Mathematical proof for God's existence

[JupiterJones]

Nice. "Mathematical proof for God's existence" has got to be one of the better Troll Thread Titles....EVER!

It is interesting that the cry of "Troll! Troll!" is the automatic response from the same individuals who claim they only believe what can be proven.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: PastorDon
Nice. "Mathematical proof for God's existence" has got to be one of the better Troll Thread Titles....EVER!

It is interesting that the cry of "Troll! Troll!" is the automatic response from the same individuals who claim they only believe what can be proven.

Oh, just because you're sore that we defused your first troll doesn't entitle you to start a second one in the same thread.

And as MacBaine mentioned - why don't you prove that he isn't god?

- M4H

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: PastorDon
Nice. "Mathematical proof for God's existence" has got to be one of the better Troll Thread Titles....EVER!

It is interesting that the cry of "Troll! Troll!" is the automatic response from the same individuals who claim they only believe what can be proven.

I see no proof.

Post the proof here.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: PastorDon
Nice. "Mathematical proof for God's existence" has got to be one of the better Troll Thread Titles....EVER!

It is interesting that the cry of "Troll! Troll!" is the automatic response from the same individuals who claim they only believe what can be proven.

OK, I'll bite, since you quoted me.

What if I AM someone who only believes what can be proven? What's wrong w/that? I don't knock anyone that believes or disbelieves in God. But I DO knock those who try and pull cockamaimmee (sp? ) crud like proving God exists thru math!

That's like that line "Nobody is perfect. I am a nobody. Therefore, I am perfect." Doesn't quite wash, does it?

 

[eakers]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: eakers
i already have a book that prooves that god exists.

((but i am interested in reading this one.))

You have the Fredrick's of Hollywood Naughty But Nice Christmas Catalog? Can I borrow it...for about five minutes?

hahhahahaha

((to be honest, i'm agnostic, but if i did believe in all that junk that is the post i would make))

 

[notfred]

From the author's own website:

Gödel's modal ontological argument is the centerpiece of an extensive examination of intensional logic. First, classical type theory is presented semantically, tableau rules for it are introduced, and the Prawitz/Takahashi completeness proof is given. Then modal machinery is added, semantically and through tableau rules, to produce a modified version of Montague/Gallin intensional logic. Extensionality, rigidity, equality, identity, and definite descriptions are investigated. Finally, various ontological proofs for the existence of God are discussed informally, and the Gödel argument is fully formalized. Objections to the Gödel argument are examined, including one due to Howard Sobel showing Gödel's assumptions are so strong that the modal argument collapses. It is shown that this argument depends critically on whether properties are understood intensionally or extensionally.

Parts of the book are mathematical, parts philosophical. A reader interested in (modal) type theory can safely skip ontological issues, just as one interested in Gödel's argument can omit the more mathematical portions, such as the completeness proof for tableaus. There should be something for everybody (and perhaps everything for somebody).

Even the AUTHOR doesn't claim that the book mathematically proves the existence of god.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: PastorDon
Nice. "Mathematical proof for God's existence" has got to be one of the better Troll Thread Titles....EVER!

It is interesting that the cry of "Troll! Troll!" is the automatic response from the same individuals who claim they only believe what can be proven.

No, we're just conditioned to expect the worst from you based on all your previous posts. You're easily the biggest troll on AT. Get a life.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: MacBaine
Why don't you find someplace that proves that I am not god?

1.) God is perfect.
2.) MacBaine is imperfect
3.) If (1) and (2) then MacBaine != God

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: MacBaine
Why don't you find someplace that proves that I am not god?

1.) God is perfect.
2.) MacBaine is imperfect
3.) If (1) and (2) then MacBaine != God

Sorry to burst your bubble.

how do you know that god(s) is(are) perfect?

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: MacBaine
Why don't you find someplace that proves that I am not god?

1.) God is perfect.
2.) MacBaine is imperfect
3.) If (1) and (2) then MacBaine != God

Sorry to burst your bubble.

how do you know that god(s) is(are) perfect?

Or that MacBaine is imperfect, for that matter.

 

[JupiterJones]

Even the AUTHOR doesn't claim that the book mathematically proves the existence of god.

"...the Gödel argument is fully formalized". This means he is presenting a formal proof, based on Gödel's argument.

What if I AM someone who only believes what can be proven? What's wrong w/that?

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that truth exists that cannot be proven. Believing ONLY what can be proven is to choose to close your mind to possible truths.

My point, however, was that if you believe what can be proven, then you would investigate this proof of God's existence. Instead, many of you just cry "Troll!". On ATOT, a troll seems to be anyone who says something you disagree with.

 

[cnwk64]

By the time I finished all those books, I'll be dead and I will find out if there is God or not.

 

[Zebo]

Religion is only good for spirtuality.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: MacBaine
Why don't you find someplace that proves that I am not god?

1.) God is perfect.
2.) MacBaine is imperfect
3.) If (1) and (2) then MacBaine != God

Sorry to burst your bubble.

how do you know that god(s) is(are) perfect?

Or that MacBaine is imperfect, for that matter.

judging by previous posts, it's a given

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: PastorDon
Even the AUTHOR doesn't claim that the book mathematically proves the existence of god.

"...the Gödel argument is fully formalized". This means he is presenting a formal proof, based on Gödel's argument.

What if I AM someone who only believes what can be proven? What's wrong w/that?

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that truth exists that cannot be proven. Believing ONLY what can be proven is to choose to close your mind to possible truths.

My point, however, was that if you believe what can be proven, then you would investigate this proof of God's existence. Instead, many of you just cry "Troll!". On ATOT, a troll seems to be anyone who says something you disagree with.

No one (except for you) has claimed to have a proof for god's existance. You, however, have failed to show such a proof.

 

[JupiterJones]

No, we're just conditioned to expect the worst from you based on all your previous posts. You're easily the biggest troll on AT. Get a life.

Fausto

The infrequency of my post (compared to yours) would suggest that you might need to take your own advice. By and large, the vast majority of my posts answer questions. I wonder how you define a troll. Isn't is just someone who disagrees with you?

 

[joohang]

There are several philosophical proofs for this fact. Ontological, Cosmological, Mystical and Theological proofs

hahahaha the only proofs that matter are mathamatical ones.

Mathematics could be argued as one form of philosophy or simply a way to approach or think about the world.

 

[Vic]

Requiring "proof" of God's existence can prove only an absence of faith.

 

[JupiterJones]

No one (except for you) has claimed to have a proof for god's existance. You, however, have failed to show such a proof.

All I have claimed is that Fitting has published a scholarly work that presents a formal argument (based on mathematical logic) that God exist. The scope of the proof is WAY too long for me to post here. Read the book.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Vic
Requiring "proof" of God's existence can prove only an absence of faith.

Uh-Oh! :Q

 

[notfred]

Just emailed the author to ask him if his book proves the existence of god


PastorDon: have YOU read and (important) understood this book?

 

[Moonbeam]

The proof of God in a bood of math would be of even less use to me than faith. Faith didn't work and it's easy to understand. Of what use would something incomprehensible be.

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: Vic
Requiring "proof" of God's existence can prove only an absence of faith.

hahaha

That's true.

But then what is the practice of a "true" Christian? As much as the religion affected the politics, society and culture of many people over the past two millennia, the religion itself changed so much. Back in the days of Rome, nobody would have even bothered to use math or anything to "prove" that God exists.

Looks like nowadays, it is very acceptable and even necessary to convince people rather than simply accepting Him.

 

[JupiterJones]

PastorDon: have YOU read and (important) understood this book?

I am reading the book. I figure it will take me a couple of months to work thru it. My post is to bring the existence of the book to the attention of all the people on ATOT who only believe what can be proven. I have long considered the possibility of a proof, based on mathematical logic, of the existence of God. Unfortunately, such a proof is currently beyond me. I hold a BS in Applied Mathematics from Auburn University, however it has been more of a hobby to study mathematical logic. I have been doing so in the hope of forming a similar proof, though from a different direction.

 

[Woody06]

I know this is a repost and I'm a n00b so I'll prolly get ripped on pretty hard but I thought that this was relevant to the subject.

Proof