Computer Scientists Prove God Exists

[the joint]

"What makes you think a human has the ability to directly move objects beyond the body's structural limits?"

The brain produces a magnetic field. It thus does moves "stuff" beyond the body's structural limits.
Unless you consider this magnetic field as a part of the structural being. In which case a more detailed definition of "structural limits" would be useful.

To be honest, I had difficulty writing my previous post because I do think a more detailed definition of "structural limits" is required.  Given that I've expressed my belief that all things necessarily share a fundamental characteristic of identity -- and that observable differences must arise out of similarity -- I could have just gone ahead and jumped down the rabbit hole as far as I possibly could and asserted that something moving at the farthest reaches of observable space must be the direct result of mental processes since the two must share a common identity and to that extent are the same (i.e. if mental processes occurring 'here' share a fundamental identity with physical phenomena occurring 'there', then changes in mental process 'here' must directly effect changes in physical phenomena 'there').  However, I wanted to leave the "differences" still in tact, for practical reasons.  Someone like Rassah would claim that just asserting that everything is fundamentally the same and thus everything directly effects everything doesn't lend itself to much practical utility, and generally I would agree.  I was trying to stay consistent within a particular context.

But, with specific regards to your post, and staying within the context I've chosen, I'm not sure everyone would agree that saying the "brain" produces a magnetic field affecting physical phenomena beyond the body is the same as saying "mental processes" produce a magnetic field affecting physical phenomena.

[rjbtc2017]

According to the article, they proved it using the theory that says everything you imagine means it's existing?
The title is correct but the content is not really the Answer that i'm expecting on proving that God Exists, nice try comscis

[dippididodaday]

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.

My understanding of reality is that I exist. I am proof of my existence. I can conceive greater than the greatest and smaller than the smallest. Existing, I understand through imagining reality. Its divine.

[Moloch]

I can imagine a flying teapot which is hiding behind Uranus so nobody can see it

That does NOT mean it exists

But, you can't prove it doesn't exist, can you?

So maybe anything I imagine exists... or maybe I'm not solipsistic?

Either way, it doesn't prove shit about god

This article only proves that people are super gullible and will believe anything which reinforces their preconceived ideas without critically thinking about it... what else is new?

[TomUyamot]

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.

I can't find any sound logic at all.

The theorem mentioned is kind of rusty already. It has already been used, reused, paraphrased, and everything again and again and again.

Finally, the subject "Computer Scientists Prove God Exists" is somehow misplaced. The theorem forwarded proves it so.

[BADecker]

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.

I can't find any sound logic at all.

The theorem mentioned is kind of rusty already. It has already been used, reused, paraphrased, and everything again and again and again.

Finally, the subject "Computer Scientists Prove God Exists" is somehow misplaced. The theorem forwarded proves it so.

But if you ad the separate scientific principle/law to this, then God is definitely proven... even without entropy thrown into the mix.

[matuson]

Science and religion are words the antipodes. How in General could such a thought. OP how much he drank or smoked to make nakuu topic. Religion is fake which has no scientific justification. Only stupid people sincerely believe in God, and all the others only pretend to believe.

[joebrook]

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.

I believe with this premise, everything that we have a name for must exist, the human mind cant just imagine things like that, the unicorn, dragons and God does or did exist. God still exists though. So does the Devil.

[Slow death]

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.

I can't find any sound logic at all.

The theorem mentioned is kind of rusty already. It has already been used, reused, paraphrased, and everything again and again and again.

Finally, the subject "Computer Scientists Prove God Exists" is somehow misplaced. The theorem forwarded proves it so.

But if you ad the separate scientific principle/law to this, then God is definitely proven... even without entropy thrown into the mix.

You must be very happy because someone created a thread like this.


So i open this topic and i see the title of this very old thread and i thought finally someone would show photos and videos showing god... I did not see anything useful

[BADecker]

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.

I can't find any sound logic at all.

The theorem mentioned is kind of rusty already. It has already been used, reused, paraphrased, and everything again and again and again.

Finally, the subject "Computer Scientists Prove God Exists" is somehow misplaced. The theorem forwarded proves it so.

But if you ad the separate scientific principle/law to this, then God is definitely proven... even without entropy thrown into the mix.

You must be very happy because someone created a thread like this.


So i open this topic and i see the title of this very old thread and i thought finally someone would show photos and videos showing god... I did not see anything useful

Not as happy as you will be if you realize God exists, and then believe what He tells us in the Bible about Jesus-salvation.

[WhaleHunter]

If they claim to have proved it they have actually proved something, that they ignore the scientific method.

[randal9]

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.

I believe with this premise, everything that we have a name for must exist, the human mind cant just imagine things like that, the unicorn, dragons and God does or did exist. God still exists though. So does the Devil.

it's amazing that those who believe this see evidence in many ways...and those who don't believe can't believe in the most serious evidence))

[Aristus]

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.

I believe God exist and science discovery is one the best tool for the existence of God.

[BADecker]

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.

I believe God exist and science discovery is one the best tool for the existence of God.

I agree. But here is what the opponents will do. They will talk in complex enough circles against this so that they can claim that they have proven that Gödel is wrong. If a person wants to show the opponents to be wrong, he almost literally has to take their writings and tear them apart piece by piece, pointing out the flaws in them. Then the opponents take the writings against them, and tear them apart piece by piece.

What does this whole thing turn into? It runs into a political debate. The longer it goes on, the more it goes away from the original topic... Gödel's work. These political scientists (actually, trolls) do this because that is the only scientific thing that hey have - political science. If one of them happens to be smart enough and downplay this post, he will use political science to do it, and will make it look like I am the one using political science.

Why do they do it? They are part of a group of people who are trying to condition society in ways that will make them or their masters more money. They don't really care what the truth is. All they care about is money.

[vados333]

That's the best way I could describe the actual shift in events that take place to enable one to fly.

[BADecker]

That's the best way I could describe the actual shift in events that take place to enable one to fly.

I would talk about airplanes.   

[allergyunhappy]

Wow it was really fascinating I watched it. thanks for sharing

[longskie0327]

Well if this is true well and good!.. that only prove that what they discover is only the confirmation of what has been told since the beginning of time...but the truth is whether scientists believe it or not God is still exist and no one can deny it's existence...the heavens itself declare that there is God and we ourselves cannot deny it the truth and the fact no matter how we deny it.

[September11Myth]

I think this news has not been properly titled. The right title should be: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists in Their Imagination.
In fact, there is absolutely no way to prove anything more than that. If you think otherwise you don't really know the meaning of the world "prove".

[BADecker]

I think this news has not been properly titled. The right title should be: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists in Their Imagination.
In fact, there is absolutely no way to prove anything more than that. If you think otherwise you don't really know the meaning of the world "prove".

It's okay. You are pardoned for your thinking. After all, some of Gödel’s stuff is a little deep.