You are right there. But I really believe that through systematic reasoning we can.
Good luck! I don't believe you can find God through rationality. Much of religion contradicts itself and so does the concept of God.
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?
That's what skeptics said when we planned to go to the moon!
We can not. We only can believe that there is an almighty power that surpasses us human beings
There are many scientific and rational proofs of God. Kurt Godel has a math based proof.
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.
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...
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.
It's the same as any scientific theorem. I don't see atheists complaining about other theorems in the same blind prejudiced way.
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.
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.
Indeed, Nathan... Above, beyond and throughout our dimension...
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
but we don't see atheists on vendettas over any other theorem. That's very damaging to their criticism of Godel.
If you're going to use information to make a case, at least use it correctly
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
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
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?
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.
I must point out you are evading my point: why is no other theorem subjected to the same vendetta?
At Warren Samu, that video link was narrated by an Atheist. She has a hidden agenda; this is not valid...
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.
same same: do you spend this much time denigrating any other theorem? No. Hence it's your atheist vendetta
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
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
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
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..?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 16 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
by Sa Toya 4 years ago
A friend and I had a conversation/discussion on this and she believes such occurrences are proof that God is real.She went on to say:If evil spirits are out there, there must be good spirits...like angels God is real.Equal and opposite reaction argument.While I understand her theory or reasoning on...
by wordscribe41 9 years ago
The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:"the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists because it is by FAITH that we believe. It is by faith we called on to believe....
by SaiKit 7 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of "False Delimma" Just because you can't prove a theory or belief, doesn't mean...
by Apostle Jack 6 years ago
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so.......that make them just as ignorant about the matter as those that they say can't prove that He does.That is a clear view of the Pot calling the kettle black.Do you agree.There is more proof that He does exist than He doesn't.They don't...
by Stump Parrish 4 years ago
I refuse to prove that I exist, says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore, you don't," "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|