Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Gödel’s proof of the existence of God

Categories
Intelligent Design
Mathematics
Philosophy
theism
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

You didn’t know, possibly, that when he thought we was dying, he showed the notebook to one of his colleagues, who copied out the proof:

In an unsanitized, politically incorrect (but factual) history, Selmer Bringsjord talks about how the tormented genius Kurt Gödel took up a quest that dated back a thousand years to prove the existence of God by formal logic. His original version didn’t quite work but his editor’s version passed an important logic test:

“When we go to Gödel, we skip over the modern advocates of this argument. It’s harsh—I’m just going to say it—from the standpoint of someone who’s reasonably well-versed in formal logic, I think it’s a bit of a doldrums, despite some of the attention, until Gödel does his thing.

Gödel does it formally and then some folks in Germany, doing automated reasoning, verified it a few years back. They verified the version that Dana Scott copied out of the notebook. That is, what they verify is that there is no doubt; it’s machine-verified proof. So now we’re left with just the truth of the premises and how we judge them.”

News, “Gödel and God: A surprising history” at Mind Matters News

Further reading:

Faith is the most fundamental of the mathematical tools: An early twentieth century clash of giants showed that even mathematics depends on some unprovable assumptions. (Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón)

and

God’s existence is proven by science. Arguments for God’s existence can be demonstrated by the ordinary method of scientific inference. (Michael Egnor)

Comments
KF
Repeat, we live in a causal temporal world,
Agreed.
one that includes inescapably morally governed creatures.
That is your belief, not fact. I agree that humans have a moral sense. But to say that we are inescapably morally governed is just wishful thinking. My moral values are different than yours. And mine have changed over the years, as I assume yours have as well. And I think that it is important that they are plastic and change as society changes. If not we would still think that segregation is morally acceptable, or that it is morally acceptable to provide women less opportunity than men, or that it is morally acceptable to deny same sex couples from marrying. All morals that have changed within my life time.Ed George
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
KF, For the sake of my sanity, I'm going to decline (only half-joking 😛 ) I withdraw my questions.daveS
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
DS, propose another. Skeptical dismissal does not hold default. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
KF, I don't even know what a world from utter non-being would mean, so I agree that option should be dismissed. Whether your list of options is exhaustive is questionable. I'd rather not get into another another discussion of these issues if at all possible. I take it you identify fairness as one of these "first duties"? What role does this world-root being have in establishing this duty? How exactly does the "sustaining" occur? As far as I can tell, no one needs to tell me I should be fair to others (at this point in my life, anyway). Rather, that's the conclusion that we as humans have come to, through thousands of years of experience. Furthermore, whether I treat others fairly or not actually does have an impact on the quality of my life, so I have a reason to do so.daveS
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
Vividbleau @ 17
I can’t speak as to what you were taught but I know a lot of Christians and fideism is NOT a central principle of faith. I don’t know what Christian world you were apart of but it’s not the world I am familiar with.
Probably not. Christianity embraces a range of different denominations and doctrines, not all of which are consistent with one another. Unfortunately, over the centuries, these differences have led to a lot of Christian blood being spilled by other Christians who believed they were doing the Lord's work. That behavior may have found warrant in the morality of the Old Testament but I do not believe it is what Christ intended or taught. For example, the intolerance I see displayed here towards theistic evolutionists is distinctly un-Christian.Seversky
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
DS, it is not a positing, it is an analysis across three often unpalatable options. That the world is causal-temporal and successive is a manifest commonplace. So, how do we trace that back? Infinite traverse from a transfinite past is one candidate, failed. Circular cause is another, also failed. A world from utter non-being is a non-starter. That leaves a finitely remote world root as the last man standing. Where, your own onward arguments implicitly turn on the same first duties of reason as identified. The issue may not be one one wishes to explore, but if one is interested seriously in origins of reality and how things came to be, such things are there. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
KF, Hm. I guess I don't feel the need to posit the existence of this world root. Everything that would require sustenance is apparently sustained by what I can already observe, my relationships with others, for the most part.daveS
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
DS, back ways around. We find ourselves situated much like Epictetus' interlocutor. We find that some things are inescapable so true antecedent to proofs. They are foundational to proof making etc. Then, we can ask, what sort of world, from the roots, sustains that? That sets up a bill of requisites for the world root. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
JVL “I guess that’s a central point we disagree on since I believe life came from non-life.” Yeh and and hundreds of years ago people thought maggots came from meat. Vividvividbleau
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
KF,
No. Our best interests is already an appeal to such first duties.
I'm not sure what this means exactly, but let's pursue this. Are we unable to discern these "first duties" without the existence of a god?daveS
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
Barry, “Exactly. Seversky earlier today brought up the issue of fideism. Well, fideism is alive and well among don’t-look-in-that-direction materialists such as EG. “ So true and fun to watch the science deniers and the fideists accuse the non science deniers and the non fideists of being that which they are and that which we are not. As to logic it is a sight to behold the ignorance on display here by EG and others. Vividvividbleau
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
DS, no. Our best interests is already an appeal to such first duties. What is inescapable is inescapably true as Epictetus pointed out 1850 years ago to one who challenged him to prove the validity of logic. KF PS: Epictetus:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not?
kairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
EG, we know the rhetorical stunt that you used as a wedge to evade grappling with the analysis then chop up into bits and pieces then play strawman games. Your onward remarks, including vulgar insulting references and dismissals simply underscores the self-destruction of your intellectual credibility. Repeat, we live in a causal temporal world, one that includes inescapably morally governed creatures. Infinite regress of causal stages cannot be successively traversed, worlds do not come from nothing, and circular cause is another form, trying to pull the past of origins out of that past's not yet successors. The last man standing is a finitely remote necessary being reality root, sufficient to account for this cosmos, including morally governed creatures. That you are hyperskeptically dismissive of such is a psychological and ideological fact about you and your ilk but it has nothing to do with the actual balance on merits. Where, the no evidence or no analysis selectively hyperskeptical gambit inadvertently reveals the fallacy of selective hyperskepticism and your want of a cogent response. Duly noted, FAIL again. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
EG, KF, if I may jump in:
For example, even your own argument requires for any persuasive force, that we implicitly recognise that we are duty-bound to truth, to right reason, to prudence [including warrant!], to sound conscience, to fairness and justice etc.
Could it require nothing more than humans acting in their own long-term best interests? Where we are informed by our own experience and the writings of those who have reflected on how best to live over the past few thousand years?daveS
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
KF
EG, notice your reframing as personal belief.
Not reframing, just stating a fact.
No, I provided an analysis on possible worlds and categorisation of beings across PWs. In that context of logic of being, I noted the causal futility of utter non being, where we live in a world so a world from non-being is a non-starter.
Nice verbal masturbation, but all you have said is that, because we don’t know the cause of the universe (or life) that, therefore, god is the best explanation. There is a term for that.
I proceeded to the causal-temporal form Agrippa trilemma, eliminating infinite regress as non-traversible and circular causation (requiring the now to come from the not yet).
Again, there is a term for your logic.
PS: Your attempt to reduce moral government to a human epiphenomenon of the superstructure of society . . . the Marxism reeks . . . actually reduces to grand delusion and collapse of credibility of the mind.
I guess that I have a higher opinion of the abilities of humans than you do.
For example, even your own argument requires for any persuasive force, that we implicitly recognise that we are duty-bound to truth, to right reason, to prudence [including warrant!], to sound conscience, to fairness and justice etc.
No, it requires that we have the ability to reason, without resorting to a mythical being, that it is in our best interest to be truthful and to treat others as we would like them to treat us. I know that I can reason this from first principles. I’m surprised that you feel that you can’t.
Likewise, you have fallaciously substituted primacy of hyperskepticism for prudence, leading to characteristic modern and ultra-modern fallacies of selective hyperskepticism. You have again made shipwreck of your intellectual credibility.
Translation: you disagree with me.
That you wish to put humans at the reality root is a manifest failure of logic of being.
Thank you for misrepresenting what I have said.
You seem to imagine that clever rhetorical stunts substitute for serious analysis. Fail.
When you start presenting serious analysis, please be sure to let me know.Ed George
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
KF
BA77, Good thoughts. It seems in various aspects EG is implying a world from nothing or else circular causation or infinite causal-temporal past without squarely facing the challenges such suggestions lead to.
Exactly. Seversky earlier today brought up the issue of fideism. Well, fideism is alive and well among don't-look-in-that-direction materialists such as EG. The glaringly obvious hole in his worldview is there for all to see. Yet, he accuses theists of grit-your-teeth blind faith. Irony alert.Barry Arrington
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
F/N: A helpful vid on trying to pull a cosmos out of a non-existent hat: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/l-fp41-dawkins-krauss-and-trying-to-pull-a-world-out-of-no-thing/ KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
JVL, maybe here will help: https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/logic-first-principles-4-the-logic-of-being-causality-and-science/ KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
BA77, Good thoughts. It seems in various aspects EG is implying a world from nothing or else circular causation or infinite causal-temporal past without squarely facing the challenges such suggestions lead to. It is highly likely that he assumes we must be wrong so he is stringing together rhetorical stunts that snip bits and pieces out of context to dismiss what he has already determined to reject without serious consideration. His result is to shatter his own credibility. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
.
I believe life came from non-life
Not to change the subject, but JVL, you obviously believe life began as a purely dynamic replicator (perhaps a "simple RNA replicator") , and then evolved into the more complex semiotic replicator (modern DNA/RNA/aaRS-mediated replicator) that is described in biology today. Is that correct?Upright BiPed
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
EG, notice your reframing as personal belief. No, I provided an analysis on possible worlds and categorisation of beings across PWs. In that context of logic of being, I noted the causal futility of utter non being, where we live in a world so a world from non-being is a non-starter. I proceeded to the causal-temporal form Agrippa trilemma, eliminating infinite regress as non-traversible and circular causation (requiring the now to come from the not yet). The last man standing, per comparative difficulties, is a finitely remote, necessary being world root. That I accept the hard won conclusion is not mere personal credulity but warrant. That warrant is what you need to cogently address. KF PS: Your attempt to reduce moral government to a human epiphenomenon of the superstructure of society . . . the Marxism reeks . . . actually reduces to grand delusion and collapse of credibility of the mind. For example, even your own argument requires for any persuasive force, that we implicitly recognise that we are duty-bound to truth, to right reason, to prudence [including warrant!], to sound conscience, to fairness and justice etc. Were there mere epiphenomena, the import is Plato's cave grand delusion manipulated by power brokers and their shadow show actors. The immediate collapse of responsible rationality and open invitation to nihilism are patent. Likewise, you have fallaciously substituted primacy of hyperskepticism for prudence, leading to characteristic modern and ultra-modern fallacies of selective hyperskepticism. You have again made shipwreck of your intellectual credibility. PPS: That you wish to put humans at the reality root is a manifest failure of logic of being. Contingent beings that are far in the future cannot be the reality root. More intellectual credibility collapse. You seem to imagine that clever rhetorical stunts substitute for serious analysis. Fail.kairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
JVL, the issue is not all living beings [biological, cell based sense] but all beings. It is obvious that biological cells are constructed from atomic and molecular components. Such a composite entity is necessarily composite. Similarly, non-life (biological sense) in your context would be chemicals in some alleged prebiotic stew. A material substance like that is not non-being. Being is NOT, rpt, NOT, a synonym for biological entity. Going further, atoms are composite and contingent also. Cell based life is indeed contingent but it is by no means established in worldview analysis contexts that such exhaust the relevant sense of life. God, would be living, life himself indeed and ultimate author of biological life. Plato's Athenian Stranger speaks of the ensouled, self-moved first cause agent as life. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington: Your statement reveals that you do not understand the terms used. Whether life came from non-life is completely irrelevant to whether, as a matter of logic, all beings can be contingent. Well, what does contingent mean then in this context? I've looked up a general definition but I'd rather be sure I understand you correctly.JVL
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
JVL
I guess that’s a central point we disagree on since I believe life came from non-life. So there is no infinite regress to worry about!
Your statement reveals that you do not understand the terms used. Whether life came from non-life is completely irrelevant to whether, as a matter of logic, all beings can be contingent. It is as if I asked your what is the sum of 2+2 and you responded, "The Gettysburg Address." While "The Gettysburg Address" may be the answer to some question, it has no bearing on the question I posed.Barry Arrington
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Ed George, in response to,
KF: "EG, are you aware that reality requires a necessary being world root…"
,,states,,
I’m aware that this is your belief.
So, let me get this right, apparently EG does not believe that "reality requires a necessary being world root" and therefore believes that all reality must be contingent??? But that can't be right! Maybe E.G, if he was not just being purposely unreasonable, just didn't understand? To put the question more simply, 'What is the necessary being upon which all contingent being is dependent for its existence?' To clarify,,
3. The Argument from Time and Contingency 1. We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies. 2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility. 3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything. 4. Then right now nothing would exist. For 5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all. But 6. From nothing nothing comes. So 7. The universe could not have begun. 8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But 9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So 10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary. 11. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being. 12. This absolutely necessary being is God. https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#3
Further arguments:
Twenty Arguments God's Existence The Argument from Change The Argument from Efficient Causality The Argument from Time and Contingency The Argument from Degrees of Perfection The Design Argument The Kalam Argument The Argument from Contingency The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole The Argument from Miracles The Argument from Consciousness The Argument from Truth The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God The Ontological Argument The Moral Argument The Argument from Conscience The Argument from Desire The Argument from Aesthetic Experience The Argument from Religious Experience The Common Consent Argument Pascal's Wager https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm The Argument from Truth This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness. It comes mainly from Augustine. 1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2. Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11
bornagain77
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
KF
EG, are you aware that reality requires a necessary being world root...
I’m aware that this is your belief.
Further, that reality contains morally governed creatures...
Yes, humans have imposed a moral overlay on society. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do if you want to live in a stable society. It falls along a spectrum of behavioural expectations if you want to be part of society. At one end you have severe legal penalties for behaviours that most people agree seriously conflict with a healthy society (eg. Murder, violence, theft, etc. ). In the middle are minor departures from accepted behaviour that justify some structured penalty (eg. Fines for speeding, noise by-laws, refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, etc. ). And at the other end are behaviours that can be classified as violations of trust but don’t warrant direct legal legal penalties (eg., infidelity, dishonesty, etc. ).
That such constraints provide a bill of requisites for such a root?
A root that is adequately filled by rational human beings.
Thus, the real issue is serious candidates to be such? Where, despite your report on your triumphalistic, confident skepticism — known to have hyper tendencies — God is indeed such a serious candidate?
But why impose an unproven god on something that human societies have, for centuries, decided for themselves?
Kindly, then, provide a more responsive response. KF
See above.Ed George
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: Where, obviously “were” there ever only utter non-being, as such has no causal power, that would forever obtain. I guess that's a central point we disagree on since I believe life came from non-life. So there is no infinite regress to worry about!JVL
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington: Then ask yourself this question: As a matter of logic, can all beings be contingent? IF I understand the question correctly I'd say yes, all living beings can be contingent. That's based on my belief that life can come from non-life. If I've misinterpreted the question tell me.JVL
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
KF "that utter non being would hold forever" Agreed, for the simple reason that non-being is obviously causally inert. "Nothing" cannot cause "anything." This is one of those grounding plausibles of which you often speak. It is a sign of our times that some people do not accept it as necessarily true. All one has to do is give up on the law of sufficient reason, and poof "something from nothing." So one can have his rationality or one can have his something from nothing . One cannot have both.Barry Arrington
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
AS, welcome. I add, note that a true nothing is non being. Were there ever utter non-being, there is no causal capacity and that utter non being would hold forever. A world now is, something adequate to account for a world always was. This is the root of reality, source of any actual world.Then, what is this leads to the causal chain trilemma discussed already. The only feasible root arises from the problems of infinite causal succession and circular causation. Finitely remote necessary being capable of being source for this or any other actual world. Where, we are morally governed creatures in an actual world, pointing to a root adequate to bridge IS and OUGHT. KFkairosfocus
May 12, 2020
May
05
May
12
12
2020
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply