Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Has science PROVED God exists?


seeder

Recommended Posts


 

Quote

 

Scientists run calculations to PROVE the existence of God
SCIENTISTS have ‘confirmed’ the existence of God after proving a mathematician’s theory which suggests that there is a higher power.

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.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/756870/proof-of-god-kurt-godel


 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, ChaosRose is correct, that just doesn't cut it. No, nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God. It all rests upon belief (either way mind you).

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

Short answer:

No.

i thought you believed science didn't make mistakes.  but god could stand in front of you prove he is god and you would say no.  which is why god doesn't prove he is there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

Longer answer:

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.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiR496DvNPRAhXix1QKHdLKB5kQFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FG%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof&usg=AFQjCNEjALgcimwfNeFfyJKHG-IiDbgMnw

Yeah, I'm still going to stick with the short answer though because I understand it. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.

 

But 'can exist' is different than 'does exist' to little old me. I know Godel can quickly get over my non-genius head, but can someone dumb this down for my understanding?

In fact, I do not even know how to put two dots over the 'o' in Godel.:lol:

Edited by papageorge1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, danielost said:

i thought you believed science didn't make mistakes.  but god could stand in front of you prove he is god and you would say no.  which is why god doesn't prove he is there.

How would we know it was God in the first place. Even if it told us it was we have no way to validate that claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.

 

But 'can exist' is different than 'does exist' to little old me. I know Godel can quickly get over my non-genius head, but can someone dumb this down for my understanding?

I

 

see if this helps

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/Godel/simplex.html

http://www.numbersleuth.org/trends/goedels-theorem-for-dummies/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, danielost said:

i thought you believed science didn't make mistakes.  but god could stand in front of you prove he is god and you would say no.  which is why god doesn't prove he is there.

If your premises are not true, then whatever conclusion you reach will also not be true. 

The equation only stands as an exercise in formal logic. You have to assume that the supposed premises are true in order to reach the conclusion, but there is no evidence for the premises. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me explain further...

Validity versus truth

Just because an argument is valid does not mean the conclusion is true. A valid argument simply means that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well [7]. A sound argument is a valid argument with the additional requirement that the premises (and thus the conclusion) are true [8]. For instance, consider the following argument.

P1: All humans are cows.
P2: All cows are plants.
C1: All humans are plants.

Although the conclusion is false and the premises are false, this is still a valid argument because if the premises were true, the conclusion must be true as well. Since at least one premise is false, the argument is valid but not sound [9].

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjg46u829PRAhVhwlQKHTbrDrYQFghoMA8&url=http%3A%2F%2Frationalwiki.org%2Fwiki%2FLogical_fallacy&usg=AFQjCNE7R3Fd5Szz0bC1ZP6iRtHD57WWFA

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Godel himself was an interesting guy. He considered himself an intellectual equal to his friend Albert Einstein (could be right), he was paranoid, he thought other mathematicians were trying to poison him, he'd make lunch dates with them and not show up (he said that way he knew where they were). He would only eat his wife's cooking. When she became ill and could no longer cook for him he stopped eating and died of starvation.

He also considered all mathematical proofs existed in some Reality of their own, that the mind discovers them by intuition, and not by formulating them by intellectual effort alone.

Economist

Oskar Morgenstern recounts that toward the end of his life Einstein confided that his "own work no longer meant much, that he came to the Institute merely ... to have the privilege of walking home with Gödel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel#Later_life_and_death

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did his theory suggest a higher power?

I understood it only suggested the limitations of axioms.

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bit from the talk page is really funny...

"Positive" is whatever you want it to be. The idea apparently was that it means "good" so it is somewhat consistent with theology, but it could be any arbitrary selection. It would be difficult to constrain it and still avoid incompatibilities and ideological strife. The absence of a "neutral" category is odd, but does not matter since "negative" does not figure into the argument.

Exactly, it is whatever you want it to be. I assert as an axiom that "is Capedia" is a positive property. (My girlfriend certainly seems to think so.) I also assert, by Descartes's reasoning, that anything with the property "is Capedia" necessarily exists. If other positive properties are not consistent with "is Capedia," then there is no object with all positive properties; i.e., no God. If all other positive properties are consistent with "is Capedia," then God possibly and necessarily exists, and I am He. So either there is no God, or I am He. Now bow down before Me and send Me all your money, you stupid shmuck. Capedia 06:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riyeh

Quote

 When did his theory suggest a higher power?

I understood it only suggested the limitations of axioms.

"Godel's Theorem" is different from this, and does, as you suggest, concern the limitations of logical inference.

Godel didn't write up his "proof of God," the current form was reconstructed after he died from his notes (much like the movie Proof).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377107/

While Chaos is correct that the conclusion is only as secure as its premises (mmm, but it is possible to prove a true conclusion from false premises ... logic is a thirsty business), that is true of all mathematical proofs, not just this one.

The Question of God is contingent. There is no mathematical resolution of the issue. Unfortunately, I can't prove that any question, including the Question of God, is contingent. I can, however, prove that I can't prove that. It's a corollary of Godel's Theorem :) .

Edited by eight bits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Longer answer:

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.

https://www.google.com/url?

Today you are my hero.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but the OP is an example of what I've said before: it will always be impossible to prove spiritual matters with material tools. Godel's 'proof' may have been a 'signpost' meant only him, pointing him to a belief in the existence of a Diety.

But "belief in a diety" isn't the destination, as a highway signpost isn't the destination for a traveler. The Bible calls us travelers in a strange land, like a recent immigrant trying to find his way to Chicago: he follows the signs, he sees the Sears Tower in the distance, and he ends up in the Windy City itself. Exchange the name Chicago for the name Jesus and the journey is the same: the way, the truth and the Life. 

I don't know why God works in mysterious ways. Maybe one reason is because we love mysteries, and we read mystery novels, and we gather here on a website called Unexplained Mysteries. We're born with a desire to seek answers, and in turn, God provides the clues. Seek and you will find.

And with that, I'm off to the Saturday evening service at church.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, danielost said:

i thought you believed science didn't make mistakes.  but god could stand in front of you prove he is god and you would say no.  which is why god doesn't prove he is there.

He? and why would a god have to be a he?  there are other creatures which have lived on this planet far longer than man, so it is possible if there were a god, it could be... an ant, a horseshoe crab or even a sponge....there are many more. OR it could be a she, sexy-girl-blushing-smiley-emoticon.gif

Edited by freetoroam
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

He? and why would a god have to be a he?  there are other creatures which have lived on this planet far longer than man, so it is possible if there were a god, it would be in a living creature which a god allegedly made in his image...which could be an ant, a horseshoe crab or even a sponge....there are many more.

It's the sponge... Yes, I'm going with the sponge.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew it!

Damn you're good at this game freetoroam.

 

latest?cb=20110109160403

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stiff said:

It's the sponge... Yes, I'm going with the sponge.

Sorry Stiff, I had to edit to get the female er, what do they call this now? oh yeah - equalization among the gentability within all diversitating feminists of the dischauvanistic  front. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stiff said:

I knew it!

Damn you're good at this game freetoroam.

 

latest?cb=20110109160403

Oi, wheres his tits?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:
5 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Longer answer:

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.

https://www.google.com/url?

Today you are my hero.

My goodness, well said. YES I LOVE THAT !

Speaking of logic , I like that word axiom ::: Axioms, sayings said over and over and over,
that are widely accepted which might obviously be revealed to have no merit tomorrow.

Like Godel bit too! Godel's proof, some such about a computer ORACLE giving answers of yes or no, but even if the input or question was put in properly, well --
sometimes there is the answer of UNDECIDED ! which is oxymoronic is it not!
What kind of result is that? Well its a proof that there's no answer HA! oh now that's just great.

[update, oh! the url, I was thinking ChaosRose wrote that STILL GOOD INFO ! thanks!]

Edited by MWoo7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

He? and why would a god have to be a he?  there are other creatures which have lived on this planet far longer than man, so it is possible if there were a god, it could be... an ant, a horseshoe crab or even a sponge....there are many more. OR it could be a she, sexy-girl-blushing-smiley-emoticon.gif

That was daniel bringing an appeal to emotion to a logic argument. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stiff said:

It's the sponge... Yes, I'm going with the sponge.

Probably. Why do we think some Creator of the Universe would pay any attention to the momentary, puny and insignificant Human Race? Our temporary evolution and extinction is most likely totally unnoticed by some Grand Creator. Whatever Its purpose in creating the universe, surely we're just a fleeting incident of no special importance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.