Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

Empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience

1. synonyms: experiential, practical, heuristic, firsthand

So personal observation or experience is really the best, arguably the only real form of empirical evidence,

everything else is just taking someone else's word for it...

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

That only suggests you believe God exists (and even then with at least a small element of assumption given the variety of people who take that label). It doesn't say anything about your opinions on Gödel's proof, the computer scientists validating it's internal logic, the more general subject of proving the existence of gods or the quality of the Daily Express' science reporting.

It's pretty much impossible to have a discussion with you on any of these points if you're not willing to offer your opinions on them.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience

1. synonyms: experiential, practical, heuristic, firsthand

So personal observation or experience is really the best, arguably the only real form of empirical evidence,

everything else is just taking someone else's word for it...

So you don't go to the trouble of seeing what others have experienced? You don't look for patterns in what large numbers of people have observed? You don't set up experiments to test what you and they think you have observed? You just take your own personal experience, and that's it?

The meaning of the word does not hinge on the FOURTH synonym listed, it's the first line: "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience"

You may not have noticed, but in our modern science, individual firsthand experience is only the beginning of the process. If you stop there, you're not doing science, and you're not going to get to what is really going on in the world...at least that the epistemological assumption underlying modern science.

 

[Laika]

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.

You're probably asking the right question but I don't think I have a decent answer for it honestly. I meant it in a "seeing is believing" kind of way.

 

[buddhist]

Only the mathematical validity (strength) of the equation was tested.

The axioms which form the equation have not been proven true, as far as I can tell. The equation remains a mere hypothesis until the 1. axioms can be proven true, and 2. it can be tested via experimentation, and such results are reproducible by others. Then it can be legitimately called a theory.

Even then, a theory is not proof. Scientists take great efforts to disprove theories, and they have frequently.

 

[YmirGF]

Yeah. In that respect it resembles atheism.

What is this thing of late with theists belittling atheists and atheism as if they somehow occupied the intellectual high ground? The OP is flawed on several levels and for the writer not to understand that is as hilarious as it is precious.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So personal observation or experience is really the best, arguably the only real form of empirical evidence,

Personal experience is not empirical evidence. Just because someone has never experienced electricity before does not mean Ohm's law does not apply if they are shocked.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you don't go to the trouble of seeing what others have experienced? You don't look for patterns in what large numbers of people have observed? You don't set up experiments to test what you and they think you have observed? You just take your own personal experience, and that's it?

The meaning of the word does not hinge on the FOURTH synonym listed, it's the first line: "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience"

You may not have noticed, but in our modern science, individual firsthand experience is only the beginning of the process. If you stop there, you're not doing science, and you're not going to get to what is really going on in the world...at least that the epistemological assumption underlying modern science.

Yes, verifiable, you come up with experiments that others can repeat and verify for themselves, for their own first hand observation, experience, . You don't just ask them to take your word for it, because you are a 'scientist'! (not withstanding climastrology and evolution!)

 

[Reggie Miller]

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

If I don't understand the math how can I?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Even then, a theory is not proof. Scientists take great efforts to disprove theories, and they have frequently.

Go jump off a building if you think a "theory is not proof." Yes, a theory proves nothing, the evidence does, but that does not reduce the quality of a theory or the evidence to support it.

 

[Reggie Miller]

That only suggests you believe God exists (and even then with at least a small element of assumption given the variety of people who take that label). It doesn't say anything about your opinions on Gödel's proof, the computer scientists validating it's internal logic, the more general subject of proving the existence of gods or the quality of the Daily Express' science reporting.

It's pretty much impossible to have a discussion with you on any of these points if you're not willing to offer your opinions on them.

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

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, verifiable, you come up with experiments that others can repeat and verify for themselves, for their own first hand observation, experience, . You don't just ask them to take your word for it, because you are a 'scientist'! (not withstanding climastrology and evolution!)

And plenty of times other researchers fail to replicate results. This is why first hand experience is not empirical date, because now we have an instance of conflicting personal experiences.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Personal experience is not empirical evidence. Just because someone has never experienced electricity before does not mean Ohm's law does not apply if they are shocked.

How well can you describe the experience of getting an electrical shock to someone else? As opposed to them experiencing it for themselves?

 

[Reggie Miller]

What is this thing of late with theists belittling atheists and atheism as if they somehow occupied the intellectual high ground? The OP is flawed on several levels and for the writer not to understand that is as hilarious as it is precious.

Belittling? How did I do that? I simply say that assumption based on faith is true for atheists as well as theists.

 

[buddhist]

Go jump off a building if you think a "theory is not proof." Yes, a theory proves nothing, the evidence does, but that does not reduce the quality of a theory or the evidence to support it.

Sorry, but evidence is not proof. E.g. The evidence of falling does not prove the theory of gravity; there are other theories that also explain the same evidence of falling, e.g. electromagnetism, etc.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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

Which makes the entire article and this thread completely pointless, right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How well can you describe the experience of getting an electrical shock to someone else? As opposed to them experiencing it for themselves?

I'm not sure. But that's irrelevant to the discussion of the various scientific theories behind electricity still applying to someone who has never experienced it.

evidence is not proof

Yes, it is. When you have evidence of something, you have proof of it.

The evidence of falling does not prove the theory of gravity

"Falling" is an object falling towards the surface of the Earth, due to it being stuck in it's gravitational pull. Planetary orbits are a more solid proof, but even that still revolves around smaller objects caught in the gravitational pull of larger/heavier objects (of larger density, .

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes, verifiable, you come up with experiments that others can repeat and verify for themselves, for their own first hand observation, experience, . You don't just ask them to take your word for it, because you are a 'scientist'! (not withstanding climastrology and evolution!)

So, since you seem to doubt climatology, astronomy, geology, ecology, physics, etc., why don't you learn how do to the experiments, so you can show everyone where all these good-for-nothing scientists are wrong?

I took enough science classes and learned enough math to be able to tell what is reasonable and unreasonable as far empirical evidence goes. I also realize that as a practical matter, there is no way I, you, or anyone else could actually conduct all these observations and experiments myself...but if you choose to ignore and discount the reports of others as unreliably because you yourself can't/won't go to the trouble to do the studies yourself, I really kinda wonder why you bother to post at all...all you can be arguing is that your clearly limited personal empirical experience doesn't jibe with the experiences and work of others--so we should listen to you exactly WHY?

 

[james bond]

"Or as Dr Gödel put it through his equations: “Ax. 1. {P(φ)∧◻∀x[φ(x)→ψ(x)]} →P(ψ)Ax. 2.P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)Th. 1.P(φ)→◊∃x[φ(x)]Df. 1.G(x)⟺∀φ[P(φ)→φ(x)]Ax. 3.P(G)Th. 2.◊∃xG(x)Df. 2.φ ess x⟺φ(x)∧∀ψ{ψ(x)→◻∀y[φ(y)→ψ(y)]}Ax. 4.P(φ)→◻P(φ)Th. 3.G(x)→G ess xDf. 3.E(x)⟺∀φ[φ ess x→◻∃yφ(y)]Ax. 5.P(E)Th. 4.◻∃xG(x)”."

First, let's examine what is meant by modal.

How to Find the Mode or Modal Value
The mode is simply the number which appears most often.

Finding the Mode
To find the mode, or modal value, first put the numbers in order, then count how many of each number. A number that appears most often is the mode.

Example:
3, 7, 5, 13, 20, 23, 39, 23, 40, 23, 14, 12, 56, 23, 29

In order these numbers are:

3, 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 20, 23, 23, 23, 23, 29, 39, 40, 56

This makes it easy to see which numbers appear most often.

In this case the mode is 23.

Another Example: {19, 8, 29, 35, 19, 28, 15}
Arrange them in order: {8, 15, 19, 19, 28, 29, 35}

19 appears twice, all the rest appear only once, so 19 is the mode.

More Than One Mode
We can have more than one mode.

Example: {1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 9}
3 appears three times, as does 6.

So there are two modes: at 3 and 6

Having two modes is called "bimodal".

Having more than two modes is called "multimodal".

Grouping
When all values appear the same number of times the idea of a mode is not useful. But we could group them to see if one group has more than the others.

Example: {4, 7, 11, 16, 20, 22, 25, 26, 33}
Each value occurs once, so let us try to group them.

We can try groups of 10:

• 0-9: 2 values (4 and 7)
• 10-19: 2 values (11 and 16)
• 20-29: 4 values (20, 22, 25 and 26)
• 30-39: 1 value (33)

In groups of 10, the "20s" appear most often, so we could choose 25 as the mode.

You could use different groupings and get a different answer!

We can apply this concept to practical applications.

Grouping also helps to find what the typical values are when the real world messes things up!

Example: How long to fill a pallet?

Philip recorded how long it takes to fill a pallet in minutes:

{35, 36, 32, 42, 58, 56, 35, 39, 46, 47, 34, 37}

It takes longer if there is break time or lunch so an average is not very useful.

But grouping by 5s gives:

• 30-34: 2
• 35-39: 5
• 40-44: 1
• 45-49: 2
• 50-54: 0
• 54-59: 2

"35-39" appear most often, so we can say it normally takes about 37 minutes to fill a pallet.

How to Calculate the Mode or Modal Value

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Modal Logic:

Modal logic is a type of formal logic primarily developed in the 1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include operators expressing modality. A modal—a word that expresses a modality—qualifies a statement. For example, the statement "John is happy" might be qualified by saying that John is usually happy, in which case the term "usually" is functioning as a modal. The traditional alethic modalities, or modalities of truth, include possibility ("Possibly, p", "It is possible that p"), necessity ("Necessarily, p", "It is necessary that p"), and impossibility ("Impossibly, p", "It is impossible that p").[1] Other modalities that have been formalized in modal logic include temporal modalities, or modalities of time (notably, "It was the case that p", "It has always been that p", "It will be that p", "It will always be that p"),[2][3] deontic modalities (notably, "It is obligatory that p", and "It is permissible that p"), epistemic modalities, or modalities of knowledge ("It is known that p")[4] and doxastic modalities, or modalities of belief ("It is believed that p").[5]

A formal modal logic represents modalities using modal operators. For example, "It might rain today"...(thank you, Wikipedia)
Modal logic - Wikipedia