Disproved God (X-post)
 

A bit of computer science background: there is a theorem called the Church-Turing Thesis that states that everything that can be computed can be computed by a "machine" called a Turing Machine, look up in Wikipedia if you need to know exactly how a turing machine works.

Now for my proof.

Assume for the sake of contradiction that God exists with the usual Christian beliefs (omnipotence and omnipresence). There is a class of languages called "Non-turing recognizable languages" which cannot be computed using a Turing Machine (meaning they cannot be computed at all).

One such language is called EQ_TM, where EQ_TM = { <M , N> | L(M) = L(N)} where M and N are two turing machines and <M,N> is the string representation of those two machines. L(M) = L(N) means that the language that is accepted by turning machine M is the same as the language that N accepts (basically they are the same machine).

Since EQ_TM is a non-turing recognizable language, then there is no Turing Machine that can recognize it, and thus no way to compute it. However, if God existed with the aforementioned properties, he would be able to create a Turing Machine that would recognize EQ_TM.

Unfortunately, this would violate the Church-Turing thesis (which is the backbone of computation theory), so therefor no Turing Machine that God could make would do this, contradicting our initial assumption.

Therefor, a God does not exist (or at least is not omnipotent).

Re: Disproved God (X-post)
 

You did it! Woooo, now that that's over, we can all get on with our lives.

(There will probably still be silly people who still believe allthough you have clearly proven otherwise)

Re: Disproved God (X-post)
 

Nice work. Of course it all hinges on convincing true believers in a God that the common belief and acceptance of the Church-Turing thesis is as infallible as their acceptance and belief.

Re: Disproved God (X-post)
 

This is such good news that you're cross-posting? Just out spreading the good news? Doing a little pre-Nobel prize campaigning?

Re: Disproved God (X-post)
 

[ QUOTE ]
this would violate the Church-Turing thesis (which is the backbone of computation theory)

[/ QUOTE ]

And so what? How can you be sure that the Church-Turing thesis can't be violated?

I don't know squat about any of this, but it certainly appears completely underwhelming and lacking in authoritativeness to me. Somebody(ies) came up with some theories, and you're saying God doesn't exist because of them. I'm an atheist, but it's certainly not because of weak arguments like this.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Re: Disproved God (X-post)
 

I'm sure I'm not the first one to notice that this is just an overelaborate take on the old "Could God create a stone so heavy he couldn't lift it?" question.

The contradiction is incorrectly applied to the conclusion when it in fact lies in the wording of the question itself.

God cannot create a contradiction because it is just that, a contradiction. Next prove God doesn't exist because he can't make a square circle or can't outplay Phil Hellmuth after the flop....

Re: Disproved God (X-post)
 

I am confused as ever,but let me get this right?

You disproved a theory (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt even though I dont understand it) that was created by men, who in the Christian faith are considered to be far from perfect?

God did not create this theory, unless i missed that somewhere, so therefore saying that you disproved another man's theory only means that the other man was wrong not that God doesn't exist.

Thats how I see it.

Re: Disproved God (X-post)
 

your argument simplified.

Can God create a bowl of porridge so big he cannot eat it?

yes/no/who cares?





STOP PLAYING WORD GAMES. and go read some Vicktinstien(sp?)

Re: Disproved God (X-post)
 

Isn't this basically an overly complicated version of "If God exists he could create a rock that even he couldn't lift"?

Re: Disproved God (X-post)
 

"Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"