How Modal Logic Proved Gödel was Right, and God Exists

Kurt Godel, via Arithmeum Museum in Bonn

Kurt Godel presented a proof to determine whether God exists. Image courtesy of Arithmeum Museum in Bonn.

A recent headline claimed that Computer Scientists ‘Prove’ God Exists. What is the real story beneath the headline? Who wrote the proof? How did the scientists prove that God exists? Finally – just what is “modal logic”?

Gödel’s Proof that God Exists

Christoph Benzmüller and Bruno W Paleo wrote a brief article describing the verification of Kurt Gödel’s proof of God’s existence.

Sometime between 1941 and the 1970s, Gödel wrote a brief mathematical proof that God exists. Later, Dana Scott edited the original proof. Decoded Science offers a brief summary of this proof, which has five axioms that we assume to be true:

  1. Any “property”, or the negation of that property, is “positive”; but it is impossible that both the property and negation are positive.
  2. If one positive property implies that some property necessarily exists, then the implied property is positive.
  3. The property of being God-like is positive.
  4. Positive properties are necessarily positive.
  5. The property of necessarily existing is positive.

Gödel added three definitions along the way:

  1. A “God-like” being has all positive properties.
  2. An “essence” of a being is a property that the being possesses, and that property necessarily implies any property of that being.
  3. The “necessary existence” of a being means that it is necessary that all the essences of that being exist (“are exemplified”).

Gödel proved intermediate theorems and one corollary in the course of his proof. The first two axioms led to “Positive properties may possibly exist (“be exemplified”). After adding the third axiom, God, the God-like being, may possibly exist. With the help of the fourth axiom, Gödel stated that “being God-like” is one essence of any God-like being.

After adding the final axiom, Gödel concluded that it is necessary that God exists.

Both Gödel and Euclid Used Axioms and Logic

Statue of Euclid in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, image by Mark A. Wilson

Statue of Euclid in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, image by Mark A. Wilson.

The ancient Greek philosopher and mathematician Euclid laid the foundations of geometry in exactly the same way that Gödel constructed his proof that God exists. Euclid also provided axioms and definitions, then built theorem upon theorem by applying logic. Euclid’s results are still valid; mathematicians still use his approach.

If Gödel’s logic stands up to scrutiny, then the only logical way to attack his conclusion is to disagree with one or more axioms. We welcome our readers’ comments on this.

Euclid offers an intriguing “parallel” case. His “parallel postulate,” an axiom, states that there can be only one straight line, ‘S’, through a given point ‘G’ that is not on a different straight line ‘L’ such that line ‘S’ never intersects line ‘L’. That’s true on a flat surface, but not on a sphere such as the planet Earth, where parallel lines of longitude cross at the North and South Poles. Euclid defined “plane geometry” on a flat surface; but changing this one axiom changes many results and creates geometry on a sphere.

Would changing one of Gödel’s axioms eliminate God? Certainly this could invalidate the current proof.

Modern Computing Verified Gödel’s Proof

A team of logicians and computer scientists collaborated to encode Gödel’s proof and verify it with several computer programs. These particular programs had to deal with “modal logic”, which can handle statements about “possibility” and “necessity.”

These sophisticated programs have somewhat understated names such as “Nitpick,” “Sledgehammer” and “Metis.” Apparently a MacBook computer can be powerful enough to run them.

What is Modal Logic?

Modal logic deals with statements, or propositions, that express “possibility” and “necessity.”

Many of us are more familiar with less expressive “propositional logic,” limited to “if something exists” or “if all somethings have this property.”

Benzmüller and Paleo’s paper states that they used several different modal logic systems to verify Gödel’s proof. Those are different logic systems, not just different computer programs. The logic systems were:

  • ‘K’, a “weak” logical system named for logician Saul Kripke; see the next paragraph.
  • ‘B’ logic adds “A implies the necessity of the possibility of A” to ‘K’ logic.
  • ‘S4’ and ‘S5’ logic allow some simplification of repeated “possibility” and “necessity” operations; see below.

‘K’ logic extends typical propositional logic by adding two axioms for necessity and also the concept of possibility:

  • If A is a theorem in ‘K’, then “the necessity of A” is also a theorem in ‘K’.
  • If it is necessary that “A implies B“, then “the necessity of A ” implies “B is necessary”.
  • The “possibility of A” is equivalent to “it is not necessary that A is false”.

‘S4’ logic permits reducing a string of repeated necessities to one necessity, and a string of repeated possibilities to a single possibility.

‘S5’ logic permits reducing any string of repeated necessities and/or possibilities to just the final operation, whether it is possibility or necessity.

Click to Read Page Two: Mathematically Concluding Whether God Exists

© Copyright 2013 Mike DeHaan, All rights Reserved. Written For: Decoded Science
Decoded Everything is a non-profit corporation, dependent on donations from readers like you. Donate now! Your support keeps the great information coming!

Donation Information

I would like to make a donation in the amount of:


I would like this donation to automatically repeat each month

Tribute Gift

Check here to donate in honor or memory of someone

Donor Information

First Name:
Last Name:
Please do not display my name publicly. I would like to remain anonymous


  1. says

    In the axioms it is not clear what positive means. The axioms remind me of the proof given by Descartes, though I don’t know if he originated it. It goes as follows: We define God as that which is perfect. Anything lacking existence would be imperfect. Therefore, by definition, God must exist. Philosophers still argue over the validity of the proof. I am on the side of those who say you can’t speak of existence as a property.

    • says

      How did the something create nothing? how did order come from disorder? how does cellular multi-organic complexity come from single reaction inorganic compounds? What is the universe expanding into?
      How can you deny thee existence of a god or God if you can’t answer any of these or other more complex queries?

  2. Sarah says

    Anyone who claims to be atheist is illogical…here’s why: an atheist by definition (when you break down the word, not just the dictionary definition) is one the claims God does not exist. There absolutely is no way to prove God does not exist, because in order to do so you must have all knowledge which no earthly person does. However in order to prove He does exist, it just takes one experience with Him.

    • Mojo R says

      Do you believe in fairies, or are you a fairy denier who claims fairies do not exist? Many people are deniers, but you cannot prove fairies do not exist. I have personal experience with fairies, and that is proof that they are real. Denying their existence is illogical, because I said so….

      Wait… what? Just because someone made up a story about some invisible being does not mean I have to prove non-existence of this being. The proof is on the bearer. You brought the story, you prove it. Stories of cancer survivors or stories of emotional (spiritual) transformation are not proof, by the way.

      If you take a challenge to prove that faries and bigfoot and dragons and unicorns and the loch ness monster don’t exist then I won’t feel so sad about the lack of intellectual discourse in this country (world?). And I’ll consider becoming agnostic.

      Until then, I remain an athiest and feel no need to prove the non-existence of a purely faith-based concept.

      Something you may enjoy. Here is an interesting program about successfully converting atheists. Check it out, is good fun, and can be found on youtube – search: Derren Brown – How To Convert An Atheist

      • watchNU says

        So because you believe that someone ( or many) is unintelligent, you decide to be atheist? And maybe if other people will be smarter according to your standards then you’ll open up yourself to accept that maybe there’s a god? What a load of horse shit and a cop out. The way any other person acts should not affect your decision on whether or not YOU believe that there is a creator. YOU have decided there is no God. That is the bed you made, sleep in it. And if the time comes that you have to answer for the decision that YOU made, don’t try to pawn it off on every one else saying its their fault. If you can’t even have a bit of conviction in not believing, no wonder you’re not cut out to look at the world around you and see all the design before you.

        • Andi says

          You completely misunderstood his point and you fail terribly at making yourself logical. His only argument was that, if someone at once, in history, comes with a story that isn’t provable in any objective way (can’t be perceived/trial/ experiment/even theoretical analysis) and shows sings of subjectiveness (it implies personal experiences, feelings etc.), then the story itself isn’t reliable, can’t be rightly understood, thus the one who was to give explanations is the one who makes up the story, not the one who hears it and can’t make his mind about. It’s a shame we’re still more open to magical thinking and we prefer to see the occult of the world, instead of accepting that there are things known and things unknown and our job is to be honest about what we can know about the world.

  3. paddy grenham says

    I like and believe the idea of the big bang but I refuse to believe that the particles that set it off just created themselves popping up out of no where and nothing. I believe there is a higher power a creator.

  4. says

    All right, let me leave a comment without the F word in case the other one gets deleted. Cute math and word games won’t prove there is a god. People scream at each other yes he does no he doesn’t yes he does no he doesn’t!!!!
    Or he could come down and prove he’s real and he won’t do that either. The bible is just a book, peoples’ experiences are not proof. I’ve never seen anything supernatural.

    • Travis says

      This is a little late but…. When you look at the Bible, God already appeared and sat with man; Adam and Eve as well as the Jews – the temple was the dwelling place of God (simply put). With their knowledge of God’s existence, more than ours, they still sinned and did not change their ways. Basically, knowing and seeing God did not change much at all as far as their imperfections – hence the reason for the sacrifice of Jesus.

  5. TheReaper says

    This is a joke, analytical proofs are not used in synthetic subjects. The existance of something is a factual question which only can be decided by empirical examination, not with using analytical tools to verify synthetic assumptions. This is called synthetic apriori and false in every single way. But what else could one accept from theists?

    As for qm and consciousness, there’s no experiment which shows us that consciousness forms matter (btw noone has defined ‘matter’ in this debate so you can talk about every kind of shit you feel convenient.) some are can be interpreted that way but that explanation is an unfalsifiable one which begs for more experiments. There are non, however only in the mind of wannabe physicists. Other interpretations of quantum physics does not use ‘consciousness’ in any way or form. The wave function collapse can be explained in many different ways, some other interpretations doesn’t even think that the wave function collapse is something of a big deal. Some lying pseudoscientists want to make people think that the vast majority of physicists accept the von Neumann interpretation, however it’s not the case, only a small minority accepts it. You can search for Shimon Malin’s thought experiment, for example. Sure, everyone can bring up a few scientists and quote mine from them in order to make the readers think that the question of consciousness is not even up for a debate but on the other hand, others can bring up more scientists who think the complete opposite. One can check even wikipedia for Penrose’s Orch-OR hypothesis is not supported by evidence, and one should also realise that Penrose’s hypothesis has nothing to do with the hypothesis that our troll, Anand Vyas has presendet, actually it uses qm to explain the properties of consciousness. However another physicist, Max Tegmark says that quantum systems can’t control brain functions because the decohere quickly.

    Another problem is with our troll’s argument that he presupposes that matter and consciousness are two different kind of substances, which leads us to the logically shredded and completely obliterated realms of substantial dualism.

    • Laurence Butler says

      I’d like to jump in here, in the hope that I can add something useful.
      Reaper has some points to make undermines them with ‘straw man’-ing Anand Vyas.
      I can understand what Anand Vyas was talking about but really, Anand, you might have headed off much of the negative affect that you generated in other commentators by taking a more generous scientific approach and providing good quality references right from the start.
      Those who would like to know more about the substantive research underpinning key issues of ‘consciousness and the Universe’ can have a go at reading the paper here:
      The title is: “Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose, Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory, Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 39-78, ISSN 1571-0645,

      I hope more people will get involved in this discussion (I nearly wrote debate, but thought better of it). It has fundamental implications for the basis of mind, our place in the wider universe and the relation of mind to matter. Trouble is, our human flavour of consciousness wants to have ‘the’ answer, but in this arena, data are arguably emerging more slowly than questions and extreme viewpoints.

  6. Anand Vyas says

    Okay the Bible Beater is out in full force. You can read J.R.R. Tolkien “The Lord of the Rings” and say he for saw the coming of the atomic bomb…. One ring, evil etc… Million upon millions of possible explanations. No Bible “predictions” have ever come true nor is THERE ANY record of a HISTORICAL Jesus. He probably never existed and if he did would be disgusted by his message of LOVE being hijacked by a bunch of loony tunes…

  7. middle eye says

    AV likes mindless appeal to accomplishment and authority. Its easier than actually explaining something.

    • Anand Vyas says

      Lol – no not an appeal, I learn and then try to talk to people. Some, like you are not very educated so I understand the resistance.

  8. middle eye says

    so? i was hoping that link was relevant to youargument but it only supports an illogical appeal to accomplishment and had nothing to do with your argument. Go ahead and waste another opportunity to explain your “facts.”

    • Anand Vyas says

      I see, you dont understand the value of establishing credentials. What are yours ? Giving me my order at the drive through window ?

  9. Anand Vyas says

    You like Einstein then “I want to know the mind of God, the rest are details”…. it’s amazing to me that the people that understand science the least believe they understand it the most (unless your name is Albert Einstein or Sir Roger Penrose)… or Anand Vyas

  10. Mark says

    Ironic that those of ‘faith’ seem to want to herald the Math as proof. I suspect their Godly vehemence comes from a deeper truth they dare not admit to themselves.

    • Anand Vyas says

      Math is no proof… I am no champion for the “God of the gaps” – no just cause we understand the science of something doesn’t mean we know the why. And there is certainly a why…

  11. BinaryStar34 says

    Well, either Goedel was making a mathematical joke, and generations of people without any sense of humor didn’t get it, or he was simply going insane. I have a feeling, that it was the latter.

    For one thing: mathematical logic doesn’t carry any semantic meaning. In Goedel’s “proof” the terms “positive”, “negative” and “God” can be replaced with “blue”, “green” and “playing cards” without ANY loss of generality.

    Does that mean Goedel has proven that there should be a blue playing card in any standard western style deck of cards? If he has, why can’t I find it?

    One could further argue, that his axioms are nothing but a stacked deck of cards, themselves, since they make all kinds of unproven (Christian) assumptions about god.

    One could even argue, that his first axiom

    “Any “property”, or the negation of that property, is “positive”; but it is impossible that both the property and negation are positive.”

    is already false. Every quantum system in this universe (and there are nothing but quantum systems in this universe) is, at all times, in some superposition of states, that can never be described as being in exactly one state, or the other. I can only suggest, that these gentlemen run Goedel’s “proof” against a dozen proposed systems of quantum logic. Intuitively I have a feeling, that they will find it to fail in every single one of those (and in an infinity of other logic systems).

    • Anand Vyas says

      Agreed but quantum states in superposition imply and indeed point to consciousness preceding matter and not matter before consciousness. This is the key point.

        • Anand Vyas says

          Lol – it’s not an opinion. Sir Roger Penrose and any leading physicist today will tell you consciousness is prime and that matter did not arise first. I completely understand that you didn’t go to college but don’t make stupid stupid claims about somebody’s mental status when you do not even understand the simple science of today. did you ever read past Newton and get to Einstein even in 1915 or 05? you’re not learned enough to know much about the special theory of relativity 1905 discovery but I thought you’d understand 1915s discovery being huge by Albert Einstein. discussing this outside of my usual PhD circle and intelligent friend circle is futile your lack of understanding makes it impossible to give you any points or anything to read that will help you in your quest to understand this universe.

  12. Ben says

    How does one exist if one is just a union of segregated regions comprised of different proportions of nanomachines that collective drive the vehicle using an energy input (food), analogous to an automobile? In the crudest terms, the only difference between yourself and a rock is that you have moving parts; it’s our fault for putting ourselves on a pedestal because we are emotionally predisposed to do so. What does the author say about the implications of the rock existing? The significance of the rock and the human existing are identical.

    • Joe says

      That’s the only valid response to such humongous tripe.
      How bout we ask you to prove that there is no proof of God’s existence?
      Good luck on that, nobody will be holding their breath.
      Atheists – the kings of denial, ignorance and irrationality.
      Atheists spend all their time denying all evidence and all arguments presented to them – no proof of the contrary, just denial and dismissal.
      That’s the most the world has ever seen from atheists.

      • Anand Vyas says

        True, theists are snarky and r ude like Richard Dawkins (he is simply a Zoologist As Neil De Grass Tysons points out and not a great one either) …. There whole premise is based on denial. I have never seen any group work so hard (other than Religious fanatics) to belittle other facts and ideas without any ideas if their own. Blind to the latest science they are only armed with their own lack of self worth.

          • Anand Vyas says

            And you just went from “knowing very little” and being boring. To just knowing very little and being boring. Oh no change on your end. I understand not being able to challenge me academically. Good day.

      • trailfaz says

        Joe, you’re a “know-nothing clown. Atheists have cornered the market on logic, actual science, history, morals, ethics, an absence of superstitious thinking etc. Why don’t you kneel down and pray for something constructive like cleansing the world of religion. :)

    • Joe says

      I can’t believe anyone is dumb enough to say such blatant codswallop as you just did.
      Ignorance is your name and incompetence your game.

      • says

        lol – care to share you wisdom or just trolling?
        In case you did not get it: try the “proof” and replace “God” with “Unicorn” .. and then go on your trolling-quest to find yourself a unicorns-horn to prove that god may exist after all … but thanks for pointing out how stupid I am with such elaborate reasoning – and of course as your real self ….

          • says

            lol – google your name – you will get a wide range of people – some with Phd’s , some without – I guess it’s a bit as if I had posted as a “Dr. Christian Müller” here in germany … and of course you could still go and find some Phd with this name from havard and just “steal” his identity … no sorry but as I said – I don’t care about your name nor your reputation – just what you are saying here … and this is obvious

            • Anand Vyas says

              lol I never asked you to Google me but if you must me you can simply type in “Anand Vyas” (I am the Sitarist that comes up) or “Anand Vyas Research Gate”

                • Anand Vyas says

                  Your ignorance shows clearly, you dont understand physics and thats fine, most people do not. I wont stay quiet because another human with an I.Q. that is far inferior to mine says I should. You are ignorant if you believe matter precedes consciousness. Read about the “primacy of consciousness”. I will be anywhere I want you ignorant ape.

                • Anand Vyas says

                  I can, “shut up” but we are at “Discuss” which is a website that’s essence is the opposite of that. You are shallow and these truths bother you else why care that I type ?

                • Anand Vyas says

                  “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing postulates consciousness” Max Planck

      • says

        and in case you still do not understand it … here is a quote straight from page 2:

        “As noted above, one may still disagree with any axiom. If an axiom
        falls, then theorems depending on it would fall. Within modal logic,
        that would terminate the proof of God’s existence.”

        So see: I disagree with much of this “positive” mumbo-jumbo – as an example I will not swollow this:

        “The property of being God-like is positive.”

        nor this:

        “The property of necessarily existing is positive.”

        As I said – all of this could be said of my just made-up good “the pink all-good mega-lovin freak-god from mars” …

        • Anand Vyas says

          “The Supernatual is not remote and abstruse: it is a matter of daily and hourly experience: as intimate as breathing. Denial of it depends on a certain abscent-mindedness. But this abscent-mindedness is in no way surprising.” (CS Lewis in Miracles, p. 65).

          “But mere experience, even if prolonged for a million years, cannot tell us whether the thing is possible. Experiment find out what regularly happens in Nature: the norm or rule to which she works. Those who believe in miracles are not denying that there is such a norm or rule: they are only saying that it can be suspended. A miracle is by definition an exception.” (CS Lewis in Miracles, p. 72)

          “Belief in miracles, far from depending on an ignorance of the laws of nature, is only possible in so far as those laws are known. We have already seen that if you begin ruling out the supernatural you will perceive no miracles. We must now add that you will equally perceive no miracles until you believe that nature works according to regular laws. If you have not yet noticed that the sun always rises in the East you will see nothing miraculous about his rising one morning in the West.” (CS Lewis in Miracles, p. 75).

          “If miracles were offered us as events that normally occurred, then the progress of science, whose business is to tell us what occurs, would render belief in them gradually harder and finally impossible.” (CS Lewis in Miracles, p. 75).

          “Thus in one sense the laws of Nature cover the whole field of space and time; in another, what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe–the incessant torrent of actual events which makes up true history. That must come from somewhere else. To think the law can produce it is like thinking that you can create real money by simply doing sums” (CS Lewis in Miracles, p. 93 – 94)

          • Mark says

            Anand. Hocus Pocus lover. The Maths works on assumptions on the positive states of made up guff. It’s a joke. Sadly on you. Phd in Pgysics huh – so wheres your science… jeez

            • Anand Vyas says

              Try looking up the “hard problem” of physics. Consciousness precedes matter and not the other way around, this coming from minds as great a Sir Roger Penrose to Albert Einstein. I believe you need to brush up on your science.

              • says

                You will find all kinds of nice quotes from really intelligent and well known people “proofing” anything you like – you make a very poor point if you can only show some random googled quotations and instead of explaining why the obvious problem (most not buying the axioms here so for *us* the conclusion – while not technical wrong – will not hold as well) is none – you now try to give yet another attempt (consciousness => god) without any proof at all … #rofl but I have to give you this: if you troll here you do it on a high level.

        • Anand Vyas says

          I am a physicist and not a Christian. We have found that consciousness precedes matter and not the other way around (see the “hard problem” of physics, or Peter Russell’s brilliant a “The Primacy of consciousness”, or any Sir Roger Penrose talk on consciousness. The materialist is wrong based on simple science. Religions are indeed “metaphors” all pointing to the same intelligence.

          • says

            So you’ve got scientific evidence of this claim (evidence as in repeatable experiments) … “we have found” – who is we? “consiciousness precedes matter” <- extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs …

            • Joshua Machado says

              Couldn’t an experiment be done with what science has to give, and also an experiment on people who claim to have experience phenomenal occurrences with life and death? (A Higher succession with this experiment would be of those who don’t know each other.) Then when all information is gathered, we could postulate the occurrences that match, then counter the science

          • Danny Sims says

            Lawrence Krauss is a physicist, and he would disagree with you, I think. So, perhaps the consensus isn’t as overwhelming as you are trying to make it in regard to consciousness preceding matter. I am not a physicist. I only hold an A.A., so I’m obviously not as smart as you. But it seems to me that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain. We have no examples, that I know of, of consciousness existing independent of a brain. It seems, from my limited understanding, that some physicists have attached the label “consciousness” to something that causes atoms to function and the Universe to become ordered. I don’t think it has been determined that the cause must be a conscious, intelligent being. And I certainly don’t see, even if it is the case that a god exists, why it must be the God of Abraham. Still, the existence of a god must be proven first, and I don’t think that task has been successfully completed.

            • Anand Vyas says

              I did not say there were not materialist physicist, the physicists with more laureates like sir Roger Penrose all agree there is part of the Universe that is not computational. The steady state model fails and Krauss will tell you that. There was a beginning over 14 Billion years ago, and the “No-Thing” that Krauss believes caused it is consciousness. That also is being debated, but there are scientists on both sides of the argument. Materialism is losing ground everyday.

              • Danny Sims says

                “and the “No-Thing” that Krauss believes caused it is consciousness.”
                How can you just assert that the first cause, if there was one, was consciousness? And again, how does that translate to a god? Better yet, how does it translate to a specific, interventionist god as the one depicted in the bible? I’m not so concerned with the argument over the possibility that the Universe was created by an intelligent being. I would like to see some evidence to support the claim before believing it. I don’t care how many physicists think that the Universe sprang from some sort or consciousness or how many of those physicists have been awarded with prizes. You need to supply evidence to support your assertion, or else you are just making stuff up. It’s good to have an imagination, but just because you imagine a possibility, that does not mean that it is necessarily true and accurate. When you make bald assertions, you seem just as dogmatic as the religious crowd.

                • Anand Vyas says

                  There is no assertion. We know that either “nothing” or something began in a bang. We know this, its a fact. We also know moving the arrow of time forward entropy in the system (disorder) increases. What does that say when moving backward in time ? That we get to a more and more highly ordered state. In fact Sir Roger Penrose believes it was a perfect order and the Universe will breathe in and out every 20 Billion or so years, in a crunch and bang. Over and over.

                • Anand Vyas says

                  To say an explanation is best, you do not need an explanation of the explanation. To do so would cause infinite regress.

                • Anand Vyas says

                  As far as proofs there are too many to mention, but the basis of quantum mechanics is consciousness (double slot experiment for one). Another proof is if you start with matter in a lab you will never get consiouness, though we absolutely can create matter in a lab from consiouness. I mean there are so many proof by great scientists (to say you don’t accept them and want me to re hash them all says a lot more about your closed state of mind that it does about me). I am posting hard science and you’re talking.

                  • Danny Sims says

                    “Another proof is if you start with matter in a lab you will never get
                    consiouness, though we absolutely can create matter in a lab from

                    Never? What scientist would ever say that we could never do something? I understand that the probability is low, especially with the limited knowledge we have now, but who is to say that someday it will not be possible to create a new, conscious being? To say never is dogmatic.

                    As for creating matter in a lab, are you saying that we can create matter out of nothing? What do you mean that we can create matter from consciousness? You haven’t really explained what you think consciousness is, other than something that exists outside of matter (although you have provided no proof of that claim). If you mean that we can use our brains to create things, then I’ll agree, but that is not doing so purely from consciousness. We still have to use brain matter. I am not a physicist, and I certainly don’t have a Ph.D. from Harvard or any other institution. I’m beginning to think that you are embellishing your qualifications. Could you just point me to a scientifically verified, peer-reviewed experiment that shows that consciousness exists independent of matter? And, if you could provide a link to a document that describes the experiment where matter was created from pure consciousness, that would be great. Thanks.

                    • Anand Vyas says

                      Hope Sir Roger Penrose is qualified enough for you, I will try to link it, if it will not let me just google consciousness and primacy.

                    • Danny Sims says

                      It seems that you are just trying to appeal to authority, and specifically to Penrose. I’ll look into his work, but it will not be convincing if there isn’t a repeatable experiment that proves that consciousness is independent of matter. Please link me to that specific experiment, or at least provide the names of the scientists who conducted the experiment and the title which they used, or I’ll have to assume that you are just making it up. This shouldn’t be so difficult, especially for someone who holds a Ph.D. in physics from Harvard. If you are so familiar with the experiment, then you should be able to point me to it with no problem.

                    • Anand Vyas says

                      The burden isnt on me, I am not on the fence like yourself. I actually know the science. Do your own reading as you seem very intelligent, the answer will be apparent.

                    • says

                      in other words … GAME OVER … you should have look at the “Sagan Standard” (“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”) .. of course the burdon is on you here … you made all those claims and have ZERO proof/experiments/papers/… given so far …

                      But I give you this much – most trolls just ignore such challanges ^^

                    • Anand Vyas says

                      There is no “game” and if you think so its your problem. 2nd I have given you places tro read about physics including Nobel Prize physicist’s Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Fred Alan Wolfe to name a few. Its not an appeal to authority, your local community College physics teacher will tell you more of the same. The main reason the burden isnt on me, is because I wont take demands from a child who uses all caps to get his/her way. The fact that you understand less about consciousness than the implications of physics (which is in no way your fault), the educational system, but I am not here to fix your understanding. To be fair people that call people trolls usually have very very low I.Q.’s since you are basically using the lowest common denominator to try ti win a debate that you are getting hammered in.

                    • Anand Vyas says

                      Zero ? You are blind and stupid in that case. Sorry I thought you would understand how Google works, again type in a Primacy of Consciousness and watch (or dont and stay ignorant), they wont let me post it all here. Your lack of understanding can be blamed on out school system. It churns out people like you that dont fully get anything.

                    • Anand Vyas says

                      “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing postulates consciousness” Max Planck 1933

                    • Danny Sims says

                      I’m fine with doing my own reading. However, you are making a claim that something is true, so the burden of proof is upon you. All you have to do is link me to the source. I’ve explained that I have not found anything to corroborate your opinion, so I am asking for you to link me to the information that you have so that I may verify your claim. I looked up some things that Roger Penrose has said, and it didn’t seem to me as if he was firmly convinced that consciousness precedes matter. He seems to merely suggest that there is a mystery at the subatomic level that we have yet to figure out. The double slit experiment that you pointed me to turned out to be an experiment that showed that light will behave simultaneously as a particle and as a wave. The notion that subatomic particles “behave” differently when observed is interesting, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it implies consciousness. And even if it does, and subatomic particles do have some sort of consciousness, that doesn’t support your claim, because those subatomic particles are matter. So, if you would like for me to believe what you are stating, then please link me to the experiment that concluded that consciousness precedes matter, because I have not been able to find it. If you don’t, then I’ll have to assume that you are making it up; or at least embellishing the truth a bit.

                    • Anand Vyas says

                      Okay Danny I will try, remember when I link they have to moderate it. They dont always allow it, but to their credit they often do if its relevant, so here we go my friend.

                    • Danny Sims says

                      There’s nothing. Just give me the title of the experiment, the journal it was published in, and the year, and I should be able to find it. Thanks.

                    • Anand Vyas says

                      “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing postulates consciousness” Max Planck 1933

                    • Anand Vyas says

                      “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” –
                      Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169)

                    • Anand Vyas says

                      “I have a much easier time imagining how we would understand the big bang, even though we can’t do it yet, than I can imagine understanding consciousness.”
                      – Edward Witten – professor of mathematical physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jerse

                    • Anand Vyas says

                      “Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality ” Eugene Wigner Ph.D.

                    • Anand Vyas says

                      “To me one thing that has emerged from my experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact. And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain” Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander III, M.D. with Steve Paulson (Interviewer)

                    • Anand Vyas says

                      “Another place where scientific investigation might make significant contributions to religious belief is the area of human consciousness. I find the fact of human consciousness and free will to be a strong argument for some sort of transcendence. If we truly have a free will, if our actions represent true choice and not just results of biochemical reactions following deterministic or random processes, then where does that will come from? If there is only physics and chemistry, where does decision come from? Of course, it may be that our impression that we have free will is illusory, or it may be that free will emerges from a sufficiently complex system all of whose components are deterministic or random. But I find these possibilities unconvincing and find it simpler to believe in a transcendence that provides something beyond determinism or chance. I call that transcendence God. But, considering the poor state of our scientific understanding of human consciousness and free will, my conclusion about the necessity of transcendence is not particularly well founded. A better understanding of consciousness, which may come from future scientific investigation, could significantly change this situation.” William Daniel Phillips is a Nobel Prize-winning American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Steven Chu and Claude Cohen-Tannoudji in 1997 for his contributions to laser cooling, a technique to slow the movement of gaseous atoms in order to better study them, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Professor Phillips was commended for his invention of the Zeeman slower

                  • Danny Sims says

                    “As far as proofs there are too many to mention, but the basis of quantum
                    mechanics is consciousness (double slot experiment for one).”

                    I tried to look for the “double slot experiment”, but all I could find was the double slit experiment (Young’s experiment), and it says nothing about consciousness as far as I can tell. If there is a different experiment called a “double slot experiment” that supports your claim, then could you please point me to where I can find the information? Thanks.

        • Anand Vyas says

          “Thus in one sense the laws of Nature cover the whole field of space and time; in another, what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe–the incessant torrent of actual events which makes up true history. That must come from somewhere else. To think the law can produce it is like thinking that you can create real money by simply doing sums” (CS Lewis in Miracles, p. 93 – 94)

          • Marc Margolin says

            Why must this come from somewhere else? Because the late “great” CS Lewis says so? I disagree completely. Tell me why it’s so. I don’t have a Ph.D., but I have a B.S. in both math and computer science from the University of Wisconsin and have also taken several physics courses. I also subscribe to several science magazines and have independently learned a great deal about the physical sciences as a hobby.

            • Anand Vyas says

              And clearly you can’t purchase comic timing cause your attempt at a joke was lame. Consciousness precedes matter.

              • middle eye says

                You’re full of it. You keep repeating your assertion as a fact yet you can’t paraphrase the proof to us simple folk. No one with a brain takes C.S. Lewis seriously.

                • Anand Vyas says

                  Really that’s why his books and works have been made into a Billion Dollar industry. You are a complete moron, I am no Christian but I know as physicist consciousness precedes matter, that’s a fact. Though people like you do make a example of the possible of rocks being intelligent a seemingly good possibility if only cause you’re a moron. Just because you think that I am speaking of a Judeo Christian view does not make it so. Also I would brush up on elementary physics before locking horns with me. Now go back to school then we can talk.

                • Anand Vyas says

                  You are funny. An ad homiem Attack Is All You Understand. You may not know what one is, but you’re a materialist and that paradigm fails Biology and physics along with ANY hard science. Though I realize you don’t know what “the hard question of consciousness is” or what hard science entails. God luck being wrong.

    • Anand Vyas says

      Not trolling – again your small mind can’t get around the fact the double slit experiment shows without a shadow if a doubt that consciousness (the Higgs Field and the quantum world) precedes matter. And in a world in which the only way to have meaningful debate is to state the facts and back them up. I have given examples and even said “try reading for yourself the latest on physics and consciousness etc” and you simply make ad hominem attacks. You have no ideas of your own (saying someone’s is wring is not an idea) and show you simply don’t understand higher level math. Maybe go to community college and talk to some math and physics professors and ask them if the materialists views holds water today (it doesn’t).

      • says

        so you rename the Higgs Field to “consciousness” – and what have we gained? If I from now on say “god” instead of “gravitation” I guess I would somewhat believe too …

        ” …only way to have meaningful debate is to state the facts and back them up” … still waiting for the “back up” part … (hint: backup is not some quote from some celebrity … it’s an experiment – we are talking physics here … but if your “consciousness” is *just* the higgs field you will surely come along with CERN, won’t you?)

        • Anand Vyas says

          clearly your ability to read sentences only undermined by your understanding physics the laws of science… I never once equated the Higgs field with consciousness I simply stated the facts that consciousness precedes matter. asking me to prove it is rather like asking me to prove 1+1=2. its self evident and a simple visit to local community college physics department will answer all of your questions. I’m done giving you a free lecture. Your mind is closed so enjoy your small life :)

  13. Chelsea says

    The same guy (Godel) that proved that if we believe in a God he must exist also proved that any argument that can be demonstrated by a procedure (like a computer program), can prove it’s own consistency.

    I accept Godel’s original theorem, just know it’s proven that these guys can’t prove a system consistent because of Godel’s other work. (See Incompleteness Theorem)

      • Chelsea says

        Right? This “discovery” didn’t get very far in the scientific community. Just journalistic pieces that went mostly unread. Probably because anyone who knows Godel realized quickly that building an algorithm for a proof doesn’t validate the truth of the proof. :P

        • Anand Vyas says

          I hope you’re kidding :) it’s one of the most valuable theorems and we’ll known in history

  14. Devin Baillie says

    If axioms 1, 2, and 5 weren’t garbage, you might have an article worth reading. As it is: garbage in, garbage out.

    • Joe says

      So here’s the wannabe mathematician scientist dismissing the work of the greatest mathematician of the 20th century. The guy that is to math what Einstein is to physics.

      Wow, just wow. Aren’t you the wizard.
      So many dumb atheist blow hards, so few stray meteorites.

  15. says

    Sigh! Ontological proofs are logical practical jokes. It’s likely Godel was fully aware of this and was having fun with the mentally infirm of his day. Regardless of the formal validity of the proof any axiom or inference rule that implies the existence of god is as contentious as the very existence of god. You’re being played with people.

    • Joe says

      Yet another wannabe expert has spoken. Let all the world listen to the ape that says he’s smarter than the greatest mathematician of the 20th century.

      Yes ladies and gents, Godel was just pretending, that’s why he only showed his proof just before he died and only discussed with Albert Einstein and friends.

      The ignorant Ape has spoken it must be true.
      I can’t believe how dumb atheists have become.

      I’ll guess just blame Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens – the 3 Stooges of logic and integrity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *