Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

Guille said:
No one else had a problem with this part?

Not even close to proving the existence of God.
Click to expand...

The real problem is with the very first line of the article...

"SCIENTISTS have ‘confirmed’ the existence of God after proving a mathematician’s theory which suggests that there is a higher power."

With confirmed being in quotation marks and suggests meaning what it means, it does not inspire a great deal of confidence.
 
If math helps you personally find God then go math! This would definitely be the only redeeming quality for math though if true.
 
Norah said:
If math helps you personally find God then go math! This would definitely be the only redeeming quality for math though if true.
Click to expand...

Hey now!!! ... There's a math teacher/CoC preacher posting on this board who might read this. ;)
 
Mott the Hoople said:
i define supernatural causation as outside or other than natural causes.

Can't answer you're second question as it's not empirically testable. In other words I don't know.
Click to expand...


Arguing God as supernatural by your definition is begging the question.

If there is a God then there is nothing that he does that is not natural. The simple act of existing makes the actions natural. I think a more universally logical definition of "supernatural" would be causation outside of our current ability to understand and explain. By that definition then God can be both real and his actions supernatural.
 
Guille said:
No one else had a problem with this part?

Not even close to proving the existence of God.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. The article doesn't do a great job of describing Gödel’s model.

But the point, even as stated, is an interesting one. It is similar to an argument I have made for years regarding logically defining the existence of an after life that must exist if we believe a few simple non-controversial theories. Example:

1) The big bang has an unexplainable causation
2) The beginning of life was a probabilistic event
3) The evolution of man was the result of a long string of probabilistic events
4) The birth of Guille was a probabilistic event
5) The life of Guille has been a series of probabilistic events
6) Probability is the chance of a given occurrence happening in a finite amount of time
7) Time is infinite
8) Any event that is government by probability has a 100% chance of reoccurring given an infinite amount of time and will happen an infinite amount of times

Ta Da! A belief that the universe is always expanding, and therefor time being infinite, means you believe you will have life after death.

An alternative is to believe that time is finite but then you make it increasingly less likely that the creation of life was a chance occurrence.

I believe in God because I have seen the work of God in me and the lives around me, and if he doesn't exist it means that some really smart people thousands of years ago wrote a pretty amazing user manual for human civilization.
 
jmotivator said:
Arguing God as supernatural by your definition is begging the question.

If there is a God then there is nothing that he does that is not natural. The simple act of existing makes the actions natural. I think a more universally logical definition of "supernatural" would be causation outside of our current ability to understand and explain. By that definition then God can be both real and his actions supernatural.
Click to expand...
weak...that's a petitio principii logical fallacy in which you assume your initial premise is correct. Since there is no way you can prove your premise correct via empirical evidence your statement is illogical.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
weak...that's a petitio principii logical fallacy in which you assume your initial premise is correct. Since there is no way you can prove your premise correct via empirical evidence your statement is illogical.
Click to expand...

Nope. Belief in God the creator is a belief that God created the natural world, therefor it is a belief that God is natural. Ironically, your counter argument is actually a petitio principii fallacy as you require a disbelief in God before your definition of nature is acceptable. You don't have to believe what I believe to accept the idea that God as he is believed is natural.

And, in fact, my definition of supernatural is the actual definition. A supernatural event is an event that defies human understanding and our understanding of the laws of nature. "Nature", on the other hand is all encompassing and not depending on the limits of our understanding
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top