Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[BitChick]

I figured this article would cause some interesting discussions on here!

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/computer-scientists-prove-god-exists/story?id=20678984

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/335543-scientists-prove-god-exists-german-scientists-say-they-have/

I find it fascinating. 

From one of the articles:

Gödel’s theorem is based on modal logic, a type of formal logic that, narrowly defined, involves the use of the expressions “necessarily” and “possibly,” according to Stanford University.

The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

Paleo and Benzmüller say that they have proven that the theorem is correct, at least on a mathematical level.

[1713580079]

1713580079

[1713580079]

1713580079

[Lethn]

The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

This is contradictory and stupid logic, what they're essentially saying is that if you believe it is real then it must exist and that's the kind of arguments that religious people have been using for years, whether or not they are correct is down to the evidence provided as we've known yet again for years, I also noticed that these articles don't bother going into any of the actual maths or scientific evidence for this theory which basically means they're putting up a ridiculous headline so they'll get people reading.

As far as I'm concerned, gods have to prove their existence to me if they want me to believe in them, not the other way round, this looks a lot like fake or very dodgy science to me to make it seem that religious people are correct.

[pedrog]

The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

This is contradictory and stupid logic, what they're essentially saying is that if you believe it is real then it must exist and that's the kind of arguments that religious people have been using for years, whether or not they are correct is down to the evidence provided as we've known yet again for years, I also noticed that these articles don't bother going into any of the actual maths or scientific evidence for this theory which basically means they're putting up a ridiculous headline so they'll get people reading.

As far as I'm concerned, gods have to prove their existence to me if they want me to believe in them, not the other way round, this looks a lot like fake or very dodgy science to me to make it seem that religious people are correct.

In Imaginationland everything is possible.

From the articles:

But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology.

and

The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

[hawkeye]

Typical mainstream media these days.  No clue and no cross checking, just post a nonsense (but controversial) article that will get views (and reposts) and hence advertising revenue.  Only the few people knowledgeable about logic will be able to point out it's flaws.  Not much more to say about it really.  Shocking logic.  

Computer scientists?  Let's see them write a computer program using the same logic and see if it works.

[hayek]

Pantheistic Solipsism is not proof of anything.

[Buffer Overflow]

I'm not even going to waste my time clicking the link and reading the article.

[dank]

It's pretty simple when you think (or don't) about it.  If you can imagine something, it exists because you have connected to that reality where it does.  We are multidimensional beings, thoughts are other dimensions, other realities that we connect to.  If you can think of an all powerful conscious being, it surely exists.

[edd]

It's pretty simple when you think (or don't) about it.  If you can imagine something, it exists because you have connected to that reality where it does.  We are multidimensional beings, thoughts are other dimensions, other realities that we connect to.  If you can think of an all powerful conscious being, it surely exists.

What if I imagine a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings?

[pontiacg5]

It's pretty simple when you think (or don't) about it.  If you can imagine something, it exists because you have connected to that reality where it does.  We are multidimensional beings, thoughts are other dimensions, other realities that we connect to.  If you can think of an all powerful conscious being, it surely exists.

What if I imagine a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings?

Hard fork.

[Rassah]

Their proof is that there is a limit to what can be conceived, and that limit is god? Well, it's not the Christian, Hebrew, or Muslim god. I don't really see how it's god at all, actually. Just a supreme limit that nothing can be conceived beyond...

By the way, scientists have disproven god a long time ago. Einstein said that god doesn't play dice with the universe, meaning that nothing is random and everything is planned and predetermined, and then quantum physics came out and proved that things in the universe are random and not planned out at all (maybe even killing a cat in the process, but we don't know), meaning god wasn't around to guide anything, or is just playing with dice, and thus was unimportant. Anyone can play with dice to make the universe completely random, or the universe can just be completely random on its own.

[BitChick]

Their proof is that there is a limit to what can be conceived, and that limit is god? Well, it's not the Christian, Hebrew, or Muslim god. I don't really see how it's god at all, actually. Just a supreme limit that nothing can be conceived beyond...

By the way, scientists have disproven god a long time ago. Einstein said that god doesn't play dice with the universe, meaning that nothing is random and everything is planned and predetermined, and then quantum physics came out and proved that things in the universe are random and not planned out at all (maybe even killing a cat in the process, but we don't know), meaning god wasn't around to guide anything, or is just playing with dice, and thus was unimportant. Anyone can play with dice to make the universe completely random, or the universe can just be completely random on its own.

Ahh, but not all scientists have disproven God and this article shows that doesn't it?  Could scientist be wrong?  

It seems completely illogical to think that the universe is random to me.  How could something so complex as our universe happen by chance?  
Here is a great article I found when looking for something to show how order cannot scientifically come from chaos:

http://www.icr.org/article/819/247/

I liked this quote at the bottom:

Such notions come not from any empirical evidence but solely from philosophical speculations based on lack of evidence! "Since there is no evidence that evolution proceeded gradually, it must have occurred chaotically!" This seems to be the idea.

If one wants to believe by blind faith that order can arise spontaneously from chaos, it is still a free country. But please don't call it science!

Rassah, you know I love debating with you!  Hopefully you know that I do it with good intentions though and I am not really trying to pick a fight here.  It is just that I am very passionate about what I believe, as I know you are too.

[dank]

It's pretty simple when you think (or don't) about it.  If you can imagine something, it exists because you have connected to that reality where it does.  We are multidimensional beings, thoughts are other dimensions, other realities that we connect to.  If you can think of an all powerful conscious being, it surely exists.

What if I imagine a universe that operates according to physical laws without any sort of god or supernatural beings?

Who's imagining (creating) it?

[Unluckyduck]

What a joke. Why don't they come up with some useful information.

[pedrog]

Their proof is that there is a limit to what can be conceived, and that limit is god? Well, it's not the Christian, Hebrew, or Muslim god. I don't really see how it's god at all, actually. Just a supreme limit that nothing can be conceived beyond...

By the way, scientists have disproven god a long time ago. Einstein said that god doesn't play dice with the universe, meaning that nothing is random and everything is planned and predetermined, and then quantum physics came out and proved that things in the universe are random and not planned out at all (maybe even killing a cat in the process, but we don't know), meaning god wasn't around to guide anything, or is just playing with dice, and thus was unimportant. Anyone can play with dice to make the universe completely random, or the universe can just be completely random on its own.

Ahh, but not all scientists have disproven God and this article shows that doesn't it?  Could scientist be wrong?  

It seems completely illogical to think that the universe is random to me.  How could something so complex as our universe happen by chance?  
Here is a great article I found when looking for something to show how order cannot scientifically come from chaos:

http://www.icr.org/article/819/247/

I liked this quote at the bottom:

Such notions come not from any empirical evidence but solely from philosophical speculations based on lack of evidence! "Since there is no evidence that evolution proceeded gradually, it must have occurred chaotically!" This seems to be the idea.

If one wants to believe by blind faith that order can arise spontaneously from chaos, it is still a free country. But please don't call it science!

Rassah, you know I love debating with you!  Hopefully you know that I do it with good intentions though and I am not really trying to pick a fight here.  It is just that I am very passionate about what I believe, as I know you are too.

You can't do with science the same thing you do with the bible, choosing the bits you like and ignoring the rest.

There is no evidence whatsoever, 0, nada, niente, for the existence of something like a god, much less the Abraham God!

[dank]

You can't do with science the same thing you do with the bible, choosing the bits you like and ignoring the rest.

There is no evidence whatsoever, 0, nada, niente, for the existence of something like a god, much less the Abraham God!

And that is humanities fault for not being able to measure alternate dimensions.  Though your surely can experience them as evidence for yourself.

[the joint]

Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.

Science can't prove shit.  Never has, never will.

[dank]

The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

This is contradictory and stupid logic, what they're essentially saying is that if you believe it is real then it must exist and that's the kind of arguments that religious people have been using for years, whether or not they are correct is down to the evidence provided as we've known yet again for years, I also noticed that these articles don't bother going into any of the actual maths or scientific evidence for this theory which basically means they're putting up a ridiculous headline so they'll get people reading.

As far as I'm concerned, gods have to prove their existence to me if they want me to believe in them, not the other way round, this looks a lot like fake or very dodgy science to me to make it seem that religious people are correct.

In Imaginationland everything is possible.

From the articles:

But unsurprisingly, there is a rather significant caveat to that claim. In fact, what the researchers in question say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel -- and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology.

and

The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

Prepare for Imaginationland.

[solex]

Their proof is that there is a limit to what can be conceived, and that limit is god? Well, it's not the Christian, Hebrew, or Muslim god. I don't really see how it's god at all, actually. Just a supreme limit that nothing can be conceived beyond...

By the way, scientists have disproven god a long time ago. Einstein said that god doesn't play dice with the universe, meaning that nothing is random and everything is planned and predetermined, and then quantum physics came out and proved that things in the universe are random and not planned out at all (maybe even killing a cat in the process, but we don't know), meaning god wasn't around to guide anything, or is just playing with dice, and thus was unimportant. Anyone can play with dice to make the universe completely random, or the universe can just be completely random on its own.

Ahh, but not all scientists have disproven God and this article shows that doesn't it?  Could scientist be wrong?  

It seems completely illogical to think that the universe is random to me.  How could something so complex as our universe happen by chance?

This is the fundamental flaw with the idea of God. You cannot explain complexity by invoking prior complexity.  Ask yourself if you think God is as least as complex as the universe. If you consider this to be true then you have moved the problem of where did complexity come from - and in fact, made the problem far harder because you now have monolithic complexity to explain. Complexity arising from self-organizing processes acting upon smaller units is seen throughout nature and has been performed experimentally.  The real question is "How did the super-compressed ball of energy originate?

[the joint]

Their proof is that there is a limit to what can be conceived, and that limit is god? Well, it's not the Christian, Hebrew, or Muslim god. I don't really see how it's god at all, actually. Just a supreme limit that nothing can be conceived beyond...

By the way, scientists have disproven god a long time ago. Einstein said that god doesn't play dice with the universe, meaning that nothing is random and everything is planned and predetermined, and then quantum physics came out and proved that things in the universe are random and not planned out at all (maybe even killing a cat in the process, but we don't know), meaning god wasn't around to guide anything, or is just playing with dice, and thus was unimportant. Anyone can play with dice to make the universe completely random, or the universe can just be completely random on its own.

Ahh, but not all scientists have disproven God and this article shows that doesn't it?  Could scientist be wrong?  

It seems completely illogical to think that the universe is random to me.  How could something so complex as our universe happen by chance?

This is the fundamental flaw with the idea of God. You cannot explain complexity by invoking prior complexity.  Ask yourself if you think God is as least as complex as the universe. If you consider this to be true then you have moved the problem of where did complexity come from - and in fact, made the problem far harder because you now have monolithic complexity to explain. Complexity arising from self-organizing processes acting upon smaller units is seen throughout nature and has been performed experimentally.  The real question is "How did the super-compressed ball of energy originate?

The existence of a subject/object relationship is necessary to assert an object, or even a universe for that matter, to exist in the first place.  Without a subject to perceive an object (even if that subject reflects upon itself as an object), it is invalid to ever assert that the object exists at all.

A deeper exploration of systems, specifically the archetypal structure of language itself which lays the foundation for any and all systems to arise at all, leads to the inevitable conclusion that a global consciousness or "God" is an absolute necessity for this Universe to exist.

Edit: @Rassah
Option 1: Free-Will
Option 2 : Determinism
Option 3 that you ignored: "Free-determinism" or "Self-determinism" (latter coined by Christopher Langan).

[pedrog]

Remember: there has never been a single fact, theory, or model that science has been able to prove beyond all doubt, and as long as the scientific method is utilized, this will remain the case forever.

Science can't prove shit.  Never has, never will.

You do realize that a very small percentage of people understand this.