Quote from: qwik2learn on January 28, 2018, 02:28:05 AM

Quote from: qwik2learn on January 02, 2018, 07:46:55 AM

Quote from: qwik2learn on December 18, 2017, 03:39:19 AM

Quote from: qwik2learn on December 10, 2017, 03:52:31 AM

The Case Against Naturalism

Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists

For centuries, many have tried to use this kind of abstract reasoning to prove the possibility or necessity of the existence of God. But the mathematical model composed by Gödel proposed a proof of the idea. Its theorems and axioms -- assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.

Researchers have cracked the "GOD CODE", they used computers to validate the axioms that refute Naturalism and confirm the necessity of the existence of GOD.

I find it strange that atheists and skeptics in this thread did not address the computerized proof of GOD that I referenced. After all, is this not exactly the sort of proof that an atheist would expect and demand to see?

I actually did, quite in detail actually: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg27336707#msg27336707

You might have missed it.

Godel's proof consists of the following argument

God is defined as that which is greater than anything else

We can imagine God

Since a real God is greater than an imaginary God, and God by definition is greater than everything

God must be real

The German scientists took this argument, translated it to math, and proved it works. However, they took Godel's argument as sound, so naturally the came out with the same result. However, his argument has flaws:

1) How do we know God is greater than anything else? Before we have proof of God, we are incapable of defining him.

2) Why should a real God be greater than an imaginary God? I can imagine perfection, but I have yet to encounter it in real life. I would argue that imaginary things are often better than their real world counterparts.

Godel's argument uses flawed assumptions, and the German programmers used those same flawed assumptions