He's assumed to exist. — BitconnectCarlos

And what is his follower assumed to do? To reason God's existence? Or perhaps to do something else?

And what is his follower assumed to do? To reason God's existence? Or perhaps to do something else? — ssu

Act righteously and divine favor will follow. "Reasoning God's existence" is not a biblical concern at all.

:yawn:

Act righteously and divine favor will follow. "Reasoning God's existence" is not a biblical concern at all. — BitconnectCarlos

Exactly. So I'm puzzled by those who want to give a proof of God, because they usually are religious people. Why not simply follow the given manuals and act righteously?

So I'm puzzled by those who want to give a proof of God, because they usually are religious people. Why not simply follow the given manuals and act righteously? — ssu

Godel wrote his proof of God for the same reason as why he wrote all his other proofs: because he could.

I would not do it for a rather similar reason: because I can't.

Why not simply follow the given manuals and act righteously? — ssu

Because it's stupid and pointless if there is no God. So you need to figure out if God is real, and if so it is the God of the bible, and if so is the bible literal, and if so, it might make sense to follow the rules (or it might not, the moral thing might be to fight God the evil basted and his bastard children and curse him even if it is futile).

:halo: :up:

Because it's stupid and pointless if there is no God. — bert1

Really?
Acting righteously, being good to other people all those things...you do because only because of God?
And without God it would be pointless?

Godel wrote his proof of God for the same reason as why he wrote all his other proofs: because he could. — Tarskian

Notice that he wasn't an atheist and he did believe in God.

I only say that because it was the reason given in the setup. You were discussing why a person who is already religious would wonder why God exists, why not just follow the rules. So the reason for following the rules assumes the existence of God, in this setup, no? Maybe I misunderstood. But the existence of God is an important factor here because the assumption of his existence is behind the drive to follow the rules. This drive would be on a much more certain footing if God's existence could be established rather than being assumed. Maybe I'm overlooking the importance of faith.

Of course, I don't believe, even if I were a theist, that source of my morality would be in God's will, however revealed. It is in my will. Then God and I can have a fight, or we can negotiate, or agree, or I can submit, or whatever.

Godel wrote his proof of God for the same reason as why he wrote all his other proofs: because he could. — Tarskian

His proof is not successful and he wrote it because he was a theist and believed in an afterlife.

His proof is not successful — Lionino

Gödel's proof is typically reported as "successful":

https://www.fu-berlin.de/en/presse/informationen/fup/2013/fup_13_308/index.html

Independent Confirmation for Gödel's "Proof" of Existence of God

Scientists at Freie Universität and TU Vienna Use Computers to Check Reasoning of Austrian Mathematician

№ 308/2013 from Oct 17, 2013

Scientists at Freie Universität Berlin and the Vienna University of Technology have succeeded in checking and confirming a so-called “proof of God” by the Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel (1906-1978). Christoph Benzmüller from the Dahlem Center for Intelligent Systems and his Viennese colleague Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo succeeded, using computer programs, so-called “theorem provers,” in verifying with the highest mathematical precision the logical correctness of Godel’s proof of God. A short preliminary version of this work is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4526 . The formalization and verification of the proof are online at <a href="https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod</a>.

The consistency of the basic assumptions made by Gödel was confirmed by the computer. Furthermore, the scientists were able to demonstrate that the nontrivial proof was, for the most part, able to be generated automatically by the computer. They had not expected that to be the case.

So, according to you, what's wrong with this German report?

The criticism mentioned in the report is the same as for every other math proof in existence:

The age-old question of God's existence of course remains unanswered and depends on the meaningfulness and reference to reality of the chosen axioms. Gödel's reasoning, however, in the opinion of the computer scientists has been proven to be correct, as demonstrated by the computer.

A proof only demonstrates the equiconsistency between a theorem and its axioms. Nothing more. Nothing less. Hence, Gödel's proof is as succesful or unsuccessful as any other proof in mathematics.

So, according to you, what's wrong with this German report? — Tarskian

You are wrong and a news piece is not a reliable source.

Finding: The theorem prover LEO-II showed that the axioms and definitions in Gödel’s original proof script are inconsistent. This result was new to us.

You are wrong and a news piece is not a reliable source. — Lionino

Can you send a message to the "Office of Communication and Marketing" of the "Freie Universität Berlin" to confirm with you that they are publishing what according to you are errors?

You can contact them using the following information:

Press inquiries
Press and Communication Team
Tel.: +49 (0)30 838 731 80
Email: presseatfu-berlindotde

Expert database
Tel.: +49 (0)30 838 731 91
Email: expertiseatfu-berlindotde

Marketing inquiries
Email: marketingatkumdotfu-berlindotde

Let us know how it went!

In the meanwhile, we can obviously give them the benefit of the doubt. They have spent a lot of time and effort preparing their press release while your being obstructive and negative about the achievements of their university, is at best cheap and easy.

Exactly. So I'm puzzled by those who want to give a proof of God, because they usually are religious people. Why not simply follow the given manuals and act righteously? — ssu

It can be interesting to consider how far philosophy/rationality can lead us towards an understanding of God. Perhaps some type of prime mover necessarily exists.

Because it's stupid and pointless if there is no God. — bert1

Is self-actualization also myth? Or proper socialization? Or ancient history which the bible is a source of.

@180 Proof

Thank you for your answers :pray:

Regarding your first answer, the question is that if the theism is the result of fear of the end that will happen, why do religious theists continue to commit sin despite the warnings of religion? Fear as a natural mechanism always prevents a person from danger, but sin is a selective act. which occurs despite the presence of fear.

Regarding your second answer, the question is why "evolution", which has changed everything, has not changed this concept? We are witnessing both the spread of the modern attitude towards this concept and the primitive attitude towards it.

Regarding your third answer, one can also ask why Spinoza was theistic if consciousness mainly leads to the passing of this concept. Was Descartes a theist? And even today, many thinkers are theists, although many are not theists.

Regarding the fourth answer, the question is that if the issue of death and the concept of immortality is the key to solving the "problem of God", then how can the phenomenon of suicide be justified? Not all people have a desire for immortality, and death is not a natural event, and sometimes it is a choice.

Pardon, but I'm concerned with social "view of the idea of God" preached in religious traditions and actually worshipped (i.e. idolized) by congregants. It's this totalitarian "view of idea of God" that significantly affects cultures and politics and pacifies collective existential angst (e.g. excuses social scapegoating, martyrdom, holy warfare, missionary imperialism, etc) rather than anyone's speculative "view of the idea of God" (such as yours, JuanZu, or my own — 180 Proof

It is not essential to religion that it build the “totalitarian” and “social scapegoating” and “warfare” and “imperialism”.

Whatever club or faction or group of people gathers in a herd, you get the same exact risks of “totalitarian” and “social scapegoating” and “warfare” and “imperialism”.

These are essential to being a human sheep, as so many are, jumping on the bandwagon of naziism, Leninism, colonialism, communism, capitalism, etc.

How many atheists would be fine if all the theists could be rounded up and sent to some colony for the delusional for the greater good of mankind? I’m sure a leader, using the latest political science and social reconstructions could produce cheering and promote mass killing with such a plan (oh right, Russia, China).

Religion and God can be an answer to human bad tendency. I happen to think God is the only answer, our only hope.

Nothing has changed among humans in 10,000 years. Even with religion. But if you look in the rubble of human history, it’s we who destroy each other, again and again. So the only hope for us has to come from outside. Nothing has changed with regard to that either.

It can be interesting to consider how far philosophy/rationality can lead us towards an understanding of God. Perhaps some type of prime mover necessarily exists. — BitconnectCarlos

The study of religion is bit different from the attempt to prove God's existence. The questioning doesn't even start from the obvious question: Is there a God?

AFAIK virtually all ancient societies were theistic -- mostly polytheistic, but in the Hebrew Bible we see this shift from an anthropomorphized conception of Yahweh as a warrior-storm God to aniconic monotheism. I think "is there a God" is an obvious question to modern audiences, but it wasn't to the ancients.

Wrong.

Aren't you forgetting the oldest monotheistic religion, the one of the oldest Empires and Rome's old nemesis, the Fire worshipping Persians? Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion as it is roughly 500 years older than the Jewish religion. But because Islam conquered the Sassanid Empire, we don't hear much about them. But there are a few still even today alive and worshipping the old religion.



I'm always fascinated by the idea that even if there wouldn't be Islam, or the Sassanid and Byzantine empires had stopped the spread of Islam, Iranian still today would be seen as different from us, the Western people as likely they would be all Zoroastrians.

Zoroastrianism is dualistic envisioning a cosmic struggle between a good divine being and an evil one. In Judaism there is no such struggle. God is unquestionably sovereign. I am not too familiar with zoroastrianism/pre-islamic Iran but I'd be interested to learn more.

In Islam God is also unquestionably sovereign. Christianity has elements of dualism (God v. Satan) but it's unclear whether Jesus really preached this or whether it was later addition/extrapolation. Early Christians wrestled with this issue.

The oldest religion is mesopotamian religion which goes back some ~10,000 years. Their god Marduk emerged victorious over the divine pantheon of lesser gods through brute force. Unsurprisingly mesopotamian civilizations were often imperialistic and brutal, particularly the Assyrians.

Nothing has changed among humans in 10,000 years. Even with religion. But if you look in the rubble of human history, it’s we who destroy each other, again and again. So the only hope for us has to come from outside. Nothing has changed with regard to that either. — Fire Ologist

Seems to me gods don't offer any more help than 'utopian' political systems. Whether we opt for the magic space wizard or the leader of the glorious revolution, we're probably fucked.

What makes you think gods comes from the outside? Are they not human creations, as fraught and manufactured as any ideology?

Whether we opt for the magic space wizard or the leader of the glorious revolution, we're probably fucked. — Tom Storm

:up:

I cannot because the article is from 11 years ago. The "mistake" the article makes is not crucial for a news piece, but it is for the bullshit you are trying to push. Nonwithstanding, you are wrong and dishonest, completely ignorant of the context and work around Gödel's work, as it has been proven several times here — a crazy individual abusing mathematical and logical language in an attempt to put on make-up on whatever insanity it is you are devising next.

I think "is there a God" is an obvious question to modern audiences, but it wasn't to the ancients. — BitconnectCarlos

Epicuros, despite believing in (pagan) gods, was an ancient Greek materialist (SEP, Sep 2021). U74, U75, and U76 fragments:
"the nature of existence is atoms and void"
"the nature of the whole universe is atoms and void"

they [Epicureans] held the gods to be immortal and indestructible (how this might work in a materialist universe remains unclear) — SEP

Ancient critics thought the Epicurean gods were a thin smoke-screen to hide Epicurus’ atheism, and difficulties with a literal interpretation of Epicurus’ sayings on the nature of the gods (for instance, it appears inconsistent with Epicurus’ atomic theory to hold that any compound body, even a god, could be immortal) have led some scholars to conjecture that Epicurus’ ‘gods’ are thought-constructs, and exist only in human minds as idealisations, i.e., the gods exist, but only as projections of what the most blessed life would be. — SEP

Many pantheists argue that physical conceptions are adequate to explain the entire cosmos. This is an ancient form of pantheism, found for example in the Stoics, for whom only bodies can be said to exist. [...] Such worldviews make no ontological commitments beyond those sanctioned by empirical science.
[...]
More specifically, God is identical with one of the two ungenerated and indestructible first principles (archai) of the universe. One principle is matter which they regard as utterly unqualified and inert. [...] The designing fire is likened to sperm or seed which contains the first principles or directions of all the things which will subsequently develop. — SEP

The Charvaka were an Indian philosophical school which was strictly materialistic, atheistic, and antidogmatic. They pitched against the Vedic religion and priests that "it could not be proven; it had to be accepted on faith and that faith was encouraged by a priestly class which was clearly benefiting from it at the expense of others" (WHE, Sep 2021). The Ajikiva too did not believe in a particular creator god.
Jainism, one of the oldest documented religions in the world, was actually a godless religion, believing in the holiness of the soul and higher (though mortal) beings.
In his Visuddhimagga, Theravada philosopher Buddhaghosa states "For there is no god Brahma. The maker of the conditioned world of rebirths. Happenings alone flow on. Conditioned by the coming together of causes.".

I cannot because the article is from 11 years ago. — Lionino

If the university believed that their press release was expired, they would retract it or publish a rectification.

It is obviously still valid. If you don't believe that, ask them the question using the contact details that I have provided you with.

a crazy individual ... whatever insanity — Lionino

I am pretty much immune to ad hominem attacks. They say much more about you than about me.

Do you lack self-control? Are you so frustrated with your own inability that you find yourself completely lost in a fit of rage?

How many times have you been kicked out of a meeting for exactly this reason?

So, tell us, when did you lose your job?

It wasn't the economy. We can all see what it really was.

It is actually pointless for you to look for a new job because history is simply going to repeat itself.

You'd better look for a job in which you don't have to interact with anyone, if a thing like that even exists.

If you keep asking 'Yes but why?' eventually even scientifically literate people like yourself, will say 'That's just how it is'. That's a mystery. — bert1

Such asking of why is inappropriate in that it presupposes there must be a reason. Such asking generates pseudo-mystery. Real mystery exists when there is an answer which is not known, not when there cannot be a knowable answer.

If the university believed that their press release was expired, they would retract it or publish a rectification. — Tarskian

It does not matter what the press says, especially when the researchers involved specifically say in their articles that the press has misrepresented their research several times. What matters is what I have quoted multiple times from the paper itself that says the exact contrary of your uneducated proselytising — wrong, from the several papers from different scholars that repeat over and over that Gödel's original axioms are inconsistent. Go send them an email and ask if Gödel's original axioms are consistent. They are not. You are wrong and you don't know what you are talking about.

How many times have you been kicked out of a meeting for exactly this reason?

So, tell us, when did you lose your job?

It wasn't the economy. We can all see what it really was.

It is actually pointless for you to look for a new job because history is simply going to repeat itself.

You'd better look for a job in which you don't have to interact with anyone, if a thing like that even exists. — Tarskian

Laughably pathetic attempt at a character attack. In the real world I do not have to deal with schizoid incompetents with delusions of grandeur like you babbling about things they are two degrees away from studying, no such issues follow.

Laughably pathetic attempt at a character attack. — Lionino

Come on. I've seen people getting kicked out of the meeting for less than that.

I'm still trying to think of an environment in which a character like you would manage to survive. I can't think of any. It is against human nature.

In the real world I do not have to deal with schizoid incompetents with delusions of grandeur like you babbling about things they are two degrees away from studying, no such issues follow. — Lionino

You really don't know the real world, do you?

Of course the customer is incompetent. Otherwise, he wouldn't need you. But then again, it is obvious that he will ask the company for someone else to deal with the case, while you can pack your bags and go.

How many times do you think that you can do that before your company pulls the plug on you? That is why I am so sure that they have done it already!