And what is his follower assumed to do? To reason God's existence? Or perhaps to do something else?He's assumed to exist. — BitconnectCarlos
And what is his follower assumed to do? To reason God's existence? Or perhaps to do something else? — ssu
Exactly. So I'm puzzled by those who want to give a proof of God, because they usually are religious people. Why not simply follow the given manuals and act righteously?Act righteously and divine favor will follow. "Reasoning God's existence" is not a biblical concern at all. — BitconnectCarlos
So I'm puzzled by those who want to give a proof of God, because they usually are religious people. Why not simply follow the given manuals and act righteously? — ssu
Why not simply follow the given manuals and act righteously? — ssu
His proof is not successful — Lionino
https://www.fu-berlin.de/en/presse/informationen/fup/2013/fup_13_308/index.html
Independent Confirmation for Gödel's "Proof" of Existence of God
Scientists at Freie Universität and TU Vienna Use Computers to Check Reasoning of Austrian Mathematician
№ 308/2013 from Oct 17, 2013
Scientists at Freie Universität Berlin and the Vienna University of Technology have succeeded in checking and confirming a so-called “proof of God” by the Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel (1906-1978). Christoph Benzmüller from the Dahlem Center for Intelligent Systems and his Viennese colleague Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo succeeded, using computer programs, so-called “theorem provers,” in verifying with the highest mathematical precision the logical correctness of Godel’s proof of God. A short preliminary version of this work is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4526 . The formalization and verification of the proof are online at <a href="https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod</a>.
The consistency of the basic assumptions made by Gödel was confirmed by the computer. Furthermore, the scientists were able to demonstrate that the nontrivial proof was, for the most part, able to be generated automatically by the computer. They had not expected that to be the case.
The age-old question of God's existence of course remains unanswered and depends on the meaningfulness and reference to reality of the chosen axioms. Gödel's reasoning, however, in the opinion of the computer scientists has been proven to be correct, as demonstrated by the computer.
You are wrong and a news piece is not a reliable source. — Lionino
Press inquiries
Press and Communication Team
Tel.: +49 (0)30 838 731 80
Email: presseatfu-berlindotde
Expert database
Tel.: +49 (0)30 838 731 91
Email: expertiseatfu-berlindotde
Marketing inquiries
Email: marketingatkumdotfu-berlindotde
Exactly. So I'm puzzled by those who want to give a proof of God, because they usually are religious people. Why not simply follow the given manuals and act righteously? — ssu
Because it's stupid and pointless if there is no God. — bert1
Pardon, but I'm concerned with social "view of the idea of God" preached in religious traditions and actually worshipped (i.e. idolized) by congregants. It's this totalitarian "view of idea of God" that significantly affects cultures and politics and pacifies collective existential angst (e.g. excuses social scapegoating, martyrdom, holy warfare, missionary imperialism, etc) rather than anyone's speculative "view of the idea of God" (such as yours, JuanZu, or my own — 180 Proof
The study of religion is bit different from the attempt to prove God's existence. The questioning doesn't even start from the obvious question: Is there a God?It can be interesting to consider how far philosophy/rationality can lead us towards an understanding of God. Perhaps some type of prime mover necessarily exists. — BitconnectCarlos
Nothing has changed among humans in 10,000 years. Even with religion. But if you look in the rubble of human history, it’s we who destroy each other, again and again. So the only hope for us has to come from outside. Nothing has changed with regard to that either. — Fire Ologist
I think "is there a God" is an obvious question to modern audiences, but it wasn't to the ancients. — BitconnectCarlos
they [Epicureans] held the gods to be immortal and indestructible (how this might work in a materialist universe remains unclear) — SEP
Ancient critics thought the Epicurean gods were a thin smoke-screen to hide Epicurus’ atheism, and difficulties with a literal interpretation of Epicurus’ sayings on the nature of the gods (for instance, it appears inconsistent with Epicurus’ atomic theory to hold that any compound body, even a god, could be immortal) have led some scholars to conjecture that Epicurus’ ‘gods’ are thought-constructs, and exist only in human minds as idealisations, i.e., the gods exist, but only as projections of what the most blessed life would be. — SEP
Many pantheists argue that physical conceptions are adequate to explain the entire cosmos. This is an ancient form of pantheism, found for example in the Stoics, for whom only bodies can be said to exist. [...] Such worldviews make no ontological commitments beyond those sanctioned by empirical science.
[...]
More specifically, God is identical with one of the two ungenerated and indestructible first principles (archai) of the universe. One principle is matter which they regard as utterly unqualified and inert. [...] The designing fire is likened to sperm or seed which contains the first principles or directions of all the things which will subsequently develop. — SEP
I cannot because the article is from 11 years ago. — Lionino
a crazy individual ... whatever insanity — Lionino
If you keep asking 'Yes but why?' eventually even scientifically literate people like yourself, will say 'That's just how it is'. That's a mystery. — bert1
If the university believed that their press release was expired, they would retract it or publish a rectification. — Tarskian
How many times have you been kicked out of a meeting for exactly this reason?
So, tell us, when did you lose your job?
It wasn't the economy. We can all see what it really was.
It is actually pointless for you to look for a new job because history is simply going to repeat itself.
You'd better look for a job in which you don't have to interact with anyone, if a thing like that even exists. — Tarskian
Laughably pathetic attempt at a character attack. — Lionino
In the real world I do not have to deal with schizoid incompetents with delusions of grandeur like you babbling about things they are two degrees away from studying, no such issues follow. — Lionino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.