Disproved God

[DoomSlice]

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).

EDIT: Paragraph broken up for readability.

[PokerAce]

This is the same thing as asking "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?" I found an interesting rebuttal to this question while reading a blog a while back.


"Can God make a rock so big that even he can’t lift it? If he can’t lift it then he is not all-powerful. Then the rock has become more powerful than God and whatever is more powerful than God is God. God has infinite qualities not finite, God can only do things that are possible he can’t make square circles or a two sided triangle. It is asking God to bring about a logically contradictory state to his own nature.

This is what is called a category mistake to say he can make something he can’t lift. It’s like asking a bachelor what his wife’s name is? What does the color yellow taste like? Color doesn’t taste. It’s not possible for God to make a rock so big that even he can’t lift it. If he can make it he can lift it. If he can create it , he can destroy it. . It does not show that God has a limit to his power, which means he does not possess infinite power. This means whatever he created is under his jurisdiction under his control, it can never have equality."


Disclaimer: This isn't necessarily my opinion, just thought it might be interesting to some.

[orange]

Shouldn't this stuff be put in the math/science/philosophy forum?

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
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).

EDIT: Paragraph broken up for readability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a CS grad with computability theory classwork, and your "argument" proves nothing. The analogy is EXACTLY the same as the heavy rock argument as mentioned before.

I believe in God and I've never understood why people always use straight line thinking when questioning His existence and/or what He's done, did or is capable of. There are, IMO, too many complexities involved in creation and how we've all gotten where we are.

Call me a simpleton, but I find it hilarious to think someone's using a computer to prove or disprove God. And I've got nothing against computers or computer scientists or programmers. I've been hooked on the things since I bought a TI programmable calculator ('74?) and learned to program that thing.

Figure out how to cure cancer or guarantee me always winning at the poker table, but trying to understand God is insanity.

Shakespeare said it pretty good: "There are far more things....

[livinitup0]

I think this is absolutely hilarious!
NH sir! give me back my damn abacus!

You are speaking in terms of power. Power is a positive function, not a negative one. Your argument is incoherant because of it.

omnipotence means the ability to do all things that are possible, not the ability to do the impossible. this is philosophy 101 stuff, honestly.

I think the way I said it was fancier though
I still give you 8 points, if thats worth anything

Whew! I'm glad this is settled!