrated that.

 

[sayak83]

If your Premise 1 is true, then it is possible that God does exist.

Then there is the foolish argument of internet atheists that you can't prove a negative ha ha.

In real life, secular scientists refuse to consider the possibility that God exists and discard any theories as such or those using the Bible. They will not peer-review.

Logically, this would mean, "It is impossible that God does exist." which goes against theories of science.

As usual you make no sense. Possibility of non existence does not imply provability of nonexistence.
Your argument was proved wrong however. You chose not to comment on that I saw.

 

[LuisDantas]

Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

Discuss.

There is a fundamental mistake in the very idea of "proving" God.

Of course, it is not like the article comes anywhere near that in any case.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Godel does prove his equation. We have mathematicians and the notebook PC to validate

He didn't prove it. It's an elaborate speculation. And it also causes major issues for the Bible, because just about every Christian I have met claims we can't know or understand god, but yet Godel would be using the tools of humans to figure out god. This also leads to major moral implications, because the position that "we can't understand god" is often used as a defense for the most deplorable of acts committed by him in the Bible.

You're just pulling numbers our of a hat.

I didn't get any numbers.

Godel is accepted in logic and mathematetics with his theorems.

For some things, yes. For proving god, no.

No, faith is not useless as atheists use faith, too.

Not everyone relies on faith. We have reason to believe (as in the case of your vehicle starting), and we know it started yesterday so chances are good it will start today, not unless we know there is a problem to be watching for.

And you do not understand what facts are.

I understand what a fact is very well.

The way you use the word "fact" is the foolish way internet atheists use the word.

"Internet Atheist" is a very foolish word to use, as I could just as easily make accusations of "internet Christians." It's also not a sound definition or concept, as they are Atheist outside of their online/digital lives.

It's to self-validate their own dumb argument such as, "Evolution is fact."

That comes from science, not these "internet atheist."

I just demonstrated that.

No, you utterly and totally failed to do this because not everyone, including myself, who challenges your god is not an atheist.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The point is it is a valid argument in mathematics similar to what Godel came up with. One of the beauty of mathematics is we question whether it is a man-made system or one found in nature. This should be evidence that God exists in nature.

As for your logical argument:

"It is impossible for God to exist." (Does the atheist make this argument? If so, then they are doing it without any evidence. Thus, it is possible that He exists.)

"It is possible for God to not exist." (Does the atheist make this argument? If so, then Premise 1 is also valid.)

In any formulation we care to discuss, the term GOD is undefined; even if you "operationalize" God, as the authors of the study did, the definition is still not something that is objectively measurable. Any reasoning that goes on regarding this is therefore only speculation. all the authors could do is that, if you operationalize it just so (and they also clearly stated that it was a lot of work to find an operationalization that would actually work), a computer could come up with the same reasoning, and that the pattern of logic holds, given those constraints. It is therefore a MATHEMATICAL PROOF. It is not itself evidence of anything, because you could substitute any other concept into it--as I jokingly suggested, Lephrechuans--and you'd end up getting the same "valid" logical results. The question is, what data from the real world about GOD can put an input into the logical framework? Really, nothing, because the term God is still so poorly defined, defined in ways that are not measurable.

Second, the logic chain Possible::Necessary::Exists is non-sequitur. And it isn't just this particular version of the argument, it's one of the major classical "proofs" of God, the Argument from Necessity. And the critiques of that argument remain the same: possible does not mean does does not mean must does not mean is.

It is possible that humans exist...therefore they MUST exist...therefore they exist...

But really, MUST humans exist? That's an ontological leap of faith...but surprisingly enough, we do have evidence that humans exist.

Then how about them Leprechauns? They might exist, therefore they must exist, therefore they do! The problem is that the only evidence we have for the existence of Leprechauns is that some people claim to have seen them, and some people have written stories about them...which is exactly the same evidence as is claimed for God.