Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

[james bond]

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.

I did comment, but I don't think you see the folly of your argument.

If I use the same logic as you, then I can say, "It is possible that aliens do not exist." Then the conclusion according to your logic is, "If aliens do not exist in the actual world, then aliens do not exist."

So why do we have SETI and secular scientists with multi-million dollar telescopes who think we'll find alien life in 20 to 30 years? (Faith and vastness of space versus creation scientists who counter with fine tuning theory.)

They make the argument that, "It is possible that aliens exist."

 

[james bond]

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.

I didn't get any numbers.

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

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.

I understand what a fact is very well.

"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.

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

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

You're wrong on your first sentence. Godel used mathematical proof. Again, it was validated by the two in the article and others. Go read his Incompleteness Theorem -- Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) .

The one common ground of all Christians and everybody should be John 3:16. As for the rest, much of the people parts have been interpreted to favor one's way of thinking and self-interest like what you just stated. This is a misunderstanding of God's word, character and creation.

Yes, you said you Godel was wrong, but do not back up anything with numbers or any logic. It's just your opinion while Godel was validated.

I do not think you understand what a fact is at all. If something is a fact, then we can all use it. If someone states, "Evolution is a fact," then they are wrong. Christians can say, "God is a fact." Yet, we do not say this. "Evolution is a fact" isn't a fact because we all cannot use this. Do you agree?

As for the rest, I'll stick to what I said.

 

[viole]

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.

The question is why the evidence for the existence of God requires extremely complicated equations to start with. And why would it be mathematically provable at all? I thought He did not want to mess up with our free will to believe in Him. Maybe He loves mathematicians, who can say? One of those mysterious ways, I guess.

By the way, what they are addressing here is the (modal) ontological argument. Which is one of the oldest arguments, now dressed up with "very complicated" equations, so that it gets less ridicolus than in its original formulation without them.

The trick, of course, is that the average person has no clue what to do with those equations. And so she thinks she has an intellectual warrant for things she cannot understand herself.

But if we go through the math, we realize immediately that they are just intimidating smoke intended to hide the nudity of that famous emperor.

If you do not agree, are you ready to go through them with me?

Ciao

- viole

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I did comment, but I don't think you see the folly of your argument.

If I use the same logic as you, then I can say, "It is possible that aliens do not exist." Then the conclusion according to your logic is, "If aliens do not exist in the actual world, then aliens do not exist."

So why do we have SETI and secular scientists with multi-million dollar telescopes who think we'll find alien life in 20 to 30 years? (Faith and vastness of space versus creation scientists who counter with fine tuning theory.)

They make the argument that, "It is possible that aliens exist."

The issue is that if you have no evidence, saying God, or Aliens, or Leprechauns or whatever possibly exist is idle speculation.

While it's possible that Leprechauns exist, the possibility does not imply the necessity of their existing somewhere. While there is eyewitness testimony and literature on Leprechauns, there is no other objective empirical evidence that they exist.

Same with aliens at this point in time--although it is possible that sometime in the future, when we have actually systematically searched for them for a significant period of time, we might find evidence that they do indeed exist, or we might find that we can find no evidence of them. The lack of evidence does not mean that they don't exist, it means that we haven't found any evidence that they do.

As for God, there is no objective way to collect evidence on whether or not God exists, until there are acceptable empirical measures established. The other evidence--eyewitnesses and written accounts--are of the same objective value as the evidence for Leprechauns. God might exist, but it is a huge leap from "it is possible" to "must exist in some worlds" (Really? Which 'worlds' are those? They have not been demonstrated, either), "Therefore exists in our world" That is a series of unsupported leaps.

You can believe what you want, but there is no logic--without evidence--that can demonstrate it in fact.

And by the way, I happen to believe a number of things, all of which I realize are based on personal firsthand experience only...but I see no logic that would prove what I believe to be true, and I don't try to make logic do what it can't. Logic is a tool, but it has to have actual empirical evidence--and personal experience is NOT empirical evidence. And sound logic, without is just sound logic...a useless tool unless you have empirical evidence for it to work on.

 

[james bond]

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.

We do agree that Godel is a mathematical proof. Proofs exist in mathematics, but not in science. I do not agree about God being undefined or that we cannot do calculations with God. We understand God is the Creator and we can use logic with God. While we can't measure God, we can evaluate His creation. My opinion is that atheists cannot measure God nor are able to evaluate His creation.

I would agree with you that the argument of necessity is a valid point. We could have a necessary existance or a contingent existence. However, with faith in God we always have the former.

Again, your argument is based on necessity or contingency. I would argue for necessity because God wanted it that way. He created humans in His own image.

We know humans exist, so the logical argument is not necessary.

Leprechauns do not work because we can show they are folk tales. It has to be possible that they exist, but they don't. Instead, "aliens" will work just fine.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is a misunderstanding of God's word, character and creation.

There is no misrepresenting commands to rip the unborn from the womb.

Yes, you said you Godel was wrong, but do not back up anything with numbers or any logic.

I don't need any numbers, and the logic comes from the fact Godel proved nothing.

It's just your opinion while Godel was validated.

While math is logical, it doesn't necessarily prove anything. Einstein's theory of relativity worked as far as the math goes, but it took waiting for the correct celestial circumstances (after Einstein's death I believe) to actually test the math, and it was remarkably accurate.

I do not think you understand what a fact is at all.

I don't think you understand what math and logic is.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

We do agree that Godel is a mathematical proof. Proofs exist in mathematics, but not in science. I do not agree about God being undefined or that we cannot do calculations with God. We understand God is the Creator and we can use logic with God. While we can't measure God, we can evaluate His creation. My opinion is that atheists cannot measure God nor are able to evaluate His creation.

I would agree with you that the argument of necessity is a valid point. We could have a necessary existance or a contingent existence. However, with faith in God we always have the former.

Again, your argument is based on necessity or contingency. I would argue for necessity because God wanted it that way. He created humans in His own image.

We know humans exist, so the logical argument is not necessary.

Leprechauns do not work because we can show they are folk tales. It has to be possible that they exist, but they don't. Instead, "aliens" will work just fine.

It amazes me that you see belief in Leprechauns (they are folktales) as any different than the folktale of God. And it all makes sense because God wants it that way...

 

[jtartar]

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.

Reggie Miller,
Asood as I can determine what they say is that God may be.
I read about Mathematitians who calculated the odds that the universe came into existence without a Supreme Being, GOD!!!
They calculated that the odds were ONE to all the atoms in the known universe. Since anything with odds greater than ONE to 40 to the 10th power, or something like that.
What the formula tells is; there is no possibility without GOD, the odds are far too great!!! AGAPE !!!

 

[Reggie Miller]

Reggie Miller,
Asood as I can determine what they say is that God may be.
I read about Mathematitians who calculated the odds that the universe came into existence without a Supreme Being, GOD!!!
They calculated that the odds were ONE to all the atoms in the known universe. Since anything with odds greater than ONE to 40 to the 10th power, or something like that.
What the formula tells is; there is no possibility without GOD, the odds are far too great!!! AGAPE !!!

I agree that the odds are far too great and that there is no plausible possibility without God.

 

[sayak83]

I did comment, but I don't think you see the folly of your argument.

If I use the same logic as you, then I can say, "It is possible that aliens do not exist." Then the conclusion according to your logic is, "If aliens do not exist in the actual world, then aliens do not exist."

So why do we have SETI and secular scientists with multi-million dollar telescopes who think we'll find alien life in 20 to 30 years? (Faith and vastness of space versus creation scientists who counter with fine tuning theory.)

They make the argument that, "It is possible that aliens exist."

This simply shows that you do not understand the logic of your argument at all. God and only God, being assumed as a necessary being satisfies the two formulations of premise 3.

If X exists in some possible world then X exists in all possible worlds.
OR its direct opposite
If X does not exist in some possible worlds, then X does not exist in all possible worlds.


For God, both have to be true, and hence both your and my logical argument works. But not for any other entity, which are all contingent.

 

[sayak83]

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.

No. Godel's proof on God has been refuted and has been shown to be inconsistent.

LINK
Reggie Miller's OP news provided misleading information. The two authors Regie mentions disproved Godel's logical argument by showing it to be inconsistent.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I agree that the odds are far too great and that there is no plausible possibility without God.

Wow! you certainly knocked that Argument from Probability out of the park! Too bad the Argument from Probability is just as much a foul ball as the Argument from Necessity.

 

[james bond]

There is no misrepresenting commands to rip the unborn from the womb.

I don't need any numbers, and the logic comes from the fact Godel proved nothing.

While math is logical, it doesn't necessarily prove anything. Einstein's theory of relativity worked as far as the math goes, but it took waiting for the correct celestial circumstances (after Einstein's death I believe) to actually test the math, and it was remarkably accurate.

I don't think you understand what math and logic is.

You'll have to explain???

Yes you do since you claim otherwise. In this case, all of the premises hold true, T, and you are saying the conclusion is F. Otherwise, you can invalidate an argument by find a statement that is ~T or F. Just because you say so isn't good enough in math. Sorry, you're invalid.

This is another error. It proves using "math" that God exists. Einstein's theory turned out to be correct. He fudged the math, but it didn't make any difference, e.g. speed of light was estimated at c.

Ha ha. I guess I win based on ad hominem fallacy.

 

[james bond]

It amazes me that you see belief in Leprechauns (they are folktales) as any different than the folktale of God. And it all makes sense because God wants it that way...

You can't demonstrate God and the Bible are folk tales . The Bible is the world's number one best selling non-fiction book.

And from this reasoning, we can eliminate the belief in aliens and relegate it to science fiction. Atheist scientist Carl Sagan had faith in aliens and he died before we found any despite his false beliefs that we would. Sagan also believed in what we call abiogenesis today .

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You'll have to explain???

Explain what?

Yes you do since you claim otherwise. In this case, all of the premises hold true, T, and you are saying the conclusion is F. Otherwise, you can invalidate an argument by find a statement that is ~T or F. Just because you say so isn't good enough in math. Sorry, you're invalid.

Godel never proved god. It's very basic logic 101 that when you make a claim, the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. Godel never furnishes this evidence to prove god.

This is another error. It proves using "math" that God exists. Einstein's theory turned out to be correct. He fudged the math, but it didn't make any difference, e.g. speed of light was estimated at c.

There is the math, but no proof. That is why I brought up Einsteing. He had the numbers, but needed very specific circumstances to actually prove them. Godel simply did not prove god.

Ha ha. I guess I win based on ad hominem fallacy.

Not knowing what an ad hominem is and basing victory on it is most foolish. You look bad enough without tarnishing your credibility further. And ad hominem would be for me to do nothing more than question your skill and logic, or just call Godel an idiot who was just as desperate of a theist as Pascal without offering any real debate or counterpoints. Pointing out he never proved god is most certainly not an attack on Godel's character or motive.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You can't demonstrate God and the Bible are folk tales . The Bible is the world's number one best selling non-fiction book.

And from this reasoning, we can eliminate the belief in aliens and relegate it to science fiction. Atheist scientist Carl Sagan had faith in aliens and he died before we found any despite his false beliefs that we would. Sagan also believed in what we call abiogenesis today .

[I'm not sure that's enough, though...]

So, in a culture that has been dominated by Christianity for the last roughly 1700 years, people heavily influenced by the dominance of Christianity through their culture, and in the business of selling Bibles almost entirely to Christians, choose to say that the Bible is nonfiction...

'k.

But if you study folklore and mythology and the like, you'll find that the Bible and related texts are just the same as all the other mythology and folklore out there from all other cultures...except that it's YOUR CHOSEN RELIGION, and therefore you assume it's true! How surprising!

 

[Reggie Miller]

Wow! you certainly knocked that Argument from Probability out of the park! Too bad the Argument from Probability is just as much a foul ball as the Argument from Necessity.

I wasn't arguing, I was agreeing with him.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I wasn't arguing, I was agreeing with him.

Yes, so I noticed. It was a softball lob of a different argument for God that you could agree with, instead of facing the fact that both it and the argument from necessity are not proofs of the existence of God.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Yes, so I noticed. It was a softball lob of a different argument for God that you could agree with, instead of facing the fact that both it and the argument from necessity are not proofs of the existence of God.

I never claimed they were. Stop over reacting.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I never claimed they were. Stop over reacting.

Your statement

I agree that the odds are far too great and that there is no plausible possibility without God.

certainly is claiming that "probability" is a good reason to believe in God. Stop over-reaching.