As headlines go, it's certainly an eye-catching one. "Scientists Prove Existence of God," German daily Die Welt wrote last week.

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.

Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists - ABC News

Most criticism of Gödel's proof is aimed at its axioms: As with any proof in any logical system, if the axioms the proof depends on are doubted, then the conclusions can be doubted. This is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof, because it rests on five axioms that are all questionable. The proof does not say that the conclusion has to be correct, but rather that if you accept the axioms, then the conclusion is correct.

Many philosophers have questioned the axioms. The first layer of attack is simply that there are no arguments presented that give reasons why the axioms are true. A second layer is that these particular axioms lead to unwelcome conclusions. This line of thought was argued by Jordan Howard Sobel,[9] showing that if the axioms are accepted, they lead to a "modal collapse" where every statement that is true is necessarily true, i.e. the sets of necessary, of contingent, and of possible truths all coincide (provided there are accessible worlds at all).[note 5] According to Koons,[10]:9 Sobel suggested that Gödel might have welcomed modal collapse.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B...ological_proof

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

2X2=unicorns

Science shows global warming? It's a hoax.
ONE CLAIM to math "proving" the existence of God? Tout it as absolute without even bothering to look at what actually occurred.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Where has anyone here touted it as absolute? Answer: NO where. The message given in the post was "make of it what you will."

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

Oh wow. Attack two words when post #11 (which you completely ignore) shows the actual claim of the article is false.


Allow me to rephrase.
Science shows global warming? It's a hoax.
ONE CLAIM to math "proving" the existence of God? Tout it as absolute without even bothering to look at what actually occurred.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

IOW, you change your statement because you know you HAD to rephrase it.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

Do you want a peanut?


Geez dude. Your entire originating article is a b.s. claim.
But you want to gloat over me eliminating two words.


Yes. Those two words were wrong.
I have the honesty to admit that.

Now, do you have the intellectual honesty necessary to address the flaws in the article you presented?
Or is getting me to eliminate two words all you got?

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

As I said, make of it what you will. You did, so you did what I wanted you to do; I'm not defending the article.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

Then why did you post it? Considering your history of postings and all.

__________________
Originally Posted by TiredRetired View Post
Damn shame it couldn't have been a father / son event. IMHO.