Son of GOD EXISTS

The "proof" you seek, via non other than an actual proof.

The Austrian mathematician Gödel left behind a theory in 1978 that God must exist. The theory was proven in 2013 by a formal system of proofs.



Beliefs and theories are constantly being challenged and disproved. You haven't been keeping up. Scientists - that breed of animal carrying the basket in which you place all of your eggs - have proved that God must exist! There is a formal branch of mathematics that deploy a formal system of proofs to prove existence or truths. It's main component is logic and reasoning. It is a formal system responsible for many breakthroughs to this day, without which - much would not have been possible. I've been trying for several years now to take it beyond this. Building on the backs of these men, but delving into the nasty time consuming mathematics of it. Time consuming even with mainframes. I've had several people take a few potshots at me regarding it, who simply don't realize the gargantuan number crunching task of even an army of mainframes.

Point being, a giant step for believers, a huge step for mankind. Another nail in the coffin of nonbelievers.

I say again. The onus of responsibility to disprove this scientific proof is on you. Where it has always been.

Is God Real? Scientists ‘Prove’ His Existence With Godel’s Theory And MacBooks
By Maria Vultaggio @mariamzzarella
10/29/13 AT 4:26 PM

Scientists have “proven” God’s existence, at least in theory, by plugging in mathematician Kurt Godel’s philosophy on their MacBooks. As noted by Spiegel Online, however, what the two computer scientists did was more of display of what can be achieved in scientific fields by using greater technology rather than verify the existence of a Supreme Being. The story, however, has become a sensation with headlines like “Scientist Prove Existence of God,” going viral on the Web.

Godel was an Austrian mathematician who, in 1978, left behind a theory, which essentially says that a higher being must exist if people believe He does. Though the mathematics are much more complex, God exists as a concept, than he can exist in reality.

According to CNET via the Inquisitr, the complication theorems and axioms boil down to this: “God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.”

It’s not the first attempt at rationalizing the abstract idea, but computer scientists Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University and his colleague, Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, put a new spin on it, Spiegel Online wrote.

Armed with their MacBooks, the scientific duo showed Godel’s proof was correct. "It's totally amazing that from this argument led by Gödel, all this stuff can be proven automatically in a few seconds or even less on a standard notebook," Benzmüller told Spiegel Online.

The original purpose of Benzmüller’s work was to show how advanced computers have become. He added: “I didn’t know it would create such a huge public interest but [Gödel’s ontological proof] was definitely a better example than something inaccessible in mathematics or artificial intelligence. … It’s a very small, crisp thing, because we are just dealing with six axioms in a little theorem. … There might be other things that use similar logic. Can we develop computer systems to check each single step and make sure they are now right?”

The ball is in your court. Where it has always been, in my book. You can run, but you can't hide.

.

cthia wrote:The ball is in your court. Where it has always been, in my book. You can run, but you can't hide.

You know how I know you haven't actually read the proof mentioned?

All it says is that Gödel's theorems are correctly formulated assuming his starting axioms are true. However, since no evidence is presented for the validity of those axioms, the assumption that this verification of Gödel's logic is equivalent to proving that god exists is false.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:The ball is in your court. Where it has always been, in my book. You can run, but you can't hide.

You know how I know you haven't actually read the proof mentioned?

All it says is that Gödel's theorems are correctly formulated assuming his starting axioms are true. However, since no evidence is presented for the validity of those axioms, the assumption that this verification of Gödel's logic is equivalent to proving that god exists is false.

Yatta yatta yatta. And the cow jumped over the moon.

Not only read the proof. I had to translate it to Lisp. Nitwit.

cthia wrote:Yatta yatta yatta. And the cow jumped over the moon.

Not only read the proof. I had to translate it to Lisp. Nitwit.

Really? Did that implementation require you to prove the axioms correct too? Or was that a step you skipped as well?

Gödel's proof requires that the axioms are true (like any mathematical proof), but Gödel provides no evidence that they are. You either believe they are, in which case you feel justified in your beliefs, or you don't, in which case this whole proof is just a bit of mathematical wankery with no real impact.

Also, calling me a nitwit does exactly nothing to remove the impression that you're a deluded dilettante far too accustomed to thinking of himself as the smartest guy in the room to ever consider diverging opinions to be worthy of your time.

BTW, I can see that you have no formal experience dealing with proofs. Even one incorrect axiom has a tendency to fall apart in the face of the rigorous aftermath of a formal system of logic. Six of them increases the failure quite a bit.

And no, a formal proof does not prove the existence of God. What formal systems of logic do, is provide the merit of continuing with a certain proposition or theory. Without which, huge investments in time and resources would not be given. That is how the real world works. A formal system of logic begats grants, begats scientists, begats truth. Begats many breakthroughs presently enjoyed by even you.

First step accomplished. About that onus of responsibility, he who runs but can't hide.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:Yatta yatta yatta. And the cow jumped over the moon.

Not only read the proof. I had to translate it to Lisp. Nitwit.

Really? Did that implementation require you to prove the axioms correct too? Or was that a step you skipped as well?

Gödel's proof requires that the axioms are true (like any mathematical proof), but Gödel provides no evidence that they are. You either believe they are, in which case you feel justified in your beliefs, or you don't, in which case this whole proof is just a bit of mathematical wankery with no real impact.

Also, calling me a nitwit does exactly nothing to remove the impression that you're a deluded dilettante far too accustomed to thinking of himself as the smartest guy in the room to ever consider diverging opinions to be worthy of your time.

I simply don't suffer fools. Why is it my fault that I'm usually the smartest guy in the room? This room.

cthia wrote:
I simply don't suffer fools. Why is it my fault that I'm usually the smartest guy in the room? This room.

Answer the question, please. Did you find positive proof that Gödel's axioms are actually true?

Because, if you didn’t, all you did is prove that Gödel was good at math, or using the language of math to make his statements. Not that what he was saying in that language is actually true.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:
I simply don't suffer fools. Why is it my fault that I'm usually the smartest guy in the room? This room.

Answer the question, please. Did you find positive proof that Gödel's axioms are actually true?

Because, if you didn’t, all you did is prove that Gödel was good at math, or using the language of math to make his statements. Not that what he was saying in that language is actually true.

Why do I even bother to engage you? What do you think is the reason for the gargantuan task I've undertaken to take it one giant step further? Formal proofs of logic are also usually the precursor to the nuts and bolts of the mathematics. You're a smart guy in this room. Why don't you know that? Once upon a time I gave too much credit to others in the room and assumed too much. My posts had to be fleshed out, elaborated upon. Now I try to assume very little. That very little still seems to be too much. This is found at the end of the second paragraph of that post, READ THIS S-L-O-W-L-Y. . .

I've been trying for several years now to take it beyond this. Building on the backs of these men, but delving into the nasty time consuming mathematics of it. Time consuming even with mainframes. I've had several people take a few potshots at me regarding it, who simply don't realize the gargantuan number crunching task of even an army of mainframes.

This is the suffering of fools that I mention. It isn't that I don't value anyone's opinion. I don't value those who simply want to waste my time with an argument, for the sake of arguing. If you were interested in truth and if you valued anyone elses's argument, you'd read my posts. But you don't read my posts because you simply want an argument. If you read my posts, you wouldn't have had to ask that question. But you don't, so I either must choose to suffer fools. . .or I don't.

What I see, is someone running from the science at hand by choosing to disrespect me and call me a liar, by choosing to question whether I read a proof that is the basis of my entire work since 2013. If you notice, I didn't join the forum until 2014. Someone who's opinion is worthy of being considered would at least have put that together for himself. But you, The E, lead with your arrogance and disrespectful discourse, as always, which lead to you being embarrassed in a certain thread. You haven't learned the error of your ways. It will always get you labeled a nitwit. It is that which you do. Constantly showing who you are. Are you even capable of having a respectful discourse? It is obvious that you don't know how to handle what I've presented. So you attempt to bury it in your lack of couth, which I choose not to blame on your parents. Some seeds are simply not going to sprout or mature.

Someone who is truly interested in the truth of it, would have concentrated on the breakthrough that that formal proof entails. Instead, let's simply discourse like an idiot. Like a nit (a foolish person) wit.

Yet the proof still stands regardless of your lack of wit or willingness, or inability to grasp, accept its implications, or acknowledge.

But I have to admit, I'm the total nincompoop for trying to engage you. You will never change your spots.

That's a lot of words to say no.

The E wrote:That's a lot of words to say no.

"Suffering fools, Batman."

"The proof is simply too much for you Robin, boy blunder."

There there ::tears forming:: his own science shows evidence of seceding from his union.