Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists

[Chuck]

From SPIEGEL ONLINE:

"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."

The original paper can be downloaded here. Be prepared for some heavy mathematics.

[John Mundinger]

If we could prove the existence of God, we would not need faith. 

In my opinion, science cannot prove the existence of God.  The best that science can do - and I think their is enough scientific information already to support this conclusion - is that there is more to the correct understanding of creation, including a correct understanding of origins, than that which can be described by science.

[Pastor Ken Kimball]

Isn't this pretty much (with the math) a more complicated restatement of Anselm's argument?  Calling Dr. Tom Pearson!

[peter_speckhard]

The Babel Fish already proves the existence, and therefore the non- existence of God.

[Michael Slusser]

If we could prove the existence of God, we would not need faith. 

How would we know whether God cares?

Peace,
Michael

[scott8]

Isn't this pretty much (with the math) a more complicated restatement of Anselm's argument?  Calling Dr. Tom Pearson!

Not Tom, but yes.

[Steven Tibbetts]

The Babel Fish already proves the existence, and therefore the non- existence of God.

And once again, the following from Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comes to mind:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "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 could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. 

Kyrie eleison, Steven+

[Pastor Ken Kimball]

Isn't this pretty much (with the math) a more complicated restatement of Anselm's argument?  Calling Dr. Tom Pearson!

Not Tom, but yes.

Mange tak, Dr. Yakimow!

[pearson]

Isn't this pretty much (with the math) a more complicated restatement of Anselm's argument?  Calling Dr. Tom Pearson!

Not Tom, but yes.

Say what?  Things are only "yes" -- positive, affirmative, agreeable, pleasant, smiley-face-abundant -- if they're "not Tom"?  What's that supposed to mean?  I thought we were on a new regimen of "civility" around here.  This is not nice.

But I'm above all that (sniff).  So let me just say that my good Pops, Pr. Ken Kimball, has learned his ancient lessons well.  What Gödel offered was a logical reductio of Anselm's argument.  To wit:

On the upside, this argument is perfect, as far as it goes.  Despite a millennia of nay-sayers, no one has ever found a defeater for this argument for the existence of God (the whimsy of Douglas Adams, thankfully, aside).  If you're looking for an argument for God's existence that has never been knocked out, and you are willing to accept the assumption that God's existence can be deduced strictly from a definition of God (whether linguistic or mathematical) alone, this is your ticket.

On the downside, this argument doesn't go very far.  It only shows that something matching this definition of God must necessarily exist.  It doesn't say that "something" is a designer, a creator, or a redeemer; omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, or all-good; personal or impersonal; a unity or a Trinity; Jehovah, Allah, Waheguru, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (beloved of Pastafarians).  The argument only shows that a Being corresponding to the definition must exist, and not much more.  You gets what you pays for.

Tom Pearson

 

[Team Hesse]

Isn't this pretty much (with the math) a more complicated restatement of Anselm's argument?  Calling Dr. Tom Pearson!

Not Tom, but yes.

Say what?  Things are only "yes" -- positive, affirmative, agreeable, pleasant, smiley-face-abundant -- if they're "not Tom"?  What's that supposed to mean?  I thought we were on a new regimen of "civility" around here.  This is not nice.

But I'm above all that (sniff).  So let me just say that my good Pops, Pr. Ken Kimball, has learned his ancient lessons well.  What Gödel offered was a logical reductio of Anselm's argument.  To wit:

On the upside, this argument is perfect, as far as it goes.  Despite a millennia of nay-sayers, no one has ever found a defeater for this argument for the existence of God (the whimsy of Douglas Adams, thankfully, aside).  If you're looking for an argument for God's existence that has never been knocked out, and you are willing to accept the assumption that God's existence can be deduced strictly from a definition of God (whether linguistic or mathematical) alone, this is your ticket.

On the downside, this argument doesn't go very far.  It only shows that something matching this definition of God must necessarily exist.  It doesn't say that "something" is a designer, a creator, or a redeemer; omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, or all-good; personal or impersonal; a unity or a Trinity; Jehovah, Allah, Waheguru, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (beloved of Pastafarians).  The argument only shows that a Being corresponding to the definition must exist, and not much more.  You gets what you pays for.

Tom Pearson

Pastafarian?  That explains my mid-section.


Lou

[Michael Slusser]

On the downside, this argument doesn't go very far.  It only shows that something matching this definition of God must necessarily exist.  It doesn't say that "something" is a designer, a creator, or a redeemer; omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, or all-good; personal or impersonal; a unity or a Trinity; Jehovah, Allah, Waheguru, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (beloved of Pastafarians).  The argument only shows that a Being corresponding to the definition must exist, and not much more.  You gets what you pays for.

Tom Pearson

Pastafarian?  That explains my mid-section.
Lou

Gotta do something about your hair, though. 

Peace,
Michael

[Pastor Ken Kimball]

Isn't this pretty much (with the math) a more complicated restatement of Anselm's argument?  Calling Dr. Tom Pearson!

Not Tom, but yes.

Say what?  Things are only "yes" -- positive, affirmative, agreeable, pleasant, smiley-face-abundant -- if they're "not Tom"?  What's that supposed to mean?  I thought we were on a new regimen of "civility" around here.  This is not nice.

But I'm above all that (sniff).  So let me just say that my good Pops, Pr. Ken Kimball, has learned his ancient lessons well.  What Gödel offered was a logical reductio of Anselm's argument.  To wit:

On the upside, this argument is perfect, as far as it goes.  Despite a millennia of nay-sayers, no one has ever found a defeater for this argument for the existence of God (the whimsy of Douglas Adams, thankfully, aside).  If you're looking for an argument for God's existence that has never been knocked out, and you are willing to accept the assumption that God's existence can be deduced strictly from a definition of God (whether linguistic or mathematical) alone, this is your ticket.

On the downside, this argument doesn't go very far.  It only shows that something matching this definition of God must necessarily exist.  It doesn't say that "something" is a designer, a creator, or a redeemer; omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, or all-good; personal or impersonal; a unity or a Trinity; Jehovah, Allah, Waheguru, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (beloved of Pastafarians).  The argument only shows that a Being corresponding to the definition must exist, and not much more.  You gets what you pays for.

Tom Pearson

Thanks son.  It's always heartening when the younger generation is able to affirm some of the educational accomplishments of we older folk.  And while I have great appreciation for Dr. Yakimow's learning (and appreciate when he tells me I'm right...actually I appreciate anybody who tells me I'm right ), he has not displaced you in anyway from my paternal affection or esteem for your intellectual heights!  I read Anselm after reading Barth's little book on him back in the day when I was reading Church Dogmatics with the guidance of Randall Zachman at Luther Northwestern.  Some few years back, Marshall Hahn and I shared hopes of what we might do with our spare time when we were no longer engaged in the battle over the direction of the ELCA.  One of mine was that I would have a chance to get back to Barth and write a piece (for my own pleasure) on the Anselmian currents and recurrents in the Church Dogmatics and also think through how Barth moves away from Luther towards Calvin in the CD (evident by a cursory review of the indexes).  My recollection---dim though it is in the mists of history now--is that I thought Barth asked the right questions and went to the right Biblical texts but came up with the wrong answers and that Barth was at his best when he was arguing with Luther.  Anyway, while I'm no longer in the ELCA, there still hasn't been time and energy to take that up, with work and commitments to the NALC and the parish.  But it's been fun to remember and reflect for a little bit.  Mange tak to Chuck for the thread and the responses from you Tom, Scott, Lou, Peter, Michael, and John (the listing of names makes me think of a song).
And I love the pastafarian line!