Wow. Incredible news. God’s existence has been verified by science and mathematics using Macbooks. The findings are irrefutable:
Scientists “prove” that God exists by analyzing a theory posed by mathematician Kurt Godel.
Here’s what Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin’s Free University and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo came up with: “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” (via The Inquisitr).
So scientists “prove” God exists by providing a philosophical answer that fails to give concrete reason — but people are sort of rolling with it. However, the scientific theory posed above checks out and is sound… scientifically, even if you don’t really understand it. It was basically a numbers game… and two guys proved the theory using their Macbooks.
“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,” said Benzmüller.
The fact that Macbooks were used for this makes it absolute truth. Sorry atheists. All your arguments are now invalid!
Winner, Mid Week Blues Buster
I find these word games so painful.
1. It is possible that a maximally great being (AKA, the Middle Eastern Christian god) exists.
2. If it’s possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, god exists!
Voilà! Complete and utter nonsense, but Voilà just the same, and this word-play represents the greatest ontological argument for the existence of god ever conceived of by the greatest thinkers in the Christian world. Odd.
Posted by john zande | 30 October, 2013, 4:16 pmI know. It made me laugh as well. It means absolutely nothing, really. Silly stuff.
Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 30 October, 2013, 4:48 pmChristian philosophers drive me nuts. At least something like the Templeton Foundation is paying for actual research. I might think it’s a ludicrous waste of money, but they are trying to do something physical. Is there spirit? Let’s test it! Hurrah!
Posted by john zande | 30 October, 2013, 4:51 pm“2. If it’s possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.”
Sorry. I’m not an atheist but what leads them to that leap of – pardon me – faith? That’s not scientific reasoning, it’s pseudoscience!
Present company of course always excluded: 😀
A mathematician, a physicist and an engineer are asked to prove the theorem that all uneven numbers are prime. (For the purposes of this, we go with the original definitions and accept that the number 1 conforms with the laws a prime must conform to, and is therefore classifiable as prime.)
Mathematician:
“One is prime. Three is prime. Five is prime. Seven is prime.
By induction it follows that all uneven numbers are prime. Q.E.D.”
Physicist:
“One is prime. Three is prime. Five is prime. Seven is prime.
Nine is not prime – measurement error.
Eleven is prime, thirteen is prime….”
Engineer:
“One is prime. Three is prime. Five is prime.
Seven is prime. Nine is prime. Eleven is prime. …”
Q.E.D
Posted by gipsika | 30 October, 2013, 5:37 pmRAts, posted the wrong quote! I meant:
“3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.”
That is the leap of faith.
Posted by gipsika | 30 October, 2013, 5:38 pmIt’s goofy. And even if it were a feasible theorem, what does it actually prove? Absolutely nothing.
Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 30 October, 2013, 6:41 pmIt proves nothing because the theorem can be used to say a Giant smurf exists in the same context. All they did was prove the theorem, they didn’t prove the existence of a GOD.. You can place anything you want and can imagine to “X” and the theorem will result in a positive answer. If you tweak the theorem you can always result in a negative answer.
btw, this deals with pure mathematics and not applied mathematics. Hence they didn’t do any science regarding the existence of anything in place of X, in this case “GOD”..
Posted by thejackelscolumn | 14 November, 2013, 2:21 amI know. Hilarious stuff. This stuff makes headlines?? I’m still laughing about it. I guess mathematicians are sick of the scientists getting all the press!
Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 14 November, 2013, 6:36 amIt’s a terrible argument isn’t it! SO many problems. Like everyone will have their own definition of “great” and will come up with different gods. And just because you imagine it, doesn’t mean it exists – no matter how great.
It’s kind of a cool philosophy question but doesn’t really have anything to do with God or proving God. But still fun to think about in terms of meaning/definition, words, logic, etc.
Thanks for reminding me about this ridiculous argument!
Posted by Perspective Collector | 30 October, 2013, 6:51 pmOh, and just because something is possible, doesn’t mean it exists.
Posted by Perspective Collector | 30 October, 2013, 6:52 pmIt’s hilariously meaningless. I don’t even know why it’s newsworthy except as a joke.
Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 30 October, 2013, 7:02 pmSorry Mr. Jobs, but I’m going to stick with my HP: a real atheist’s laptop…
Posted by Arkenaten | 31 October, 2013, 4:14 amBlasphemy! Hahaha.
Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 31 October, 2013, 8:18 pm