Jump to content


Photo

Mathematical Equation Proves The Existence Of God


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 723 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 22 January 2017 - 11:11 AM

I know there are some pretty smart guys here, so can someone parse this equation for me?

 

 

“Ax. 1. {P(φ)∧◻∀x[φ(x)→ψ(x)]} →P(ψ)Ax. 2.P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)Th. 1.P(φ)→◊∃x[φ(x)]Df. 1.G(x)⟺∀φ[P(φ)→φ(x)]Ax. 3.P(G)Th. 2.◊∃xG(x)Df. 2.φ ess x⟺φ(x)∧∀ψ{ψ(x)→◻∀y[φ(y)→ψ(y)]}Ax. 4.P(φ)→◻P(φ)Th. 3.G(x)→G ess xDf. 3.E(x)⟺∀φ[φ ess x→◻∃yφ(y)]Ax. 5.P(E)Th. 4.◻∃xG(x)”

 

This comes from an article from the Sunday Express claiming that a mathematical computation proves the existence of God.

 

http://www.express.c...-god-kurt-godel

 

According to the article:

 

 

Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.

 

I am just curious if this is gibberish, or does it really make some sense to someone who knows the maths involved.



#2 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 22 January 2017 - 12:31 PM

I think this is the paper being referenced: http://page.mi.fu-be.../papers/J32.pdf

In short these guys aren't actually proving anything new. They're constructing old arguments symbolically and running a computer analysis to evaluate things like consistency and redundancy.

In particular there were some objections to Gödel's original formulation that are apparently resolved by the analysis.

#3 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 January 2017 - 02:12 PM

I know there are some pretty smart guys here, so can someone parse this equation for me?

 

 

“Ax. 1. {P(φ)∧◻∀x[φ(x)→ψ(x)]} →P(ψ)Ax. 2.P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)Th. 1.P(φ)→◊∃x[φ(x)]Df. 1.G(x)⟺∀φ[P(φ)→φ(x)]Ax. 3.P(G)Th. 2.◊∃xG(x)Df. 2.φ ess x⟺φ(x)∧∀ψ{ψ(x)→◻∀y[φ(y)→ψ(y)]}Ax. 4.P(φ)→◻P(φ)Th. 3.G(x)→G ess xDf. 3.E(x)⟺∀φ[φ ess x→◻∃yφ(y)]Ax. 5.P(E)Th. 4.◻∃xG(x)”

 

 

This comes from an article from the Sunday Express claiming that a mathematical computation proves the existence of God.

 

http://www.express.c...-god-kurt-godel

 

....

I am just curious if this is gibberish, or does it really make some sense to someone who knows the maths involved.

The symbols are above my (long ago) work with symbolic logic.  Mike W claims to be expert in such symbology so maybe he could convert it to plain language. 

 

A little research on Godel did produce this:

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.

 

Just on its surface, an argument that relies on five questionable axioms probably isn't all that strong.



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 January 2017 - 07:01 AM

 

 

Piasan: The symbols are above my (long ago) work with symbolic logic.  Mike W claims to be expert in such symbology so maybe he could convert it to plain language.

 

I've never claimed any expertise in symbolic logic to be honest Piasan. I would say my claim is that I can understand logic well, but I have not studied the symbols, no. 

 

To be honest I don't see any point, the purpose of code is ultimately communication, meaning that logically it makes the most practical sense to use the code which most people will understand. On forums such as these, it is english. 

 

From what I can see "AX1" to "AX5" might mean axiom 1 to 5, but that's a guess.

 

Like our information expert Mike Summers would say, unless we know the code, what the symbol represents, then we're in the dark without a code-breaker. Too hard to crack from scratch.

 

In english we can formulate some theistic syllogisms but they wouldn't be, "proof" unless the premises are true and the syllogism is formally valid. That's just too hard to do. As I've said in the past, when forming purely theistic syllogisms, it's best to express them in very specific language, such as, "this may be" or, "this seems to be", or, "this might then follow", because if there is a chance it may not follow then the argument is too dogmatic, IMHO, unless you have 100% proven the premise.

 

For example in this following syllogism, each premise can be totally dogmatically expressed only because it's been proven inductively;

 

All biological pigs ever known are animals.

My pet is a biological pig.

Therefore my pet is an animal.

 

How can we "prove" a theistic syllogism if we are not empirically testing/proving the premises, for example if I said, "if God is omniscient", logically that still assumes God exists, which technically is an implicit assumption.

 

We can reasonably argue very strongly for God's existence but technically I am not sure God's existence can be proven. This doesn't mean He doesn't exist any more than it means Johnny who can't prove he is innocent but is in prison, is guilty, it just means it can't be proven. 



#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 January 2017 - 07:15 AM

Perhaps a reasonable Reductio Ad Absurdum might be this;

 

"If God had been proven to exist, we wouldn't be here debating such things."

 

I think that is a fair example because if God did come to earth so that every TV station could record Him standing on the temple mount or whatever, then obviously all debating on forums such as these, would cease. 

 

"But then Mike, you're on the atheists side for saying God can't be proven to exist, surely, and are siding with them?"

 

I would say I can agree with them that we can't prove God exists, but I would also say this is not particularly consequential as a technicality, because the existence of the miraculous very strongly favours God's existence, and the gospels of Christ, the bible, etc...but yes, atheists are technically correct that logically speaking God has not been proven to exist, at least not to my knowledge. There may be someone with better logical understanding that would correct me on that but I myself haven't found any logical argument that offers 100% proof.



#6 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,314 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 January 2017 - 06:20 PM

The human mind is a finite source of iinformation. We can oonly pull out of the mind what we put into the mind or what we "create" from what's in the mind.

The fact that we (as ndividuals) believe we exist demonstrates that existene is possible.

Most people don't doubt the existence of specific beinngs. Whenever a being comes into their sphere of influence their mind accepts the existence of that being.
Moreover, you know beinigs I don't know
and I know beings you don't know. Because you don't knoow someone does not mean they don't exist. Of the 7.5 billion beings that currently exist on planet earth the average person will know only about 2500. That's far less 1%.

The atheist has exceeded his knowledge base and so they have "created" the idea  that God does not exist. That just  demonstrates how powerful creativity is.



#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 January 2017 - 04:12 AM

Of course I could create my own code Mike. :D For example, the antecedent, I could regard as X and the consequent P, then replace "if" with a "^" and "then" with a ">" and "ergo" with a "=". And, "not" with a, "<"

 

But we still need to know what the antecedent and consequent are. For example, let us say that atheism is the antecedent and amorality is the consequent;

 

^X>P, <P, = <X.

 

It's not that hard to do. Sure Piasan, if only I know the code I suppose this kind of thing might make me LOOK very smart.

 

That is why a lot of people like to conceal knowledge, so they can LOOK superior. (I hope I haven't done that, I can't remember ever making that my goal).



#8 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 January 2017 - 08:20 AM

OK, I found another source of Godel's proof of God that has some plain language description:

 

A1 Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both: ....

A2 A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive....

T1 Positive properties are possibly exemplified....

D1 A God-like being possesses all positive properties....

A3 The property of being God-like is positive....

A4 Positive properties are necessarily positive....

D2 An essence of an individual is a property possessed by it and necessarily implying any of its properties....

T2 Being God-like is an essence of any God-like being....

D3 Necessary existence of an individ. is the necessary exemplifi- cation of all its essences....

A5 Necessary existence is a positive property....

T3 Necessarily, God exists....

 

Where A= axiom;  D= definition; and T= theorem.

 

As far as I can tell, what the programmers did was to validate the logical argument was constructed properly.  Several sources have pointed out Godel's axioms are questionable.  Since all logical arguments rest on their axioms, if they are not true, the argument fails.

 

Frankly, it doesn't look all that great to me.  A number of statements look like tautologies (A2, A4, and T2) and two axioms (A3 and A5) are not necessarily true.



#9 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 723 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 January 2017 - 08:50 AM

Thank you everyone.

 

So, my takeaway on this is that the equation can be parsed into regular English, no need for the mathematics, and that depending on the axioms provided the results can be anything that one wants.

 

If that is true it makes me wonder why all the attention given to an "equation" that proves the existence of God. Is it done that way to make it look "smart" so average folks will buy it?

 

But, here's something else. What if we used roughly the same equation and replaced the question with "prove the existence of evolution?"

 

Looking at it strictly objectively, would those who question the original axioms about proving God's existence also have the same criticism for axioms provided for the proof of evolution? Or, would we run up against the old bugaboo of "world view" and objectivity would go out the window?



#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 January 2017 - 09:13 AM

Looking at it strictly objectively, would those who question the original axioms about proving God's existence also have the same criticism for axioms provided for the proof of evolution? Or, would we run up against the old bugaboo of "world view" and objectivity would go out the window?

At my first university, all students were automatic philosophy minors.   Along the way, I picked up enough additional hours to have the degree had I chosen to declare it.

 

One thing I learned..... if you accept the statements provided as axioms (or premises, if you prefer) it is impossible to disprove an argument if there is no fundamental logic error in its presentation.   

 

Stated another way.... the place to go after the philosophical/logical claims of another is in the opening statements.



#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 January 2017 - 11:33 AM

Basically Dave, a syllogism, or conditional or any argument, must obey the ponen and tollens rules, the only "two ways" of logic. So if a syllogism is of the correct form it is valid, but to make an argument sound, the premises also have to be true.

 

This is always the point of dispute. A lot of people can create a valid argument (correct form), by learning how to construct a syllogism, and obeying the two ways/rules of logic, but the premises themselves can be speculative, which doesn't offer proof.

 

This is why the term, "proof" is so misunderstood by people. 100% proof is something that is demonstrably factual, IMHO. If you can dispute the thing in question, it isn't proven. For example, would anyone dispute the existence of grass or trees? (if we rule out crackpots or the mentally challenged).

 

Naturally we as Christians would dearly LOVE to say, "we have proof of God" but when you think about it, such a statement would contradict the New Testament. For, "we live by faith not by sight", which means we don't have the proof, because most things that can be seen, are proven. We know the moon is there, and Everest, and humans and grass, just by sight alone, we don't need an experiment or an argument to tell us these things exist. 

 

In the same way I think we can interpret that scripture this way, I believe; "for we live by faith not by proof". Not that I want to change scripture, but I think it's pretty fair to interpret it that way as it is making a delineation between the most obvious things to be proven, by sight, and things we don't see, therefore having no proof of.

 

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." 

 

How can faith be valid if we see God or God is proven? If God is on every TV station in the world, and you are standing next to Him, and the whole planet hears Him say to you, "believe I exist by faith and you will be saved", how is that possible? For do we need faith to believe the moon and the grass exist? Yet we are told that, "the only way to please God" is by faith. It's a great mystery of life, and a great mystery of God. He gets pleasure only if we believe He is there when we can't fully know or prove He is. There's something mysterious there, don't you agree? Something special about God's nature I can't put my finger on. Perhaps you have the answer.

 

I hope you understand my point; as soon as God proves Himself, the show is over and the curtain goes across the stage.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#12 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 January 2017 - 10:34 AM

Looking at it strictly objectively, would those who question the original axioms about proving God's existence also have the same criticism for axioms provided for the proof of evolution? Or, would we run up against the old bugaboo of "world view" and objectivity would go out the window?

the same thought entered my mind when i read the first or second reply to this thread.
evolution has a boatload of "axioms" that have been questioned ever since darwin proposed his theory.
for example:
1. genetic mutation/ natural selection.
2. gradual accumulating additions to the organism.
3. adaptive nature of evolution.
4. the concept of progress.

all of the above has either been proven wrong or inadequate to explain evolution.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users