Computer Scientists "prove" God exists

[Silver]

Two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt Gödel. But the God angle is somewhat of a red herring -- the real step forward is the example it sets of how computers can make scientific progress simpler.

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.

When Gödel died in 1978, he left behind a tantalizing theory based on principles of modal logic -- that a higher being must exist. The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist.

Even at the time, the argument was not exactly a new one. For centuries, many have tried to use this kind of abstract reasoning to prove the possibility or necessity of the existence of God. But the mathematical model composed by Gödel proposed a proof of the idea. Its theorems and axioms -- assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.

That is where Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University and his colleague, Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, come in. Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct -- at least on a mathematical level -- by way of higher modal logic. Their initial submission on the arXiv.org research article server is called "Formalization, Mechanization and Automation of Gödel's Proof of God's Existence."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/compute...d=20678984

[Chas]

---

Two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt Gödel. But the God angle is somewhat of a red herring -- the real step forward is the example it sets of how computers can make scientific progress simpler.

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.

When Gödel died in 1978, he left behind a tantalizing theory based on principles of modal logic -- that a higher being must exist. The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist.

Even at the time, the argument was not exactly a new one. For centuries, many have tried to use this kind of abstract reasoning to prove the possibility or necessity of the existence of God. But the mathematical model composed by Gödel proposed a proof of the idea. Its theorems and axioms -- assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.

That is where Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University and his colleague, Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, come in. Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct -- at least on a mathematical level -- by way of higher modal logic. Their initial submission on the arXiv.org research article server is called "Formalization, Mechanization and Automation of Gödel's Proof of God's Existence."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/compute...d=20678984

---

Automating a stupidity doesn't make it true.

[Dragonetti]

Hmmm I think their proof makes some assumptions. It does not really define what god is.

[Captain Colostomy]

So God has programmers then, huh?

Still man made.

[Esquilax]

That argument is the derpiest shit I've ever heard. Jesus fucking christ...

What the fuck was Godel smoking? That's one hell of an infinite progression he's got, there: "Oh, this greatest thing conceivable would be greater than yours because it can beat yours up..." and so on.

[Doubting Thomas]

Just wait, some time in the future we'll be seeing arguments like "God is too real! Scientists proved it using computers!"

[MindForgedManacle]

I study both computer science and philosophy in school. I find this dubious. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with Gödel's work outside his incompleteness theorems. But if the article accurately summarizes Gödel's attempt at an ontological proof of God's existence, then he would seem to have made the same fatal conceptual error that St. Anselm made: Treating existence as a precicate, a property. Philosophers widely consider this a problem, since there doesn't seem to be any actual difference between imagining something, and imagining that something as existing.

Edit: The article just seems to indicate the theorem is valid, right? Soundness unknown?

[Tkcjpii]

I study both computer science and philosophy in school. I find this dubious. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with Gödel's work outside his incompleteness theorems. But if the article accurately summarizes Gödel's attempt at an ontological proof of God's existence, then he would seem to have made the same fatal conceptual error that St. Anselm made: Treating existence as a precicate, a property. Philosophers widely consider this a problem, since there doesn't seem to be any actual difference between imagining something, and imagining that something as existing.

Edit: The article just seems to indicate the theorem is valid, right? Soundness unknown?

Wow, impressive! Someone on this site actually quoted Anselm! There is hope for this forum after all! Someone made a cogent argument, instead of the regular f-bombs and downtalking, like cornered animals. Love it. wonder if he's an atheist?!?!

[Owlix]

There is hope for this forum after all!

Says the person that joined yesterday.
Actually, I've seen several of your posts and all you seem capable of is calling us atheitards and belittling. So I'm gonna call you a name

Hypocrite

[Cinjin]

I study both computer science and philosophy in school. I find this dubious. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with Gödel's work outside his incompleteness theorems. But if the article accurately summarizes Gödel's attempt at an ontological proof of God's existence, then he would seem to have made the same fatal conceptual error that St. Anselm made: Treating existence as a precicate, a property. Philosophers widely consider this a problem, since there doesn't seem to be any actual difference between imagining something, and imagining that something as existing.

Edit: The article just seems to indicate the theorem is valid, right? Soundness unknown?

Wow, impressive! Someone on this site actually quoted Anselm! There is hope for this forum after all! Someone made a cogent argument, instead of the regular f-bombs and downtalking, like cornered animals. Love it. wonder if he's an atheist?!?!

There is hope for this forum after all!

Says the person that joined yesterday.
Actually, I've seen several of your posts and all you seem capable of is calling us atheitards and belittling. So I'm gonna call you a name

Hypocrite

Precisely Owlix. Another piece of garbage masquerading in his own self-righteous piety.
You don't like it here Tkcjpii - leave. Why don't you try practicing what you preach and leave quietly.

O thats right. You can't ... because like Owlix said, you're a hypocrite.