Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

[HonestJoe]

I didn't write the article, dude, I just quoted from it.

And I discussed it. Maybe you should have added something in your own words to the OP so you didn’t need to clarify your position now.

My advice stands about getting science news from the Express.

 

[Reggie Miller]

And I discussed it. Maybe you should have added something in your own words to the OP so you didn’t need to clarify your position now.

My advice stands about getting science news from the Express.

Since I didn't give an opinion on it you shouldn't have assumed that I had one. That's how I see it.

Next time you see an OP with no opinion added I trust you'll keep that in mind.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You can download the article here [1308.4526] Formalization, Mechanization and Automation of G\"odel's Proof of God's Existence

It's a bit more coherent, and provides some of the necessary context, as well as discussing the actual assertion being tested.

A mathematical proof does not prove that something exists; it proves that the logical propositions are consistent in their format and conclusion. In math, there are lots of things that are "proved" that do not actually exist anywhere except in mathematics. Now, if you're some version of a platonist, that's fine, but if you reject all versions of platonism, it's pretty meaningless.

Godel showed that in any logical system, it can be complete (in which case it cannot be consistent--there will be paradoxes) or it can be consistent (in which case it cannot be complete). The only way to prove some assumptions (things that we assume to be true because if they aren't, the logical system will fail) in any logical system is by finding a larger logical system.

So, basically what the authors have shown is that the proposed proof of God is logically consistent within a certain logical system.

I'll also note that at the link above, the last revision of this article was in 2013, and as far as I can tell, it has not been updated since nor accepted for peer-reviewed publication. I'm not sure why the university press office decided to issue a story, which was then picked up by Der Speigel and the Express. Maybe the authors were trying to stir up some interest, so it might get picked up by a peer-reviewed journal...it happens...

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

just went back to read the press release, which I thought was current but was actually from 2013... Independent Confirmation for Gödel's "Proof" of Existence of God • Press • Freie Universität Berlin

So...3-plus years later, the Express needed a filler article saying that God exists...

 

[Ouroboros]

Godel's incompleteness theorem has been employed to try to prove this before.
The fundamental problem?
The premises of the theorem don't apply to our much more complicated universe.

It's been many years since this "proof" has reared its head, so I don't remember the details.
But consider this....
Mathematics is a technique to model things.
Creating a model of something doesn't force that something to behave according to the model.

Also, Gödel's proof is based on five axioms (premises) that we can't prove or know. And some philosophers don't agree to those axioms. The computer software only crunched the equation based on that those premises are assumed to be true, then the conclusion would be what they say. What the computer confirmed was the consistency and integrity of the proof equation, but it didn't prove the axioms to be true.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Also, Gödel's proof is based on five axioms (premises) that we can't prove or know. And some philosophers don't agree to those axioms. The computer software only crunched the equation based on that those premises are assumed to be true, then the conclusion would be what they say. What the computer confirmed was the consistency and integrity of the proof equation, but it didn't prove the axioms to be true.

No one can prove an axiom is true. If you could it would be a proof, not an axiom.

 

[HonestJoe]

Since I didn't give an opinion on it you shouldn't have assumed that I had one. That's how I see it.

Next time you see an OP with no opinion added I trust you'll keep that in mind.

I made no assumptions about your opinion, I just responded directly to the statements you quoted and commented on your choice of source. My main point is that the article was factually flawed.

To be fair though, you must have an opinion of some shape or form on the topic. It would be more than a little weird to go to the effort of starting the thread if you didn’t. The fact you felt the need to “defend” yourself in response to my reply (and others) because you imagine your opinion is being presumed is another good reason for you to state your opinion in an OP in the first place (even if it’s along the lines of “I don’t feel strongly either way”).

 

[Reggie Miller]

I made no assumptions about your opinion, I just responded directly to the statements you quoted and commented on your choice of source. My main point is that the article was factually flawed.

To be fair though, you must have an opinion of some shape or form on the topic. It would be more than a little weird to go to the effort of starting the thread if you didn’t. The fact you felt the need to “defend” yourself in response to my reply (and others) because you imagine your opinion is being presumed is another good reason for you to state your opinion in an OP in the first place (even if it’s along the lines of “I don’t feel strongly either way”).

I disagree. If you want my opinion about whether God exists or not you can get it by looking at the "Christian" up in the right hand section of all of my posts.

 

[Ouroboros]

No one can prove an axiom is true. If you could it would be a proof, not an axiom.

And that's why the proof isn't evidence of God. It's only a proof that is internally consistent and verifiable based on the five premises (axioms).

 

[Reggie Miller]

And that's why the proof isn't evidence of God. It's only a proof that is internally consistent and verifiable based on the five premises (axioms).

Oh, it's evidence all right. Inconclusive evidence, but evidence nevertheless. If you can imagine an ape-like creature that evolved into a man without a valid explanation of exactly how it happened, that's evidence, too, but inconclusive evidence.

 

[IndigoStorm]

Oh now I get it ... So why don't they also come up with a mathematical calculation to prove the existence of the Easter Bunny ... Easter + Egg = Bunny and maybe also the tooth fairy ... Tooth + Cash under a pillow = Tooth Fairy.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh, it's evidence all right.

Only if you accept the axioms to be true.

Inconclusive evidence, but evidence nevertheless. If you can imagine an ape-like creature that evolved into a man without a valid explanation of exactly how it happened, that's evidence, too, but inconclusive evidence.

*sigh* Can't reason about God's existence without trying to trash-talk evolution? It's just red-herring argument.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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.

Question: do you actually find this convincing? Vague allusions to science and a long debunked piece of patently falicious logic?

Where's the beef.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Only if you accept the axioms to be true.


*sigh* Can't reason about God's existence without trying to trash-talk evolution? It's just red-herring argument.

Nope. Just showing you the duality of the arguments is all. Evidence is evidence to the beholder only and evidence can be and often is interpreted to lead to different conclusions by different beholders.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nope. Just showing you the duality of the arguments is all. Evidence is evidence to the beholder only and evidence can be and often is interpreted to lead to different conclusions by different beholders.

Whatever.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Question: do you actually find this convincing? Vague allusions to science and a long debunked piece of patently falicious logic?

Where's the beef.

Have you read the thread? I don't claim this article is truth.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Whatever.

I'll take that as a grunt of agreement.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What's "real" is real because we can observe it. Otherwise it is just a very elegant equation.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but things are real if we observe them or not. We used to think of demons and bad blood, but that didn't make them real and diseases and mental disorders not real. The same goes for atoms, sub atomic particles, and everything else undiscovered.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd say we can't prove God objectively, we have to find him for ourselves, and receive personal proof, I think that is by his design and the only way it can work

But yes, I think the math is about as close as it comes to objective proof

When atheists are forced to resort to an imaginery infinite probability machine (multiverse) to try to account for creation without creativity... that's essentially conceding defeat by the math also

Many people, especially those who are good at reason and thinking, do not hold personal proof as anything more than that. Unless their is a specific reason it's that way, there is a good chance it's subjective in nature, twisted by our own faulty interpretations and biases, or even just one of the many quirks of humanity. Personal proof does not equate to empirical evidence.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Have you read the thread? I don't claim this article is truth.

You didn't answer my question. So you don't find it convincing then?