http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property Axiom 1 assumes that it is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel comments that "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995). Axioms 2, 3 and 4 can be summarized by saying that positive properties form a principal ultrafilter. From these axioms and definitions and a few other axioms from modal logic, the following theorems can be proved: Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified. Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent. Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. http://www.spiegel.de/international...ically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4526 By no means is this the right answer, but this is only an explanation that there are empirical scientific models that exist and respected scientists are testing this theory. In fact, there is an "on-going" study group on this theory.
http://www.ericsteinhart.com/articles/divineinfinity.pdf On this pdf, there is another mathematical model theory of a divine infinite God.
Now on the objections with the atheist, using respected scientist throughout history. Now it doesn't mean they believe in God, but it definitely suggests that they agree that the concept of God is a "REAL POSSIBILITY"
Here is an interesting link on math equations on the divine equation http://www.mathmonism.com/eulersidentity.html
That's weird. The arguments say there are no scientific evidence on the concept of God. Then once I post a mathematical equation (scientific) and you make a joke that you don't require faith?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/mathematical-argument-for-the-existence-of-god.9553/ 1.] If it is possible for a mind to perfectly understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality, then the mind that perfectly models reality is a super-intelligence, for all intents and purposes, the super-intelligence is God.[ This is self evident. No human[sub-sentient] mind will ever be able to know every aspect and detail of the universe from its beginning to its ending. We are the products of a creator, we are not "the" Creator.] 2.]If the perfect correspondence can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional "limit", then the limit exists, even though a sentient mind within reality can only approach the limit. [ All that needs to be proven is that the limit converges. No "sub-sentient" mind within creation itself can know every aspect of ...creation itself.] 3.] If the limit exists, the exact mental correspondence exists in the mind of a super-intelligence. [self evident] 4.] That is to say, if the limit exists then a description exists. [another way of stating 3.] 5.] If the description exists then the "describer" exists, since the description is "isomorphic"[ one to one and onto]. 6.]The describer is a super-intelligence. 7.] By definition, the super-intelligence is God. The burden of proof becomes the burden of proving the "convergence", to an exact correspondence, between the mental construct[infinite number of axioms] and reality At the limit [MIND]<--->[REALITY] M = R [axiomatic method]--->[exact correspondence]<---[scientific method]
Sorry if I snapped at you. This is mainly a response to Denny and his remarks "Science and God are not compatible". Also, his claims that there are no "empirical evidence" on the existence or concept of God. So I do agree that there must be a level of "Faith" required to believe in God, it doesn't take away that there is still empirical evidence that God does exist.
From the title to this thread, I thought you had gone all Barfo in your approach to this: Supermodels exist, therefore there is a god.
[video=youtube;LFSRTsLOiv0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFSRTsLOiv0[/video] Watch this video. It even talks about how science cannot measure "consciousness".
Godel's work is fascinating, but claiming that is proves god's existence is a contradiction with the theory itself - because by accepting Godel's work as an axiom and using it to prove the existence of God within it's system you break Godel's theory that you can prove all the things in the system without getting out of it. All Godel's work really says is that you can not prove everything within the system, you will always need something out of the system to do so. If this thing is god, a giant turtle floating through space with 4 elephants on it holding the discworld or a manifestation of PapaG's rants - we can not tell... You can take the same theorem and apply it to, say, the bible - as your set of axioms - and given that it is your system - using Godel you show that mathematically it is impossible to prove the bible's axiom so any argument that says "because it is in the bible" is bunk. FWIW - I love "Godel, Escher, Bach" - a really interesting book about cognitive functions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach
I will agree that this can be applied for any situation, but that's what makes the model so important. It is the main reason why most atheist hold onto a agnostic approach on the existence of God. There is "always" a possibility for this to be truth, because this model makes it so. Doesn't mean it is so, but it definitely proves that there is no irrefutable proof there isn't. Look at the other models. They are pretty cool too. Or the concept that the Universe has "uniformity", using the Golden Rule. Again, this isn't a "irrefutable" proof God exists, but the probability the universe has purpose or design is highly probable.
Remove the "highly" and I agree. I agree that there is a probability that something like a God exists, I will say however that the probability that it is anything like what humans tell us through anyone of the millions of religions is infinitesimally small, so my advice, if you want to be a gambling man and believe in one - is to make up in your mind what is needed of you without any need to reference existing religions, because you are just as likely to hit it right and be in it's good graces with your own made up rules as you are with religion X's rules.
I agree with most of what you say. I question everything, even my faith. I think a logical man would do such a thing. I've also played with the concept of a conscious universe. It seems logical and could explain how the universe could have an "absolute beginning" and being eternal, which is completely compatible. I choose the Jehovah God, just because it fits best for me. But as I have already proven many times before, I am not of the same mold of most Christians.
I would replace probability with possibility. There is nothing I am aware of that would argue that something "God-like" is probable. It's certainly possible though.
Actually sense you are delving into the possible mathematical probabilities of god. I will disagree with where the faith is needed. I think when to take this concept far enough you will find the faith is require to believe god does not exist.
I meant Probability in the mathematical sense - where you assign percentages to the likelihood that a statement/event is true.
It's an interesting approach to take to the question of the existence of God, but my level of mathematics is fairly low so understanding all the math is not possible for me. For me, there are a few parts to the question. 1) I can't disprove God, so it remains a possibility no matter how remote. 2) From the beginning of time till now everything needs to fit together like a puzzle, some questions answered and some unanswered, but enough logic for me to hold that there is no requirement of any outside guidance (God) to play any role since time began. 3) there is no way for us to understand what preceded the Big Bang but none of our laws would hold true then, so if there were any type of force I can't understand (including God) this is the most likely place for it to present itself. But since I live in the world after time began and have no idea how to comprehend the preceding everything, I must base my belief structure on the period that is potentially knowable. God is possible, but totally unlikley.