Thursday, October 31, 2013

G-d exists! Scientists claim proof found in Godel's theorem

Epoch Times   Two scientists believe that they have proven that God exists.

Analyzing a theorem from the late Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel with a Macbook has proven that God exists, say the two scientists–Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin’s Free University and his colleague, Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna.

Gödel’s theorem is based on modal logic, a type of formal logic that, narrowly defined, involves the use of the expressions “necessarily” and “possibly,” according to Stanford University.

The theorem says that God, or a supreme being, 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.

Paleo and Benzmüller say that they have proven that the theorem is correct, at least on a mathematical level.

In their initial submission on a research server, “Formalization, Mechanization and Automation of Gödel’s Proof of God’s Existence,” the pair so that “Goedel’s ontological proof has been analysed for the first-time with an unprecedent degree of detail and formality with the help of higher-order theorem provers.”

They add: “The following has been done (and in this order): A detailed natural deduction proof. A formalization of the axioms, definitions and theorems in the TPTP THF syntax. Automatic verification of the consistency of the axioms and definitions with Nitpick. Automatic demonstration of the theorems with the provers LEO-II and Satallax. A step-by-step formalization using the Coq proof assistant. A formalization using the Isabelle proof assistant, where the theorems (and some additional lemmata) have been automated with Sledgehammer and Metis.”[...]


  1. Hashem exists, of course but Och Und Vay if this is our proof. I suppose it's good for the less philosophically inclined who will be bedazzled by all this, but the fallacy in the logic is blatant. First of all, if these 2 axioms are to be understood in the way that they are trying to sell us on, they contradict one another. If G-d's existence in our understanding refers to his actual existence there, and not just our perception of it, then if nothing greater could be conceived, then we can't conceive that he would be greater by existing in reality. If in fact these axioms are true, that is only in the sense that they are intended. 'G-d exists in our understanding' means that we understand 'that' he exists. it doesn't meant that his actual existence is present in our understanding.(If it was to mean that, and we accept that as a given, then no further proof is needed anyway) So the entire logic is intrinsically flawed. Then they dissect the proof and analyze each axiom on it's own, and it works well because it's true in the way it is truly intended. And then they analyze the form of the logic, and that works too. But it's a trick.

    This is similar to a proof that some people use to justify dishonest business practice. They use an assertion of 'Identity'. Identity is of course always true. X=X etc. So they say 'business is business' The trick is that the intended definition of the first mention of the word business is not the same as the intended definition of the second. Business1 = the practice of making one's living by engaging in commerce. Business2 = using any means even if dishonest to achieve a goal(This is the way the word is meant sometimes)

    But again, most people could be bedazzled.

    1. I see something like what you're saying in this article

      He clearly explains in terms that I can understand, the flaws in this logic.

  2. caution on the source of this story. this "epoch times" is a freebie paper given out in new york (?elsewhere?) and is a moonie type (not moonie, but that type) of religious publication, thiough fiercely anti communist.

    1. Well Der Spiegel apparently covered it as well.

  3. First of all, this is a waste of time. Just read the first chapter of Chovos HaLevavos for a good proof.
    Second, firm scientific evidence of God's existence is a bad thing. Just ask anyone who has read The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. (V'hameivin yavin)

  4. It may work mathematically but it sounds like gobbledygook.

    1. It is essentially Des Cartes' Meditation on First Philosophy run through a bunch of mathematical theorems and proofs to "prove" it's accuracy.

    2. Rabbi Tzadok
      Show me where Des Cartes writes this proof.

      This proof is from St. Anselm

      I hereby try to explain the logic in a simple form. Then I can show the fallacy.

      1. Anyone can understand the concept of there existing a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.

      The question is, when he understands this, is it only something in his imagination or does it really exist.

      So the logic goes on to prove that this concept that the person conceives must also exist in reality. Here is the proof:

      2. The person who conceives the existence of this being, knows that the being in it's true existence is greater than the mere imagination and conception of this being, so...

      3. If this being exists only in his imagination but not in reality, then the existence of this being isn't the greatest that can be conceived, because he can conceive it to be greater if it would exist in reality.

      4. Therefore it can't be that it exists only in his imagination because then it contradicts itself.

      5. So it must also exist in reality. (Because that way it is a meaningful thought and not a contradictory one.)

      I can take this apart in several ways, because there are fallacies all along the process of this logic, but the easiest to explain to anyone is this:

      Step 5 should really say this:

      So it must also exist in reality, according to the concept that this person is imagining.

      But we haven't proven that he's imagining a true concept.

      So the reasoning is basically flawed: If what he is imagining is correct then it must be that this Great Being exists not only in his mind but also in reality, but it has yet to be shown that what he is imagining is correct.

      Unless we assert that everything that a person imagines must be a reality, so then where are the flying purple elephants?

    3. Hence, like I said it was Des Cartes' Mediation on first philosophy:
      It is essentially mediation 1-3.

      In meditation one, he says that nothing outside of the mind can be intrinsically trusted.

      In mediation two he lays his premise that the human mind and what it can conceive thus is the ultimate reality.

      In mediation three he lays out the proof of the existence of God by the inherent nature that it is the greatest thing that the human mind can conceive.

      I'm not saying that it is the most convincing proof, or that it is the oldest version of this argument, but it is the one I am familiar with.

    4. Rabbi Tzadok
      You either don't possess the ability to understand this type of philosophy, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what Des Cartes wrote.

      I can't bother getting into an unending debate with you about this, especially since you have an advantage over me - that you can take the liberty to say things without them having to be based on the truth - a liberty which I don't wish to take, so I'll just leave it here.

      If anyone who reads this blog, who has the palate and the skill for such a discussion, wishes to know the truth, they will have to do their own research, or just arbitrarily believe whoever has a more convincing pen.

    5. Or I am talking about my remembrance of what a book that I haven't read in nearly 20yrs says.

      I would be happy to hear how you feel that this misrepresents Des Cartes.

    6. Fine. Yasher Koach. I have renewed respect. In that case you can reread it and you'll see for yourself.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.