jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (36 posts)

Can We prove the existence of God?

  1. Gaurav Oberoi profile image78
    Gaurav Oberoiposted 2 years ago

    Can We prove the existence of God?

  2. thegecko profile image80
    thegeckoposted 2 years ago

    You cannot. That's why it's called a faith based belief.

    1. Gaurav Oberoi profile image78
      Gaurav Oberoiposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You are right there. But I really believe that through systematic reasoning we can.

    2. thegecko profile image80
      thegeckoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Good luck! I don't believe you can find God through rationality. Much of religion contradicts itself and so does the concept of God.

    3. Gaurav Oberoi profile image78
      Gaurav Oberoiposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      If I ask a question, 'If there is no higher power, why have we never been able to 'manufacture' even a single living cell in a lab and why do we always need to borrow cells from a living organism for experimentation?' what would the answer be?

    4. thegecko profile image80
      thegeckoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      We're not there yet. Be patient.

    5. Gaurav Oberoi profile image78
      Gaurav Oberoiposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      sure

    6. thegecko profile image80
      thegeckoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That's what skeptics said when we planned to go to the moon!

    7. Gaurav Oberoi profile image78
      Gaurav Oberoiposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      yup

  3. unvrso profile image90
    unvrsoposted 2 years ago

    We can not. We only can believe that there is an almighty power that surpasses us human beings

    1. Oztinato profile image77
      Oztinatoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      My apologies I'm not having luck editing tonight

  4. Oztinato profile image77
    Oztinatoposted 2 years ago

    There are many scientific and rational proofs of God. Kurt Godel has a math based proof.

    1. thegecko profile image80
      thegeckoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      False.

    2. Oztinato profile image77
      Oztinatoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The fact is Godel has a math proof.
      The definition if say Gandalf is a fuctional character in a book but the definition of God is a perfect immutable being NOT a fictional character in a book. Check the dictionary.

  5. connorj profile image76
    connorjposted 2 years ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12641543_f260.jpg

    Well I certainly cannot; however, a brilliant philosopher and close-friend of Albert Einstein has indeed provided a mathematical and logical proof of His existence. You cannot state it is false and just dismiss it. It has been mathematically verified several times.
    This friend of Einstein, namely Dr. Kurt Godel has proven it.  When Godel 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 his 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 Godel ( how coincidental is his name!) proposed a proof of the idea. Its theorems, axioms, assumptions can indeed be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.
    That is where Christoph Benzmuller of Berlin's Free University and his colleague, Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, enter. Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Godel'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." I suggest you research this before dismissing it...

    1. thegecko profile image80
      thegeckoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Just because you can list a set of assumptions in a mathematical proof, does not mean the premise of those assumptions are true. Just because we can conceive the concept of God, does not make God real. You took their findings out of context.

    2. Oztinato profile image77
      Oztinatoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It's the same as any scientific theorem. I don't see atheists complaining about other theorems in the same blind prejudiced way.

    3. connorj profile image76
      connorjposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Quite simply, any mathematical proof, keep in mind, it is an excellent term for this, that is, proof; means it is significantly more probable than not.

    4. profile image61
      Nathan-of-Dallasposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      God exists outside of this space and time. He is the explanation. We can't see him or perceive him in any way other that by knowing that the proof is in the pudding. The fact that I am conscious is enough proof for me. I think thetefore I am.

    5. connorj profile image76
      connorjposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Indeed, Nathan... Above, beyond and throughout our dimension...

    6. thegecko profile image80
      thegeckoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The computer scientists did not prove the possibility of God by proving the theorem. They kept the God part in the headline to gain attention. If you wish to understand what they really did, watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9vQV7hE1Uk

    7. Oztinato profile image77
      Oztinatoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Gecko
      but we don't see atheists on vendettas over any other theorem. That's very damaging to their criticism of Godel.

    8. thegecko profile image80
      thegeckoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      If you're going to use information to make a case, at least use it correctly smile

    9. Oztinato profile image77
      Oztinatoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Gecko
      I have. There are no other theorems subject to the same vendetta on the entire net. Ergo my point is that this severly weakens arguments agsinst Godel

    10. thegecko profile image80
      thegeckoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The construction of his proof was sound. The premise for the "givens" were not. By the same logic, Gandalf the Grey, Voldemort, Yoda, Spielberg's E.T., The Babadook, Puff the Magic Dragon, etc etc etc could possibly exist as well smile

    11. Gaurav Oberoi profile image78
      Gaurav Oberoiposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Hello Warren Samu, In your previous comment you have mentioned fictional characters that represent extra terrestrial Intelligence in a fantasy environment and a fantastical scenario. But can you prove that extraterrestrial intelligence cannot exist?

    12. thegecko profile image80
      thegeckoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Using modal logic, someone probably could create assumptions exclusive enough that extraterrestrial intelligence cannot exist. It just depends on how one defines all the parts. That's the problem with Godel's proof. He created subjective conditions.

    13. Oztinato profile image77
      Oztinatoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Gecko
      I must point out you are evading my point: why is no other theorem subjected to the same vendetta?

    14. connorj profile image76
      connorjposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      At Warren Samu, that video link was narrated by an Atheist. She has a hidden agenda; this is not valid...

    15. thegecko profile image80
      thegeckoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I can't speak to someone else's vendetta. I am pointing out that this development in the field of computer science is being taken out of context. If you use it this way, you risk discrediting yourself to anyone who understands Godel's proof.

    16. Oztinato profile image77
      Oztinatoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Gecko
      same same: do you spend this much time denigrating any other theorem? No. Hence it's your atheist vendetta

    17. thegecko profile image80
      thegeckoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That's the problem. I am not attacking the theorem, just stating the fact that it means little in the real world. It is based on subjective definitions and not analytical http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontol … #GodOntArg

    18. Oztinato profile image77
      Oztinatoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Gecko
      of course you are attacking the theorem. The dictionary definition of Gandalf is a fictional character but the definition of God is "perfect immutable being". By not using basic definitions you have tried to obfuscate

    19. thegecko profile image80
      thegeckoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Obviously, I am wasting my efforts. The theorem is sound, the "givens" are not. It is not based on science, but simply a mathematical puzzle and an exercise in Philosophy. Use it as you wish smile

    20. connorj profile image76
      connorjposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      At Mr. Warren Samu,
      Think what you must...

    21. Oztinato profile image77
      Oztinatoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Gecko
      no one is even trying to "use it as you wish ". It's a theorem of the same calibre as other theorems; you seem to deny it without logic and that's been the only topic of conversation now for quite a while here. er..smile?

 
working