Computer scientists prove God exists

It's science! Don't be a science denier! Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

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.

Actually, this theorem is 1,000 years old. It's theological name is The Ontological Proof of God and was first explained in rigorous terms by Anselm of Canterbury, whose development of the proof I explained in 2009.

In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists.

(Anselm's contemprary, Guanilo, argued in reply that Anselm's argument was absurd. As Anselm had cited the Psalm 14, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God," Guanilo snarkily titled his essay, "Reply on Behalf of the Fool," but though it was clever, it did not actually address Anselm's argument since Guanilo apparently misunderstood what Anselm was getting at.)

Closer to our own time, Charles Hartshorne presented the ontological argument this way:

1) God can be analytically conceived without contradiction.
2) Therefore God is not impossible.
3) By definition God cannot be contingent.
4) Therefore God is either necessary or impossible.
5) God is not impossible (from 2) therefore, God is necessary.

Now, in this argument, "necessary" does not mean "required." A necessary entity's's existence does not depend on something else. "Contingent" means that the entity's existence depends on the prior existence of something else. 

In the ontological argument, God's existence is not dependent on any other thing. As Anselm pointed out, if there is an entity, however powerful, whose existence is contingent on something else, we would definitionally say that entity is not God. It would fail to be that "than which no greater can be conceived." Non-contingency is one of the key points in the very idea of God.

Over the centuries, many philosophers have tried to knock down the ontological argument, but, as atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to say that ontological arguments are not valid than it is to explain why. Back to Dr Gödel, whose equation for Anselm's argument reads thus:

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?

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 should clarify what exactly is meant by "proof" of God's existence. In the parlance of philosophical inquiry, "proof" is not mathematical certainty, such as "proving" a theorem of geometry. It is a series of statements, establishing propositions that are true or agreeable within rationality (that is, postulates or conjectures that a reasonable person would assent could be true even if not inarguably so) that lead to a logical conclusion that establishes a proposition which has the force of rational argument behind it.

In this way, philosophical proof is akin to the standard of legal proof in civil lawsuits, where the defendant may be found liable based not on "beyond reasonable doubt" (as criminal trials require), but on "preponderance of evidence," meaning that it is more reasonable than not to find in favor of the plaintiff.