Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and necessity of God!

Days ago, a friend of mine posted a comment to one of my (persian) posts which reminded me of the “Godel’s incompleteness theorem” (from now on GIT) and logical positivism program. Logical positivism is based on the belief that whatever cannot be verified experimentally or proven mathematically is invalid. Logical positisim was adopted by a group known as “The Vienna Circle” in Austria, where Kurt Gödel was a member. They were hoping/confident to explain everything self-consistently without requiring something supernatural (i.e., beyond the universe).

Since I am not an expert in this field myself, I just highlight some of the main points taken from the note here. Since GIT is not a common knowledge for non-scientisits, in short, the incompleteness theorem (as given in here) is: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove”. You could find further information on wikipedia, and also  here.

I don’t want to copy the whole note, but I strongly suggest to everyone to read it including the comment section. However, the bottom line is “The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t formal proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.”


2 thoughts on “Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and necessity of God!

  1. I would like to nominate this post for Templeton prize, with added footnote that I want 10%.
    Aside from this, It appears to me that it bothers you, that there are certain things that are excluded from Western science. Welcome to the club.
    A friend of me, showed me this book,
    Also in the same vein:

    Your post assumes that although the western science has had the severe shortcoming of ignoring the role of a creator, ( A mistake Avicenna was able to avoid by his “Wajeb-al-Wojood” argument ) It has been doing fine elsewhere. But even if we confine ourselves to natural phenomena, Is it really true, that the European sciences have “succeeded” in explaining nature with their “reductionist view” ?

    Basically the Western science succeeded by “religiously” following a view that advocated, dividing a phenomena to its parts and understand the parts, but there are occasions that this view is not helpful, particularly, when the system is irreducible, the western science is incapable of making progress. As a matter of fact, there has been no noticeable breakthrough in the Western science at least for the last 40 years. Every where you look, Quantum Mechanics, Genetics, Computer Science, Gravity, Neuroscience, Social Sciences, there has been stagnation, the media reflection not withstanding.

    If you inquire as to what is the cause of this stagnation, you see, that these fields are precisely the areas where you can’t reduce a whole to its parts, because the definition of whole and parts becomes impossible.

    This is the Esphandiar’s Eye of the Western Science.

    This tragedy, presents an opportunity for the Eastern sciences to blossom.
    Unfortunately, the easterners have lost their sense of self-reliance, and lost the roots of their scientific and technological superiority in the middle ages. But if they look at themselves from a different point of view, from the point of view of a SUPERIOR culture and civilization, rather than an inferior one, IF they ASSUME that they are INDEED superior (potentially at least)
    they might take a completely revolutionary view.

    IF they do that, they will be able to develop new tools, new languages, new symbols, new mathematics, new mathematical symbolism, new nomenclature, new methods and new philosophies that can bring breakthroughs that the West has been unable to bring about.

    This movement will restore science and technology to its rightful place again, the East.

  2. Thanks for your comment my friend. In fact, it is funny you mentioned this, since after I posted this, I planned to make another post to classify and compare western and eastern science to answer the question if the scientific process (from idea to experiment) itself is western or eastern type. It might seem vague but I encourage you to stay tuned for the next post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s