Remarks to the Book
                             "Does God exist?"
- An Answer For Today - Author Hans Küng                                     ExGott

von  Dipl.Math. Ulrich Meyer , Dec. 2006                                                Zur Hauptseite :    Homepage Ulrich Meyer
                                                                                                    To german text :     in Deutsch


This is a translation from German language and therefore it may be not perfect.


By the tries to develop my considerations "Who is God ?" and its Part 2 ,  I always looking for new ideas to the question. Therefore I have read the book "Does God exist?" from Hans Küng. This induced me to the following remarks.

The book "Does God exist?" ist not easy to read. First it has as an paperback Edition 767 sides and second the write style of the author Hans Küng likes to kill the reader. The sentences are very long up to 10 lines or more, because they are complicated and full of facts by much various adjectives, current additives and insertions. Küng describes in the book the diverse philosophers and their teachings, religions, politics, science theories, psychoanalysis and natural sciences. After one has worked through this 767 sides and he nearly was crushed by the big knowledge and the very much facts of Mr. Küng, a summery of the previous writing comes on the last side in 14 lines with an answer of the question. This summary is necessary, because the most reader loose the overview by the length of the book and by the to much facts. At the end you only need to read this 14 lines to know the book. It would be to decided then also more neutrally wether the answer of Mr. Küng is true or wrong. After one has read the book, he is so crushed that he only can say yes and no more. Here is this Summary:

>>Does God exist?
After the difficult course by the history of the modern times since Descartes
and Pascal, Kant and Hegel,
in the detailed doubt of the religion-critical objections of Feuerbach,
Marx and Freud,
in serious confrontation with the Nihilismus of Nietzsche,
in searching for the reason of our basic confidence and the answer
in the God confidence,
in the comparison finally with the alternatives of the eastern religions,
in the itself letting in also for the question “who is God?” and on the God of Israel
and Jesu Christ:
After all that one will understand, why now on the question “Does God
exists?“ by critical reasons there is only to be given a clear convinced
Yes as an answer.<<

For better understanding I advise you to read the summary several times.
I, as a mathematician, cannot say yes to the conclusiveness of the proof of Mr.Küng. His remarks doesn't give me an answer to the question. Here I am reminded to the book > 'Wir sind nicht nur von dieser Welt' (= 'We are not only from this world')Buch  from  Prof.Hoimar v. Ditfurth, where is a try to unite the different views from theologians and scientists to God and the universe.
Hans Küng has some difficulties with the deceased Pope Johannes Paul II, but he is however a theologian on the side of the religion. Küng means now in his book, that by the much mental facets, where some don't accept God, the people still believe to God (although different religions believe to different Gods), this will be a proof to the existence of God. For a scientist and a mathematician this is all other than a proof. Here is no logical conclusiveness. In the end it is a summary of the mental currents of modern times. As Hoimar v. Ditfurth says: 'For theologian the other world exist ( religion is the conviction of the truth of the other side reality).' Under this aspect there comes the rest of Küng's answer as a clear, convinced Yes from alone, since the theologian presupposes nothing else. With this answer however there are no more details stated about God, for example where he is and what he is.

Mr. Küng has the most problems with the logic of mathematics. In his book he ask in one chapter 'mathematik without contradiction?' (Side 53), where he set the mathematical truth as doubtful. As an example he tells about an alleged logical-mathematical Antinomie (logical contradiction) of the 'set of all ordinal numbers'. It means there:
"For every set of ordinal numbers there is an ordinal number, which is larger than all numbers occurring in the set. That ordinal number however, which is larger than the >>set of all ordinal numbers<< at all, cannot occur in this set (because she is larger), und she must - which can be proven at the same time - occur in this set (because we have here the set of all ordinal numbers)."
After reading this statement, you want first agree to this contradiction. But the first sentence is not true. If you take for example the set of all straight ordinal numbers, than there is no ordinal number, which is larger than all other straight ordinal numbers in this set. Here is a problem, as we have it with much infinite sets. With this wrong condition the whole conclusion is wrong. The first sentences is only valid for finite sets and the >>set of all ordinal numbers<< is not finite.
With this missed example Küng actually wanted to refer to the Antinomien of Russell and Burali-Forti in the set theory, to declare the incompleteness of mathematics. These contradictions in the set theory are real or better were real.
The Russell Antimonie means the following:
“The question whether the set of all sets, that do not contain themselves as members, contains itself or not, cannot be answered. It applies both.”
A better understandable formulation of the Russell Antinomie is the history of the Barber of a village, who shaves all men of the village, who do not shave themselves, and only this. What is now with the Baber himself - does he shave himself or not? None of the two possibilities solves the problem. There is always a contradiction. The only solution is, there is no Barber in such a way.
These problems in the set theory were solved by the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, which is an extension of the Zermelo set theory from 1907. It gets along with a limited abstraction principle. The set term is extended by the introduction of classes, whereby the arisen contradictions do not occur any longer. The Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is considered since this time as the basis of mathematics. Since mathematics constructions are a basis of most natural sciences, like e.g. physics and astrophysics, Küng wanted to tell that all the natural sciences have the same incompleteness as the mathematics. The only perfection should remain therefore only for God and shall help so also to proof his existence.
As a mathematician I cannot say Yes to Küngs thinkings. For me mathematics is the most perfect and purest science.


(For the contents of the linked sides we give no guarantee, therefore always the respective offerer or operator of the sides is responsible.)

December 2006