Hm. I may be slipping, but I don't see the connections between the incompleteness theories and a proof of the existence of God. Those computer guys are simply proving the power of the computer to grind numbers, not complete conceptual and theoretical thinking. Now I'll shut up, that hits the upper limit of my understanding.
I always wonder why people cannot just believe. I believe in the unknown, I believed in Santa and I believe in God. I do not need scientific proof. Stories from those that have had near death experiences are enough proof for me.
Claims are made... King James Version - Wikipedia Claims are made... Quran - Wikipedia Claims are made... Book of Mormon - Wikipedia Claims are made... Vedas - Wikipedia and Upanishads - Wikipedia Claims are made... Tanakh - Wikipedia Is there any reason to believe that any of the claims are true?? All that the computer scientists have done is to determine if Gödel's equation works. Prior to the digital era, there had been no technological means by which to calculate the result of the equation easily. The fact that the equation has been calculated doesn't prove the existence of god...any god, let alone any one of the Abrahamic religions' mutually incompatible conceptions of god. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof The ontological argument for the existence of god (several varieties thereof) is not without its problems, and its not particularly convincing to many, who do not already believe in the existence of some particular flavour of god or other. The Ontological Argument for God
Because that's how exclusive truth works...heresy and blasphemy have often hinged upon the minutae of doctrinal interpretation of what one believes to be true or untrue. Ever will it be so.
Um......I'm pretty sure they dropped a decimal point! That rag makes enquirer look like a quality source of info.
A curiosity, nothing more. The existence of God cannot be definitively proved or disproved, at least by any means or method we humans possess. God may be as real, even more real, than any of us, yet if He exists, then He does so in an entirely different type of existence, He is, if He exists, transcendent, and therefore we are not fully equipped to either comprehend Him fully nor to seek to somehow prove His existence. If He exists, then the evidence of His existence must come from Him to us. Once that evidence is presented, in whatever form he's chosen, whether it be prophecy, written text, miracles, etc., it is up to each individual to decide for themselves if the evidence is compelling enough to justify belief, even faith/trust in the existence of God. Of course, if God wanted to, He could simply plant himself firmly on the Earth, announce who He is and why He is here, give full-on demonstrations of His power, ability and might and effectively force everyone to believe in Him. But if God exists, He has chosen, in His own wisdom, to rather express His existence through other means. Perhaps this is to help preserve a sense of individual choice, freewill if you will, rather than force belief and faith on those that don't have it or don't seek it. Personally, I don't think if God came down to Earth (as Christians believe He did in the person of Jesus), that everyone would automatically believe. Skeptics/non-believers will always find a reason to continue in non-belief, no amount of evidence will ever convince them, so long as their heart remains steadfastly firm in its desire to remain in a state of unbelief. At one point in my life, I did not have faith in a God, now I do. I was not convinced by science or even a church. I was convinced by other things I witnessed and experienced in the lives of people around me, and that ultimately convinced me there was something more. I suppose the point is, no amount of data, no amount of science, math or evidence, will ever convince the non-believer to become a believer. That ultimately falls to God Himself, if he exists, to reach the mind and heart of even the deepest skeptics, or to rather leave them to their own preferences. Note - my choice to use the terms "God", "He", "Him", etc. are simply chosen to make the discussion less burdensome. Feel free to substitute whatever deity name/term/pronoun you would rather use.
There had to be and still is "God" as to which one people kneel to that is the question. Many a person mouths the word God and then proceeds to act as a emissary from hell and death and destruction follows, too late for us to see whats behind the veneer. I think we need to ask exactly the god they serve and if they intend to follow the precepts of the one they proclaim.
Walk outside on a cloud free, moonless night. Take a good pair of binoculars and look at any point of the night sky. I have done that more than once. There is a "God" - maybe not the one any specific person would worship, but there is a God, I have no doubt about that. You can make your choice of course.
So if there is no God then nobody did anything, to create everything, from nothing. Now that's what is hard to believe. Seen anything suddenly appear from nothing lately?
Think you can find this on Netflix for free... it points out that there were many science types that disagreed with Hawking... paint a very interesting picture using science and some recent occurances... Is Genesis History? Amazon.com: Is Genesis History?: Del Tackett DM, Kevin Anderson PhD, Steve Austin PhD, Steve Boyd PhD: Amazon Digital Services LLC
My relationship with my God doesn’t require outside validation. People spend way too much time minding other people’s business.
My non-relationship with any god / gods doesn't require outside invalidation but sundry Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses and Scientologists seem to find more time than I would prefer, in making it their business.