Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God SCIENTISTS have ‘confirmed’ the existence of God after proving a mathematician’s theory which suggests that there is a higher power. By Sean Martin PUBLISHED: 03:00, Sun, Jan 22, 2017 | UPDATED: 09:03, Sun, Jan 22, 2017
Two computer scientists say they proved that there is a holy supreme force after confirming the equations.
In 1978, mathematician Kurt Gödel died and left behind a long and complex theory based on modal logic.
Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.
Scientists claim to have proof of God
Mathmatician Kurt Gödel established the equation
Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God
Or as Dr Gödel put it through his equations: “Ax. 1. {P(φ)∧◻∀x[φ(x)→ψ(x)]} →P(ψ)Ax. 2.P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)Th. 1.P(φ)→◊∃x[φ(x)]Df. 1.G(x)⟺∀φ[P(φ)→φ(x)]Ax. 3.P(G)Th. 2.◊∃xG(x)Df. 2.φ ess x⟺φ(x)∧∀ψ{ψ(x)→◻∀y[φ(y)→ψ(y)]}Ax. 4.P(φ)→◻P(φ)Th. 3.G(x)→G ess xDf. 3.E(x)⟺∀φ[φ ess x→◻∃yφ(y)]Ax. 5.P(E)Th. 4.◻∃xG(x)”.
You get it, right?
But two computer scientists have used computers to run such complicated which they say confirms that the equation does indeed add up.
The point of the researchers’ argument was that they were not directly trying to prove the existence of God, but rather to showcase the power of computers.
Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University, who ran the calculations along with Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, told Spiegel Online: "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.
“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…
Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God SCIENTISTS have ‘confirmed’ the existence of God after proving a mathematician’s theory which suggests that there is a higher power. By Sean Martin PUBLISHED: 03:00, Sun, Jan 22, 2017 | UPDATED: 09:03, Sun, Jan 22, 2017
Two computer scientists say they proved that there is a holy supreme force after confirming the equations.
In 1978, mathematician Kurt Gödel died and left behind a long and complex theory based on modal logic.
Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.
Scientists claim to have proof of God
Mathmatician Kurt Gödel established the equation
Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God
Or as Dr Gödel put it through his equations: “Ax. 1. {P(φ)∧◻∀x[φ(x)→ψ(x)]} →P(ψ)Ax. 2.P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)Th. 1.P(φ)→◊∃x[φ(x)]Df. 1.G(x)⟺∀φ[P(φ)→φ(x)]Ax. 3.P(G)Th. 2.◊∃xG(x)Df. 2.φ ess x⟺φ(x)∧∀ψ{ψ(x)→◻∀y[φ(y)→ψ(y)]}Ax. 4.P(φ)→◻P(φ)Th. 3.G(x)→G ess xDf. 3.E(x)⟺∀φ[φ ess x→◻∃yφ(y)]Ax. 5.P(E)Th. 4.◻∃xG(x)”.
You get it, right?
But two computer scientists have used computers to run such complicated which they say confirms that the equation does indeed add up.
The point of the researchers’ argument was that they were not directly trying to prove the existence of God, but rather to showcase the power of computers.
Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University, who ran the calculations along with Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, told Spiegel Online: "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.
“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…
I don't know about proving the existence of God, but it's a pretty good explanation of why mathematicians never get laid.
without getting too deeply into Plato and his "Grand Pattern" of design, surely the fact that a human mind can conceive of mathematical symbols, and physics, and then convert that thought into the English language does mean something "Mystical, supernatural, or metaphysical" is going on.
or, as Trump said, The Almighty Creator must be addressed.
without getting too deeply into Plato and his "Grand Pattern" of design, surely the fact that a human mind can conceive of mathematical symbols, and physics, and then convert that thought into the English language does mean something "Mystical, supernatural, or metaphysical" is going on.
or, as Trump said, The Almighty Creator must be addressed.
without getting too deeply into Plato and his "Grand Pattern" of design, surely the fact that a human mind can conceive of mathematical symbols, and physics, and then convert that thought into the English language does mean something "Mystical, supernatural, or metaphysical" is going on.
or, as Trump said, The Almighty Creator must be addressed.
without getting too deeply into Plato and his "Grand Pattern" of design, surely the fact that a human mind can conceive of mathematical symbols, and physics, and then convert that thought into the English language does mean something "Mystical, supernatural, or metaphysical" is going on.
or, as Trump said, The Almighty Creator must be addressed.
without getting too deeply into Plato and his "Grand Pattern" of design, surely the fact that a human mind can conceive of mathematical symbols, and physics, and then convert that thought into the English language does mean something "Mystical, supernatural, or metaphysical" is going on.
or, as Trump said, The Almighty Creator must be addressed.
Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God SCIENTISTS have ‘confirmed’ the existence of God after proving a mathematician’s theory which suggests that there is a higher power. By Sean Martin PUBLISHED: 03:00, Sun, Jan 22, 2017 | UPDATED: 09:03, Sun, Jan 22, 2017
Two computer scientists say they proved that there is a holy supreme force after confirming the equations.
In 1978, mathematician Kurt Gödel died and left behind a long and complex theory based on modal logic.
Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.
Scientists claim to have proof of God
Mathmatician Kurt Gödel established the equation
Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God
Or as Dr Gödel put it through his equations: “Ax. 1. {P(φ)∧◻∀x[φ(x)→ψ(x)]} →P(ψ)Ax. 2.P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)Th. 1.P(φ)→◊∃x[φ(x)]Df. 1.G(x)⟺∀φ[P(φ)→φ(x)]Ax. 3.P(G)Th. 2.◊∃xG(x)Df. 2.φ ess x⟺φ(x)∧∀ψ{ψ(x)→◻∀y[φ(y)→ψ(y)]}Ax. 4.P(φ)→◻P(φ)Th. 3.G(x)→G ess xDf. 3.E(x)⟺∀φ[φ ess x→◻∃yφ(y)]Ax. 5.P(E)Th. 4.◻∃xG(x)”.
You get it, right?
But two computer scientists have used computers to run such complicated which they say confirms that the equation does indeed add up.
The point of the researchers’ argument was that they were not directly trying to prove the existence of God, but rather to showcase the power of computers.
Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University, who ran the calculations along with Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, told Spiegel Online: "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.
“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…
I don't know about proving the existence of God, but it's a pretty good explanation of why mathematicians AND SHEHAWKS DIENASTY NUTJOBS never get laid.
You don't need calculation to prove God. Just go outside and look around.
Well...I just did that, and all I saw was a skiff of snow and a cottontail grazing in my yard.
How can you miss seeing what you saw? Water: earth is the only known planet with liquid water and a constant temperature for life to exist. It's exactly the right distance from the sun and with the perfect atmosphere for liquid water and where life can be found.
Rabbit: billions of individual cells working in perfect coordination to be an living animal. Trillions of atoms forming DNA molecules that can control everything in the animal plus reproduce itself time after time (rabbits are very good at that). Millions of those cells are in the form of muscles that can be used by other organisms (us and coyotes) for food.
So now that you know Allah is real, are you all happy?
I've always known Allah is real. That's just one name, the others are Lucifer, Satan, The Evil One.
What name shall a Christian invoke as he prays, if the only language he knows is Arabic?
Good point, yet we only know the islamic god by what they call him in their language. Since that word has transcended language barriers it is easy to reference who exactly you are talking about.
And Allah does not mean God, but almost, it means The god. Just god would be ilah. But Arabic Christians do use the word Allah.
Of course we do not know the name of God and I think we err if we think he needs one. We have always called God by his attributes. The Hebrew did the same.
Name invocations really mean nothing, as if you are casting a spell or praying to an angel or a demon (which you are not to do). The fact is there is a clear difference in the islamic god and the Christian one. They are in many way opposite.Nowhere in the Bible does it say to convert by the sword.
Of course we do not know the name of God and I think we err if we think he needs one. We have always called God by his attributes. The Hebrew did the same.
Exodus 3:13-14
"Then Moses said to God, 'Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you." Now they may say to me, "What is His name?" What shall I say to them?' God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you."'"
John 8:56-59 "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' So the Jews said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.' Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple."
Of course we do not know the name of God and I think we err if we think he needs one. We have always called God by his attributes. The Hebrew did the same.
without getting too deeply into Plato and his "Grand Pattern" of design, surely the fact that a human mind can conceive of mathematical symbols, and physics, and then convert that thought into the English language does mean something "Mystical, supernatural, or metaphysical" is going on.
or, as Trump said, The Almighty Creator must be addressed.
Of course we do not know the name of God and I think we err if we think he needs one. We have always called God by his attributes. The Hebrew did the same.
It seems like some people want God to 'first' prove Himself to them...so they can 'then' trust Him. God likely wants people to trust Him 'first'...so He can 'then' prove Himself to them.
So now that you know Allah is real, are you all happy?
I've always known Allah is real. That's just one name, the others are Lucifer, Satan, The Evil One.
What name shall a Christian invoke as he prays, if the only language he knows is Arabic?
Good point, yet we only know the islamic god by what they call him in their language. Since that word has transcended language barriers it is easy to reference who exactly you are talking about.
And Allah does not mean God, but almost, it means The god. Just god would be ilah. But Arabic Christians do use the word Allah.
Of course we do not know the name of God and I think we err if we think he needs one. We have always called God by his attributes. The Hebrew did the same.
Name invocations really mean nothing, as if you are casting a spell or praying to an angel or a demon (which you are not to do). The fact is there is a clear difference in the islamic god and the Christian one. They are in many way opposite.Nowhere in the Bible does it say to convert by the sword.
It says they "proved 'god' exists" They didn't say it was the god christians want it to be. That's just an assumption based on prejudice.
Your buddy there claims Allah means the devil. You say it means god
I think it's all just wishful thinking to assume your way is the only way.
Those scientists really haven't proven anything at all.
There is a kind Catch-22 involved in that only believers have it confirmed for them -- Romans 8:16: The spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
It seems like you need to get a new computer, then. It sure appears to have a lot of garbage based on what you share as knowledge.
Can you mathematically refute the equation?
I don't need to.
Let's take the hypothesis, and replace the word god with pixies.
"Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated,the essence is that no greater power than pixies can be conceived, and if pixies are believed as a concept then pixies can exist in reality."
As notice the proposition is they can exist. Not that they do exist.
I can conceive of a leprechaun, but claiming that because 2+2=4, they are real is absurd.
God called himself?....the term God Its just a label that humans of antiquity put on the concept, and people have been indoctrinated with and parroted ever since.
Originally Posted by Rock Chuck
earth is the only known planet with liquid water and a constant temperature for life to exist..
correct only 'known' planet...but the universe being so extensive humans at this point are still rather clueless about what may be out there. I prefer having an open mind to rational discovery rather than just attributing every current mystery to 'God'.
Rabbits born and dying in the same warren complex , may not know of the existence and abundance of other warrens.
In the ancient world the only 'known' things capable of flight were bugs and birds, but just over 100 yrs ago innovative man learned how to fly, something once thought not possible.
It seems like you need to get a new computer, then. It sure appears to have a lot of garbage based on what you share as knowledge.
Can you mathematically refute the equation?
I don't need to.
Let's take the hypothesis, and replace the word god with pixies.
"Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated,the essence is that no greater power than pixies can be conceived, and if pixies are believed as a concept then pixies can exist in reality."
As notice the proposition is they can exist. Not that they do exist.
I can conceive of a leprechaun, but claiming that because 2+2=4, they are real is absurd.
For sure. I have proved that to myself many times. But trying to prove it to a non believer is usually futile so I keep it to myself unless somebody asks.
It seems like you need to get a new computer, then. It sure appears to have a lot of garbage based on what you share as knowledge.
Can you mathematically refute the equation?
I don't need to.
Let's take the hypothesis, and replace the word god with pixies.
"Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated,the essence is that no greater power than pixies can be conceived, and if pixies are believed as a concept then pixies can exist in reality."
As notice the proposition is they can exist. Not that they do exist.
I can conceive of a leprechaun, but claiming that because 2+2=4, they are real is absurd.
You can use any word you want to describe the Infinite that these equations show to be God. you just can't handle any Truth.
It seems like you need to get a new computer, then. It sure appears to have a lot of garbage based on what you share as knowledge.
Can you mathematically refute the equation?
I don't need to.
Let's take the hypothesis, and replace the word god with pixies.
"Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated,the essence is that no greater power than pixies can be conceived, and if pixies are believed as a concept then pixies can exist in reality."
As notice the proposition is they can exist. Not that they do exist.
I can conceive of a leprechaun, but claiming that because 2+2=4, they are real is absurd.
You can use any word you want to describe the Infinite that these equations show to be God. you just can't handle any Truth.
The equations don't prove anything, just like there's no other proof of any "god'.
It's the religious crowd that can't accept that truth, so they mumble about "faith" and quote fairy tales from an old book and say "See, we told you it was real. Just look around."
I look around and see all these people claiming to be pious one minute and acting like heathens the next, which shows me it's all BS.
Yes He is! And what man believes or doesn't believe cannot and will not change that fact. And one day, everyone will bow before Him and confess that He is Lord. If only we could speak to those in hell...for there are no atheists in hell.
The point of the researchers’ argument was that they were not directly trying to prove the existence of God, but rather to showcase the power of computers.
There is no doubt in my mind as to God's existence. But too many Christians are too easily distracted from their purpose and this thread is a perfect example. Read the OP carefully, the whole point is in the quote above.
No one used a computer to prove God is real. But a bunch of Christians got all upset over some fake news and tried to come to Gods defense. God is in charge and doesn't need our help. Our job is to simply do our job as Christians.
You bring up an interesting point. However, this is one of those rare times when Science and Mathematics are actually on the side of Faith.
Y'all read about all this hooey where science writers are trying to make the belief in God seem like a silly superstition. The truth is Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. True Science is a tool to understanding the same way diesel mechanics is a tool to understanding how trucks run. You can't really use either to prove or disprove God.
On the other hand, look at some of the great minds of Science during the Enlightenment. Most were convinced Science would bring them to a better understanding of God. Here is an instance where that belief paid off.
For those of you who are saying something to the effect of "I have Faith, that's all I need." This is, in essence, a mathematic equivalent.
From the Wikipedia entry on Godel's Proof:
Quote
The argument is in a line of development that goes back to Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109). St. Anselm's ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows: "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.
or distilled further: "If you can conceive of GOD then he must exist."
or as I always say, "I'm not so worried about whether I believe in God, but rather whether He believes in me."
The point of the researchers’ argument was that they were not directly trying to prove the existence of God, but rather to showcase the power of computers.
There is no doubt in my mind as to God's existence. But too many Christians are too easily distracted from their purpose and this thread is a perfect example. Read the OP carefully, the whole point is in the quote above.
No one used a computer to prove God is real. But a bunch of Christians got all upset over some fake news and tried to come to Gods defense. God is in charge and doesn't need our help. Our job is to simply do our job as Christians.
The reason there are so many easily confused Christians is because they don’t realize scientific facts and history support God’s Word. We are enjoined by God’s Word to “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;" 1 Peter 3:15
without getting too deeply into Plato and his "Grand Pattern" of design, surely the fact that a human mind can conceive of mathematical symbols, and physics, and then convert that thought into the English language does mean something "Mystical, supernatural, or metaphysical" is going on.
or, as Trump said, The Almighty Creator must be addressed.
Cogito ergo sum.
Right over the head of most.
shoot low boys, they're riding shetland ponies.
^^^^ Best reply on this whole thread. Spot on. Thanks, Gus!
Of course we do not know the name of God and I think we err if we think he needs one. We have always called God by his attributes. The Hebrew did the same.
His name is Andy.
Andy walked with me.... Andy talked with me...
We have two angel ornaments we hang on the tree every Christmas; Hark & Harold. And on Christmas day Hark & Harold angels sing "Glory to the newborn King"
But seriously folks, I don't have the faith required to deny the existence of God. And I haven't found Him to be some sort of a magician that makes things appear out of nowhere with no evidence of process. God is the Grand Scientist. He made mathmatics, physical science, quantitative analysis, quantum physics, heat hot, ice cold and on and on and on. For example, my understanding of evolution does not conflict with God the Creator (Elohim). The scientific study of evolution to me is just backtracking God. That isn't to say opinions based on slim evidence are always right. Most likely many of the things scientists today are convinced are true are false or only partially right no matter how firmly it is believed. Belief doesn't change absolute fact. He didn't create earth, or any of His creations for that matter, as static entities. Instead, thru His will and power He gave them all the ability to adapt as necessary in the face of change. Sermon over. Pop quiz later.
But seriously folks, I don't have the faith required to deny the existence of God. And I haven't found Him to be some sort of a magician that makes things appear out of nowhere with no evidence of process. God is the Grand Scientist. He made mathmatics, physical science, quantitative analysis, quantum physics, heat hot, ice cold and on and on and on. For example, my understanding of evolution does not conflict with God the Creator (Elohim). The scientific study of evolution to me is just backtracking God. That isn't to say opinions based on slim evidence are always right. Most likely many of the things scientists today are convinced are true are false or only partially right no matter how firmly it is believed. Belief doesn't change absolute fact. He didn't create earth, or any of His creations for that matter, as static entities. Instead, thru His will and power He gave them all the ability to adapt as necessary in the face of change. Sermon over. Pop quiz later.
so, very true. but it works on both sides of the ledger. a lot of stuff promulgated by the theological types have been proven to be less than stellar in accuracy. but, we have changed in our understandings over the years, over the thousands of years since Abraham et.al. science wants to occupy a piece or part of the stage. and well it should. that means something has got to give.
Yes He is! And what man believes or doesn't believe cannot and will not change that fact. And one day, everyone will bow before Him and confess that He is Lord. If only we could speak to those in hell...for there are no atheists in hell.
So now that you know Allah is real, are you all happy?
There's nothing about knowing Satan is real to make one happy, unless one is you.
That's the sort of mindless BS "christians" say without thinking. If you believe god is real you have to already believe satan is real.
But none of that has anything to do with the statement you quoted, proving you didn't understand what was said.
You not only want to pretend some math tricks "prove" there's a god, but that it's the god you want it to be.
For someone (you) that prattles on and on about minding your own business, you sure get all wound up about what other folks have for their personal religious beliefs.
But the caveat you intentionally did not point out (first rule of fake news) is that for the proof to be proven is that you have to accept five questionable Axioms as true to begin with.
But seriously folks, I don't have the faith required to deny the existence of God. And I haven't found Him to be some sort of a magician that makes things appear out of nowhere with no evidence of process. God is the Grand Scientist. He made mathmatics, physical science, quantitative analysis, quantum physics, heat hot, ice cold and on and on and on. For example, my understanding of evolution does not conflict with God the Creator (Elohim). The scientific study of evolution to me is just backtracking God. That isn't to say opinions based on slim evidence are always right. Most likely many of the things scientists today are convinced are true are false or only partially right no matter how firmly it is believed. Belief doesn't change absolute fact. He didn't create earth, or any of His creations for that matter, as static entities. Instead, thru His will and power He gave them all the ability to adapt as necessary in the face of change. Sermon over. Pop quiz later.
so, very true. but it works on both sides of the ledger. a lot of stuff promulgated by the theological types have been proven to be less than stellar in accuracy. but, we have changed in our understandings over the years, over the thousands of years since Abraham et.al. science wants to occupy a piece or part of the stage. and well it should. that means something has got to give.
Absolutely the inverse of that statement is true. But ahhhh, UNDERSTANDING!! Many things we deny to be, are true in fact but we miss the full truth because we misinterpret fact. Things we claim to be true may be false for the same reason. Many things we interpret to be true really are, even though the facts are not fully understood or communicated. They are true but incompletely so as viewed or described. Example I have pondered greatly but do not yet have a full understanding of:
The Jews of Exodus wandering in the desert described God who led them as a 'Cloud of Smoke' by day and a 'Pillar of Fire by night'. No doubt to me they reported fact, but there is much more there they did not have the ability to interpret even as they watched. So they were accurate but 'incomplete' in their description. How would one of us interpret the same 'fact' were we to view it with today's understanding of reality? It'll be amazing to find out.
And now for today's pop quiz. What is the name for God the Creator?
The Jews of Exodus wandering in the desert described God who led them as a 'Cloud of Smoke' by day and a 'Pillar of Fire by night'... ....How would one of us interpret the same 'fact' were we to view it with today's understanding of reality? It'll be amazing to find out.
Well, despite the 21st century, some still don't have rational enquiring minds, they prefer to adhere to ancient vague mystical accounts from scripture as being the absolute unquestionable truth....they are not much different to those people of today who still believe mirrors and photographs can steal their soul...and will refuse to consider a rational scientific explanation.
Originally Posted by shootem
Belief doesn't change absolute fact. .
In the absence of fact (or simply blind to facts that are obvious), humans will tend to create all sorts of misguided convenient beliefs.
But the caveat you intentionally did not point out (first rule of fake news) is that for the proof to be proven is that you have to accept five questionable Axioms as true to begin with.
The Jews of Exodus wandering in the desert described God who led them as a 'Cloud of Smoke' by day and a 'Pillar of Fire by night'. No doubt to me they reported fact, but there is much more there they did not have the ability to interpret even as they watched. So they were accurate but 'incomplete' in their description. How would one of us interpret the same 'fact' were we to view it with today's understanding of reality? It'll be amazing to find out.
And now for today's pop quiz. What is the name for God the Creator?
Except the part where main stream Bible Scholars no longer accept The Exodus as a historical event, nor Moses as a historical character....
It seems like you need to get a new computer, then. It sure appears to have a lot of garbage based on what you share as knowledge.
Can you mathematically refute the equation?
I don't need to.
Let's take the hypothesis, and replace the word god with pixies.
"Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated,the essence is that no greater power than pixies can be conceived, and if pixies are believed as a concept then pixies can exist in reality."
As notice the proposition is they can exist. Not that they do exist.
I can conceive of a leprechaun, but claiming that because 2+2=4, they are real is absurd.
This ought to keep Rich busy for awhile.
You would think, but this time Rich has got nothing:
Originally Posted by Ringman
You can use any word you want to describe the Infinite that these equations show to be God. you just can't handle any Truth.
That's all he's got, and he doesn't do a very good Jack Nicholson.
So now that you know Allah is real, are you all happy?
There's nothing about knowing Satan is real to make one happy, unless one is you.
That's the sort of mindless BS "christians" say without thinking. If you believe god is real you have to already believe satan is real.
But none of that has anything to do with the statement you quoted, proving you didn't understand what was said.
You not only want to pretend some math tricks "prove" there's a god, but that it's the god you want it to be.
The only thing you ever prove is just how ignorant you truly are. Over and over and over and over.......................
The fact you don't agree doesn't make me ignorant. You just spout the mindless rhetoric and pretend to be superior like so many others do. You can't disprove anything I say, so you try to insult me personally.
But I really don't care what you think so you're wasting your time.
A.Einstein died in 1955, but in 1954 wrote to Erik Gutkind - in which he dismissed belief in God as superstitious and characterized the stories in the Bible as childish. One might conclude he was reacting against such primitive superstitions held by many.
"the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." - A.E.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly," - A.E.
""If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - A.E.
"for me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." - A.E.
"“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms".- A.E.
A.Einstein died in 1955, but in 1954 wrote to Erik Gutkind - in which he dismissed belief in God as superstitious and characterized the stories in the Bible as childish. One might conclude he was reacting against such primitive superstitions held by many.
"the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." - A.E.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly," - A.E.
""If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - A.E.
"for me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." - A.E.
He'll have all the time in eternity to ponder his own foolishness.
The Jews of Exodus wandering in the desert described God who led them as a 'Cloud of Smoke' by day and a 'Pillar of Fire by night'. No doubt to me they reported fact, but there is much more there they did not have the ability to interpret even as they watched. So they were accurate but 'incomplete' in their description. How would one of us interpret the same 'fact' were we to view it with today's understanding of reality? It'll be amazing to find out.
And now for today's pop quiz. What is the name for God the Creator?
Except the part where main stream Bible Scholars no longer accept The Exodus as a historical event, nor Moses as a historical character....
Again you find some whackos who call themselves Bible Scholars who also don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. They are not Bible Scholars. They are using the Bible to make money by selling their tripe to those who want to believe a lie.
And you insurance policy says it pays on acts of God.
LOL.....'AOG' in policies does not refer to metaphysics or the spiritual, or faith, or proof of the existence of any God, or cadavers raising from the dead, or talking donkeys, or virgin Marys.- Its just a convenient commercial business term thats deemed practically required for describing uncontrollable natural physical disasters(or phenomena) for which no party can be blamed. Natural disasters can be explained on why they happen with science.
Using an insurance policy is like using a genetically modified banana to 'prove' a God exists.
And you insurance policy says it pays on acts of God.
LOL.....'AOG' in policies does not refer to metaphysics or the spiritual, or faith, or proof of the existence of any God, or cadavers raising from the dead, or talking donkeys, or virgin Marys.- Its just a convenient commercial business term thats deemed practically required for describing uncontrollable natural physical disasters(or phenomena) for which no party can be blamed. Natural disasters can be explained on why they happen with science.
Using an insurance policy is like using a genetically modified banana to 'prove' a God exists.
Can you see me now? I am making waves in the chasm of ignorance. By humbling myself before God, I gain strength.
And I have watched Sir Roger Penrose condemn modern physics as fantasy, faith, and fiction, as we have not got anywhere for 100 years since quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Can you see me now? I am making waves in the chasm of ignorance. By humbling myself before God, I gain strength.
Insurance companies (the example you used) don't delve into such complex what-ifs and unknowns, its straight forward for them- if its deemed AOG that washed ones house away, then a person is out in the cold...a 'god' clause inclusion is simply a way of legally stiffing the client, nothing more, nothing less.
I flip coins purely for fun if I can't decide between Italian or Mexican food, can't loose cause I like both. I prefer to reserve science for more involved subjects.
With out God there are no laws of physics for a coin to be tossed. This is a concept the evolutionist seem to miss. If the universe is a random process one could not expect a result twice.
In a million years science may be able to predict coin flips. Keep working at it. There are a lot of currently out of control variables. A big one is the consciousness of the coin flipper. No good model for that right now. We don't have a clue. Our best scientist Stuart Hameroff, says the best test for consciousness is to ask them if they are awake.
The Jews of Exodus wandering in the desert described God who led them as a 'Cloud of Smoke' by day and a 'Pillar of Fire by night'.......How would one of us interpret the same 'fact' were we to view it with today's understanding of reality? It'll be amazing to find out.
Well, despite the 21st century, some still don't have rational enquiring minds, they prefer to adhere to ancient vague mystical accounts from scripture as being the absolute unquestionable truth....they are not much different to those people of today who still believe mirrors and photographs can steal their soul...and will refuse to consider a rational scientific explanation.
Originally Posted by shootem
Belief doesn't change absolute fact. .
In the absence of fact (or simply blind to facts that are obvious), humans will tend to create all sorts of misguided convenient beliefs.
I have a rational and enquiring mind, though diminished by usage and misusage, despite 21st Century scientification. Though science has certainly advanced to the point of further explaining certain facts we previously understook only incompletely or not at all, it too often suffers self idolotry evidenced by considering its work in terms of 'always', 'never', 'absolutely', 'impossible', etc. when these terms are 'absolutely' inappropriate. I do not deny this extends to some scientific studies of Biblical origin and history, even truth. However this does not diminish my acceptance of the reality of God. I can wade thru the muck out pretty well.
There is never the absence of fact or, perhaps more accurately, truth. But as stated previously fact (truth) can interpreted correctly, incorrectly, or in an incomplete version of either, possibly both simultaneously. There are so many instances in scripture of real people trying their best to accurately describe what they are seeing, thinking or dreaming when there is simply not enough data on the hard drive to give a fully accurate description of the truth they have observed or experienced. Our actions and beliefs today can be critiqued in the same manner.
Many can and do look at Biblical accounts with the attitude of 'absolute' disbelief. How can a dead man possibly live? How can water gush from a rock? How can a people be fed daily in a desert devoid of food by an invisible entity they call God? Well, perhaps these are truths the lack of data on the hard drive prevents us from accurately interpreting. Who is man to say he is all knowing? Only thru arrogance is this voiced. We can't begin to know what we don't know or how to compensate for our ignorance. I am convinced reality extends into realms the human mind has not yet begun to understand. I see an analogy of walking into a dark room with your dog. Suddenly it is light. Dog MIGHT recognize that change has something to do with you, after all it doesn't get light with just him there. Then try to explain to him the perfect logic of it all; "fire burns the coal, which heats the water to steam, which turns the rotors, yada yada yada, then all I do is flip the switch". If dog could reply he'd probly ask "What's a switch". OK, when it comes to fully understanding the power of God, we're the dog. Nice conversation. Thanks.
A.Einstein died in 1955, but in 1954 wrote to Erik Gutkind - in which he dismissed belief in God as superstitious and characterized the stories in the Bible as childish. One might conclude he was reacting against such primitive superstitions held by many.
"the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." - A.E.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly," - A.E.
""If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - A.E.
"for me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." - A.E.
He'll have all the time in eternity to ponder his own foolishness.
The Jews of Exodus wandering in the desert described God who led them as a 'Cloud of Smoke' by day and a 'Pillar of Fire by night'. No doubt to me they reported fact, but there is much more there they did not have the ability to interpret even as they watched. So they were accurate but 'incomplete' in their description. How would one of us interpret the same 'fact' were we to view it with today's understanding of reality? It'll be amazing to find out.
And now for today's pop quiz. What is the name for God the Creator?
Except the part where main stream Bible Scholars no longer accept The Exodus as a historical event, nor Moses as a historical character....
Again you find some whackos who call themselves Bible Scholars who also don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. They are not Bible Scholars. They are using the Bible to make money by selling their tripe to those who want to believe a lie.
With out God there are no laws of physics for a coin to be tossed. This is a concept the evolutionist seem to miss. If the universe is a random process one could not expect a result twice.
You just keep repeating meaningless BS without any proof.
But it can predict a million within a margin of error.
pre·dict prəˈdikt/ verb say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something. "it is too early to predict a result" synonyms: forecast, foretell, foresee, prophesy, anticipate,..
When you get down to probability, your model is failing at that point. That is why quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. It has been for 100 years. We are stuck. The Schrodinger equation is a probability wave.
Read up on the difference between probabilistic and deterministic models.
There is never the absence of fact or, perhaps more accurately, truth.
Relative to flawed human awareness of course there can be absence of fact, where it be purposely hidden from them , or the person just ignorantly blind to it. >> I did not say the non-existence of fact, but the abscence of fact. Something can be absent from somewhere or someone, and still exist cant it?
Originally Posted by shootem
Many can and do look at Biblical accounts with the attitude of 'absolute' disbelief. How can a dead man possibly live? How can water gush from a rock? How can a people be fed daily in a desert devoid of food by an invisible entity they call God? Well, perhaps these are truths the lack of data on the hard drive prevents us from accurately interpreting. Who is man to say he is all knowing? .
Not all questioning/enquiring men claim to be all knowing...some simply question the validity of biblical claims, eg; like talking donkeys. Many rational christians themselves don't believe such stories but still embrace and live christian values, very early Christians did not believe that Jesus was divine...and some still don't. Christians argued between themselves about divinity of Jesus, and it was supposedly settled in the 4th century by being decided by vote , which was then rejected and overturned by those who didn't like the result.
Our Founding Fathers had different strong beliefs and faiths yet specifically made a point of not forcing one group's on others. Why this need to try and destroy or ridicule others faith or beliefs? That's what ISIS does!
Miracles, by definition, can't be explained by natural or scientific law. Hence, arguing they didn't happen based on one's understanding of science is moot.
Likewise, trying to explain them by science, as a spate of TV shows have tried to do, is silly because miracles are again, by definition, not explainable by science.
I'm not arguing whether or not they occurred. One can believe or not as they wish.
If you have faith, you don't need to justify or defend it. If you don't believe then fine, but you can't prove there is no God with a capital "G" either. If one feels one has to justify their faith or prove prove that God doesn't exist, they're missing something.
If you have faith, you don't need to justify or defend it.
First Peter 3:15:
3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you...
I've got no problem with those that don't believe in God
Nor do I have a problem with those that believe God is real
I've had my own struggles with whether there's a creator or not.
When I'm surrounded by humans oftentimes it's very hard for me to believe there's a God, particularly the one described in the Bible kjv
But when I'm in the places that make my heart sing, the deep timber, the lonely windswept ridges, on the beach or in the mountains it's hard for me to deny the existence of a creator
Our Founding Fathers had different strong beliefs and faiths yet specifically made a point of not forcing one group's on others. Why this need to try and destroy or ridicule others faith or beliefs? That's what ISIS does!
Miracles, by definition, can't be explained by natural or scientific law. Hence, arguing they didn't happen based on one's understanding of science is moot.
Likewise, trying to explain them by science, as a spate of TV shows have tried to do, is silly because miracles are again, by definition, not explainable by science.
I'm not arguing whether or not they occurred. One can believe or not as they wish.
If you have faith, you don't need to justify or defend it. If you don't believe then fine, but you can't prove there is no God with a capital "G" either. If one feels one has to justify their faith or prove prove that God doesn't exist, they're missing something.
The Jews of Exodus wandering in the desert described God who led them as a 'Cloud of Smoke' by day and a 'Pillar of Fire by night'. No doubt to me they reported fact, but there is much more there they did not have the ability to interpret even as they watched. So they were accurate but 'incomplete' in their description. How would one of us interpret the same 'fact' were we to view it with today's understanding of reality? It'll be amazing to find out.
And now for today's pop quiz. What is the name for God the Creator?
Except the part where main stream Bible Scholars no longer accept The Exodus as a historical event, nor Moses as a historical character....
Such "main stream Bible scholars" are as legitimate as the main stream news. Deluded liars all.
Our Founding Fathers had different strong beliefs and faiths yet specifically made a point of not forcing one group's on others. Why this need to try and destroy or ridicule others faith or beliefs? That's what ISIS does!
Miracles, by definition, can't be explained by natural or scientific law. Hence, arguing they didn't happen based on one's understanding of science is moot.
Likewise, trying to explain them by science, as a spate of TV shows have tried to do, is silly because miracles are again, by definition, not explainable by science.
I'm not arguing whether or not they occurred. One can believe or not as they wish.
If you have faith, you don't need to justify or defend it. If you don't believe then fine, but you can't prove there is no God with a capital "G" either. If one feels one has to justify their faith or prove prove that God doesn't exist, they're missing something.
This.
But, those like Ringman, Starman, and Snyper simply cannot allow that others believe or believe differently than they do.
Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God SCIENTISTS have ‘confirmed’ the existence of God after proving a mathematician’s theory which suggests that there is a higher power. By Sean Martin PUBLISHED: 03:00, Sun, Jan 22, 2017 | UPDATED: 09:03, Sun, Jan 22, 2017
Two computer scientists say they proved that there is a holy supreme force after confirming the equations.
In 1978, mathematician Kurt Gödel died and left behind a long and complex theory based on modal logic.
Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.
Scientists claim to have proof of God
Mathmatician Kurt Gödel established the equation
Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God
Or as Dr Gödel put it through his equations: “Ax. 1. {P(φ)∧◻∀x[φ(x)→ψ(x)]} →P(ψ)Ax. 2.P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)Th. 1.P(φ)→◊∃x[φ(x)]Df. 1.G(x)⟺∀φ[P(φ)→φ(x)]Ax. 3.P(G)Th. 2.◊∃xG(x)Df. 2.φ ess x⟺φ(x)∧∀ψ{ψ(x)→◻∀y[φ(y)→ψ(y)]}Ax. 4.P(φ)→◻P(φ)Th. 3.G(x)→G ess xDf. 3.E(x)⟺∀φ[φ ess x→◻∃yφ(y)]Ax. 5.P(E)Th. 4.◻∃xG(x)”.
You get it, right?
But two computer scientists have used computers to run such complicated which they say confirms that the equation does indeed add up.
The point of the researchers’ argument was that they were not directly trying to prove the existence of God, but rather to showcase the power of computers.
Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University, who ran the calculations along with Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, told Spiegel Online: "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.
“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…
I wonder if they can also prove the existence of other invisible beings like the Tooth Fairy? My youngest Grandson told me he has actually seen the Tooth Fairy and he looks a lot like my Son.
One of the best explanations of who God is and why we are who we are and the world is what it is is in the 1977 movie "Oh God", starring George Burns as God.
even my Grandmom, raised in a good standing Lutheran family, and who later fell by the wayside and joint the Baptists knows that pie are round. and i can attest that her homemade applepies were delish.
she even knows that if we were to send a rocket ship to the moon, it'd destroy us all, because the rocket would punch a hole in the atmosphere and let all the air out. now that's something to think about.
it amazes me that we can even be here, having this conversation. but, here we are nevertheless.
The Jews of Exodus wandering in the desert described God who led them as a 'Cloud of Smoke' by day and a 'Pillar of Fire by night'. No doubt to me they reported fact, but there is much more there they did not have the ability to interpret even as they watched. So they were accurate but 'incomplete' in their description. How would one of us interpret the same 'fact' were we to view it with today's understanding of reality? It'll be amazing to find out.
And now for today's pop quiz. What is the name for God the Creator?
Except the part where main stream Bible Scholars no longer accept The Exodus as a historical event, nor Moses as a historical character....
Again you find some whackos who call themselves Bible Scholars who also don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. They are not Bible Scholars. They are using the Bible to make money by selling their tripe to those who want to believe a lie.
Says the Young Earth Creationist.
There are physical scientists with significantly more education than yours who accept a young earth as strongly as you accept an old earth. We all have the same information. It our wold view that tells us how to interpret it. You start with the idea the majority is correct. So did Dr. Kindell. And yet he studied ten different fields during his education. He now lectures on science without using the Bible.
He looks at a single rock with four different ages that vary by a billion years and says, "The dating system is flawed." You look at the same information and say, "This proves the Bible is wrong."
basically they claim there was no big-bang. things have always been, and always will be. that differs from the various strains of western theology of course.
in other words, no beginning and no end. sounds kinda like "God" to me? no?
but who are those pantheistic hindus, and why is there such animosity between them and the monotheistic muslims?
and if the earth collided with another planet, would the overall cosmos skip a beat and then keep on ticking?
There are physical scientists with significantly more education than yours who accept a young earth as strongly as you accept an old earth. We all have the same information. It our wold view that tells us how to interpret it. You start with the idea the majority is correct. So did Dr. Kindell. And yet he studied ten different fields during his education. He now lectures on science without using the Bible.
He looks at a single rock with four different ages that vary by a billion years and says, "The dating system is flawed." You look at the same information and say, "This proves the Bible is wrong."
If I were going to write an algorithm for schizophrenia, I'd take 10 of Ringman's posts, formally outline and notate his arguments—then run those on a random loop substituting his claims for one another ad nauseam.
basically they claim there was no big-bang. things have always been, and always will be. that differs from the various strains of western theology of course.
in other words, no beginning and no end. sounds kinda like "God" to me? no?
but who are those pantheistic hindus, and why is there such animosity between them and the monotheistic muslims?
and if the earth collided with another planet, would the overall cosmos skip a beat and then keep on ticking?
Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking's teacher, and Paul Steinhardt, the Einstein chair at Princeton, both independently reject the big bang in part and go for a more cyclic model.
As Penrose points out CBR, cosmic background radiation, is 0.1% uninorm in all directions and looks like 3 degrees K radiation. That is as high entropy as it gets. The big bang would have had to be perfectly low entropy. Thus the theory in trouble with not only gravity, but the second law of thermodynamics. Yet two Nobel prizes have been handed out for the big bang.
There are physical scientists with significantly more education than yours who accept a young earth as strongly as you accept an old earth.
We all have the same information. It our wold view that tells us how to interpret it. You start with the idea the majority is correct. So did Dr. Kindell. And yet he studied ten different fields during his education. He now lectures on science without using the Bible.
He looks at a single rock with four different ages that vary by a billion years and says, "The dating system is flawed." You look at the same information and say, "This proves the Bible is wrong."
No, there really aren't. That's just more of the mindless BS you spout with still no proof, hoping someone will fall for it.
There are physical scientists with significantly more education than yours who accept a young earth as strongly as you accept an old earth.
We all have the same information. It our wold view that tells us how to interpret it. You start with the idea the majority is correct. So did Dr. Kindell. And yet he studied ten different fields during his education. He now lectures on science without using the Bible.
He looks at a single rock with four different ages that vary by a billion years and says, "The dating system is flawed." You look at the same information and say, "This proves the Bible is wrong."
No, there really aren't. That's just more of the mindless BS you spout with still no proof, hoping someone will fall for it.
basically they claim there was no big-bang. things have always been, and always will be. that differs from the various strains of western theology of course.
in other words, no beginning and no end. sounds kinda like "God" to me? no?
but who are those pantheistic hindus, and why is there such animosity between them and the monotheistic muslims?
and if the earth collided with another planet, would the overall cosmos skip a beat and then keep on ticking?
Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking's teacher, and Paul Steinhardt, the Einstein chair at Princeton, both independently reject the big bang in part and go for a more cyclic model.
As Penrose points out CBR, cosmic background radiation, is 0.1% uninorm in all directions and looks like 3 degrees K radiation. That is as high entropy as it gets. The big bang would have had to be perfectly low entropy. Thus the theory in trouble with not only gravity, but the second law of thermodynamics. Yet two Nobel prizes have been handed out for the big bang.
For anyone who can think, this is troubling.
well, yes indeed. troubling it is sums it up very well. but, we're dealing in theory, and hypothesis of one kind or another. not totaly the truth, not yet anyways. the truth might not be so pleasant? i don't know.
but, what if there was no beginning, and there was no end? how could that be? well, our binary brains couldn't conceive of such a thing/reality, so it doesn't exist, right?
we western europeans with our thought process don't hardly allow no outside ideas to enter in. it keeps us safe, or at least did. but, what if the Story Line is bigger/larger than what we've come to believe/accept? humans on the earth, what a concept. lol.
basically they claim there was no big-bang. things have always been, and always will be. that differs from the various strains of western theology of course.
in other words, no beginning and no end. sounds kinda like "God" to me? no?
but who are those pantheistic hindus, and why is there such animosity between them and the monotheistic muslims?
and if the earth collided with another planet, would the overall cosmos skip a beat and then keep on ticking?
Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking's teacher, and Paul Steinhardt, the Einstein chair at Princeton, both independently reject the big bang in part and go for a more cyclic model.
As Penrose points out CBR, cosmic background radiation, is 0.1% uninorm in all directions and looks like 3 degrees K radiation. That is as high entropy as it gets. The big bang would have had to be perfectly low entropy. Thus the theory in trouble with not only gravity, but the second law of thermodynamics. Yet two Nobel prizes have been handed out for the big bang.
For anyone who can think, this is troubling.
I don't know why it would be "troubling", it just means there's additional opportunities for research.
As Penrose points out CBR, cosmic background radiation, is 0.1% uninorm in all directions and looks like 3 degrees K radiation. That is as high entropy as it gets. The big bang would have had to be perfectly low entropy. Thus the theory in trouble with not only gravity, but the second law of thermodynamics. Yet two Nobel prizes have been handed out for the big bang.
They are handing out Nobel prizes for big bang....not good.
1) CBR disproves big bang. It could not be stronger evidence against it.
2) How did big bang overcome gravity? And don't say space temporarily inflated. That is the dog ate my homework.
I was told there was no space prior to the Big Bang. I asked a teacher how the Big Bang overcame gravity. "It wasn't invented yet," she informed me.
Because the Higgs Field didn't exist yet. Perhaps her words were in-artful, but they are not inconsistent with current models of the very early Universe.
Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking's teacher, and Paul Steinhardt, the Einstein chair at Princeton, both independently reject the big bang in part and go for a more cyclic model.
As Penrose points out CBR, cosmic background radiation, is 0.1% uninorm in all directions and looks like 3 degrees K radiation. That is as high entropy as it gets. The big bang would have had to be perfectly low entropy. Thus the theory in trouble with not only gravity, but the second law of thermodynamics. Yet two Nobel prizes have been handed out for the big bang.
For anyone who can think, this is troubling.
Not really, not so much as dark energy/dark matter that we had to invent to make the equations come out right. We're missing something bigly.
On the other hand there are particles (we postulate) so small and exist for so short a time that seem to hold atomic nuclei together that they cannot be individually detected by observation under our present understanding of physical laws (uncertainty principle). On the other hand the Hubble ultra deep space photo (Wiki) reveals seemingly countless galaxies all with atoms composed of those tiny particles. A magnificent system to have come about on its own.
They are handing out Nobel prizes for big bang....not good.
1) CBR disproves big bang. It could not be stronger evidence against it.
2) How did big bang overcome gravity? And don't say space temporarily inflated. That is the dog ate my homework.
I was told there was no space prior to the Big Bang. I asked a teacher how the Big Bang overcame gravity. "It wasn't invented yet," she informed me.
Because the Higgs Field didn't exist yet. Perhaps her words were in-artful, but they are not inconsistent with current models of the theoretical very early Universe.
Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God SCIENTISTS have ‘confirmed’ the existence of God after proving a mathematician’s theory which suggests that there is a higher power. By Sean Martin PUBLISHED: 03:00, Sun, Jan 22, 2017 | UPDATED: 09:03, Sun, Jan 22, 2017
Two computer scientists say they proved that there is a holy supreme force after confirming the equations.
In 1978, mathematician Kurt Gödel died and left behind a long and complex theory based on modal logic.
Dr Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality.
Scientists claim to have proof of God
Mathmatician Kurt Gödel established the equation
Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God
Or as Dr Gödel put it through his equations: “Ax. 1. {P(φ)∧◻∀x[φ(x)→ψ(x)]} →P(ψ)Ax. 2.P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)Th. 1.P(φ)→◊∃x[φ(x)]Df. 1.G(x)⟺∀φ[P(φ)→φ(x)]Ax. 3.P(G)Th. 2.◊∃xG(x)Df. 2.φ ess x⟺φ(x)∧∀ψ{ψ(x)→◻∀y[φ(y)→ψ(y)]}Ax. 4.P(φ)→◻P(φ)Th. 3.G(x)→G ess xDf. 3.E(x)⟺∀φ[φ ess x→◻∃yφ(y)]Ax. 5.P(E)Th. 4.◻∃xG(x)”.
You get it, right?
But two computer scientists have used computers to run such complicated which they say confirms that the equation does indeed add up.
The point of the researchers’ argument was that they were not directly trying to prove the existence of God, but rather to showcase the power of computers.
Christoph Benzmüller of Berlin's Free University, who ran the calculations along with Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo of the Technical University in Vienna, told Spiegel Online: "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.
“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…
Wouldn't be the same sort of dills that came up with climate change would it.
While Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion demarcates the limits of scientific inquiry, those who strive for certainty remain at the mercy of fantasy and logical fallacy.
While Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion demarcates the limits of scientific inquiry, those who strive for certainty remain at the mercy of fantasy and logical fallacy.
Couldn't you have just said that they are wankers?
While Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion demarcates the limits of scientific inquiry, those who strive for certainty remain at the mercy of fantasy and logical fallacy.
Couldn't you have just said that they are wankers?
They are handing out Nobel prizes for big bang....not good.
1) CBR disproves big bang. It could not be stronger evidence against it.
2) How did big bang overcome gravity? And don't say space temporarily inflated. That is the dog ate my homework.
I was told there was no space prior to the Big Bang. I asked a teacher how the Big Bang overcame gravity. "It wasn't invented yet," she informed me.
Because the Higgs Field didn't exist yet. Perhaps her words were in-artful, but they are not inconsistent with current models of the theoretical very early Universe.
Fixed it for you.
ex post facto insertion of grammatical redundancy is not a fix.
The use of "current models (plural) in the quoted posts implies the alternative facts are still in flux.
While Scientists keep finding smaller and smaller particles in the Universe, if only in theory in many cases, there must always be something other than the individual particles...... something which keeps them separate.
Something which is " Not this nor that".
Which happens to be the definition for God by the early Church Fathers.
While Scientists keep finding smaller and smaller particles in the Universe, if only in theory in many cases, there must always be something other than the individual particles...... something which keeps them separate.
Something which is " Not this nor that".
Which happens to be the definition for God by the early Church Fathers.
Looks like you might be bird dogging around Asymptotic Pantheism?
While Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion demarcates the limits of scientific inquiry, those who strive for certainty remain at the mercy of fantasy and logical fallacy.
Quote
Wouldn't be the same sort of dills that came up with climate change would it.
Yes yes
As Penrose calls the big bang theory, "Fashion, faith, and fantasy"
While Scientists keep finding smaller and smaller particles in the Universe, if only in theory in many cases, there must always be something other than the individual particles...... something which keeps them separate.
Something which is " Not this nor that".
Which happens to be the definition for God by the early Church Fathers.
Looks like you might be bird dogging around Asymptotic Pantheism?
Nope.... just noting the similarity between Particle Theory and the thinking of early Christians;" This is not Thou, neither art Thou this."
While Scientists keep finding smaller and smaller particles in the Universe, if only in theory in many cases, there must always be something other than the individual particles...... something which keeps them separate.
Something which is " Not this nor that".
Which happens to be the definition for God by the early Church Fathers.
Looks like you might be bird dogging around Asymptotic Pantheism?
Nope.... just noting the similarity between Particle Theory and the thinking of early Christians;" This is not Thou, neither art Thou this."
The Jews of Exodus wandering in the desert described God who led them as a 'Cloud of Smoke' by day and a 'Pillar of Fire by night'. No doubt to me they reported fact, but there is much more there they did not have the ability to interpret even as they watched. So they were accurate but 'incomplete' in their description. How would one of us interpret the same 'fact' were we to view it with today's understanding of reality? It'll be amazing to find out.
And now for today's pop quiz. What is the name for God the Creator?
Except the part where main stream Bible Scholars no longer accept The Exodus as a historical event, nor Moses as a historical character....
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Itching ears, hearing what they want to hear and eyes seeing only what they want to see. AS is strongly biased in his chosen direction and can only hear and see what he desires to see and hear.
So, the big bang theory is “proven” false? Nah… much discussion and discovery still going on.
Do your own search, there is plenty of debate going on. Here is a simplified, easier to understand view. If you want more in depth review, do your own search.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-more-i-study-science-the-more-i-believe-in-god-albert-einstein-57-55-03.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.mrlovenstein.com/images/comics/159_non_sequitur.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.sciencealert.com/images/articles/processed/PhysicsMap_1024.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://a64.tinypic.com/2vsgupv.jpg)
