I think it is quite a bit to read. Maybe you should have summarized it in your own words and posted the article as a link. I'd like to ask what some people think here about the assertion that mathematical theory ultimately rests on faith. If it does, then what is the difference between having faith in God and having faith in math?
Dan, I'll agree it's quite a bit to read I keep getting interrupted in the long, metaphysical answer to the topic, and am slow in gathering data for the more objective response. However, you ask a fair question: First, mathematics is representational, and God is supposed to be literal reality, if I have the Christians correctly. Second, as with all objective theory: the gaps are filled in over time. It's a learning process, which is another reason why I hammer the point about the sacrifice of the intellect and the end of learning. When arithmetic was insufficient to describe reality as perceived, Al-Jabar (I may have the spelling wrong) invented a fairly solid mathematical theory called--no surprise--algebra. When algebra was no longer sufficient to describe the complexities of observational reality .... There are mathematical theories that I don't even know exist right now. Just like science, math is ever-evolving and can--eventually--demonstrate itself in some objective form. Faith in science is not necessarily misplaced. Faith in any given theory can be a misplaced faith. But as we know, everything is relative to everything else (and not in the Einstein sense ... I mean that everything affects everything, much as you have a gravitational relationship with the most distant celestial object.) But as we see with religious faith, innovations on theory are not easily accepted, and few, if any, can be demonstrated objectively. In a practical sense, this is not a problem unless the faithful make it so: what makes the Inquisitions so horrible is not solely their human toll, but also that the foundation--the God of the Bible--not only cannot be demonstrated, but requires faith, and therefore should not be demonstrated. In science, if I choose to object to a theory that is well-established, I can learn the science and do my best to collect accurate and objective data to disprove it. With religion, this is impossible. The difference between any objective-based sense of faith and religious faith is that the objective sense of faith can eventually be rendered true or false; with religious faith, it shall always be a matter of faith. It's that little slogan I used to bandy about: Science will tell you to stay tuned; Christianity tells you not to ask. I've admitted for quite a while at Sciforums that my own religion is primarily an organizational device for my psychological comfort: I personally don't see what's so hard about that, but it seems only fodder for the more vicious of Christians. I actually do recognize that none of our atheist comrades at Sciforums ever really take issue with it: it demands nothing of them, interferes none with them, and therefore remains largely irrelevant to them. As a side note, part of what makes the topic difficult to approach is the lack of a source: if Caleb constructed it himself, it is an impressive effort, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. If it is lifted from a website or transcribed from a book, I wonder why he doesn't tell us where it comes from--it would make me wonder about his sense of context. To the other, I can make a simple answer of it, but even I am convinced that such an answer doesn't suffice, given the length of the topic post. But, essentially, that answer would be to the following: This lesson from Gödel's proof is one reason I believe that no finitistic system, even one as vast as the universe, can ultimately satisfy the questions it raises. The answer is, simply, that's why we continue learning, so that we can satisfy those questions. Again, something about the sacrifice of the intellect and the end of learning. But that's just me. To return to relevance, though, the difference between faith in science or mathematics and faith in God is simply that one can be developed, innovated, and eventually demonstrated true or false, and the other cannot, should not, and will not. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think you're confusing Christianity with Islam or some other religion that does not tolerate any questioning whatsoever. The Bible itself encourages questioning--in Abraham's case, even of God Himself and His decisions. One has to make sure that one's questions are honest though--not merely a smokescreen for some dislike of Christian values that would make one feel guilty about what they want to continue doing. It looks like you missed the point of the article. It states that no matter how long we have, we will <i>never</i> answer all the questions. Your answer seems to merely contradict what is stated in the proof. Many religions have been proven false by science. We know the sun isn't a god for instance. And we know that the universe had a beginning. So religions that state the opposite are proven false. It seems like what you want is a religion that you have control over. Well, you can (and probably have) chosen such a religion.
Dan .... By all means, let's start a topic and discuss this aspect. I would ask, however, that you support your claim that the Bible encourages questioning; for then we can look at what questions are acceptable, and what is the nature of faith, for faith proven is knowledge and not faith. So should we have faith or knowledge that God exists? And what, then, is the standard of proof? A list of verses would be a good place to start, eh? There is a difference to pursuing the end and trusting that it exists. Imagine humanity existing and learning about the Universe until the "end of time" .... if it disappates or contracts, we'll have an answer. If it expands and remains stable enough to support our responsively-evolving needs forever, well, we can continue learning. One might assert that the Universe is finite; even if you could quantify that finite value, you would, in the next passing second, be wrong, for the Universe has changed, and that finite value with it. What we have to consider here, as well, is that Caleb is attempting to use this proof to "prove" God, which is even more contradictory than to endeavor toward humanity's perpetuity with the purpose of pursuing such an answer. How does the answer that no finite system can satisfy the questions it raises satisfy the question of God? What Caleb seems to be doing is the impossible: he's trying to prove God without proving God. It's absurd. The metaphysical problems here are myriad; how do we know that the sun isn't a god? Mind you, I generally agree it isn't, but I'm one of those who asserts that changing technology and the changing Universe can cause us great surprise at any given moment. Demons or bacteria? Nuclear furnace or deity? To the other, as to your last note: since I am one who asserts that people create gods, I am prone to wonder how it is that people let their gods dominate them. When I see Christians, for instance, believing themselves born wicked and sinful, and praying to God for forgiveness, it saddens me; I believe that nobody should have to feel that way, and can point to the symptoms of faith as evidence of its detriment. Do you find your assertion about my sense of religion to be wise? Why not? It's not like I haven't stated outright at Sciforums that this sense of religion I have is psychological. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The symbolism of mathematics is representational, as opposed to mathematics itself. You are assuming that mathematics is objective theory. It may be reality, and only theoretical because you do not understand it fully. How do you know? How is it possible to know that you don't know something unless you know it first? It is highly unlikely that mathematics is evolving. What is far more likely is that your knowledge of it is slowly increasing. That is because what is true does not change. Otherwise, it would be falsehood. What makes the Inquisition so horrible IS the human toll. An Inquisition without any visible effect would go unnoticed. Impossible? You can choose to object to anything. Here is where science begins to falter. It should be obvious that only that which is false can be rendered false. That which is true stands on its own. Catholicism tells you not to ask; Islam tells you not to ask... Christianity tells you to check for yourself... A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: (Proverbs 1:5, KJV). Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. (Proverbs 2:3-5, KJV). I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness: (Ecclesiastes 7:25, KJV). Since they are "atheists" and are against God, that would mean that what you have has nothing to do with God. It isn't just you. A lot of people who agree with you have also sacrificed their intellects. If something is developed into the truth, then it is false now. If something can be innovated into truth, then it is false now. Only truth can be demonstrated true. That which is false will be demonstrated false, regardless of how may proofs there are or how well-established it is. How true. God cannot be developed into the truth because he is already true. God cannot be innovated into truth because he is already true. God will not be demonstrated false.
I would say that Caleb would be going out on a limb to say that this is a proof od God, but it <i>does</i> make a lot of progress towards disproving that everything can be explained naturalistically.
LOL!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! WRONG!!! In summary, the article states that <i>no matter how much science discovers</i> it is <i>impossible</i> to know it all. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to know as much of it as we can -- just realize that there is truth that is beyond science. I can't use that to prove God, because, after all, if it is beyond proof, I can't prove it. One can only prove that there <i>are</i> things that can't be proved. BTW, I got this article of a Creationist website (is it that important to have the URL?), however, over the summer <i>research</i> project, the professors breifly mentioned this theory as sort of a mathematical "fun fact" near the end of the year. For the later: http://www.sciforums.com/t3676/s1264d08ed6d65d21d5edd82015cabe32/thread.html as to the former: 2 Tim 3:1-7 This know also, that in the last days... men shall be... ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ~Caleb
Caleb, Thanks for the article. It was an interesting exposition of Godel's theorem. There are, however, several important mistakes made when the author the article attempts to tackle the implications of the theory. ---- "What do Gödel's theorems mean for those who believe there is a God? First, Gödel shattered naive expectations that human thinking could be reduced to algorithms. An algorithm is a step by step mathematical procedure for solving a problem. Usually it is repetitive. Computers use algorithms. What it means is that our thought cannot be a strictly mechanical process. Roger Penrose makes much of this, arguing in Shadows of the Mind that computers will never be able to emulate the full depth of human thought. But whereas Penrose seeks solutions in quantum theory, Christians see man as a spiritual being with understanding that springs not just from the physical organ of the mind but also from soul and spirit. Second, had Gödel been able to affirm that a complex system is able to prove itself self-consistent, then we could argue that the universe is self-sufficient." ---- Penrose, Lucas and levels of description Godel's proof applies to formal systems. The author is mixing up the mathematical idea of self-consistency (that is, there are no contradictions derivable within the system) with self-sufficiency. (In an ontological sense as indicated above or, in the sense that no external causal explanation is required, an epistemic self-sufficiency.) This point therefore relies on the ambiguity arising from the authors's limited understanding of Godel's theorem. Godel's theorem proves incompleteness or inconsistency must always be a feature of any formal system. It makes no sweeping statements about the universe. Belief that the universe requires an external causal agency springs from imagination and tradition, it is not proven by a technical qualification of formal systems. Now regarding the argument first given by Lucas then developed by Penrose. Penrose attempts to prove that the brain is doing activities that no computer could by showing a non-computational mathematical argument. What he overlooks is that a computational activity can often be described in non-computational terms. His treatment of the human brain as a formal system overlooks the fact that it would only necessarily be computational at the level of the neural substrate. In his book "The Mystery of Consciousness" Searle gives the example of car registrations: "Every registered car in California has both a vehicle identification number (VIN) and a license plate number (LPN). For registered cars there is a perfect match: for every LPN there is a VIN and vice versa, and this match continues indefinitely into the future because as new cars are manufactured each gets a VIN, and as they come into use, each is assigned a LPN. But there is no way to compute one from the other. To put this in mathematical jargon, we construe each series as potentially infinite, the function from VIN to PIN is a noncomputable function. But so what? Noncomputability by itself is of little significance and does not imply that the processes that produce the noncomputable relations must therefore be noncomputable. For all I know, the assignment of VINs at the car factories may be done by computer, and if it isn't, it certainly could be. The assignment of LPNs ideally is done by one of the oldest algorithms known: fist come, first served. The question "Is consciousness computable?" only makes sense relative to some specific feature or function of consciousness and at some specific level of description. And even if you have some specific function that is noncomputable, my seeing the truth of Godel sentences for example, it does not follow that the underlying processes that produce that ability are not themselves simulatable computationally at some level of description." Frankly, I do not believe that the emulation of human thought is forthcoming in the near future. Despite my youth, I do no expect to see such a thing within my lifetime. As Penrose himself stresses, the practicality of such a venture is not at issue here. It is the question of whether the abilities of human reasoning or something like it (Within the context of Penrose's arguments, mathematical reasoning in particular) is in principle simulatable. His argument does not establish, therefore that the consciousness is not neuronal. Both the christian appeal to ghostly entities and Penrose's to undeveloped physical theories remain extraneous. --- "The first possibility, that the universe is infinite, is most unlikely... The Christian therefore is reasonable when he points to a spiritual creator outside the physical universe as an explanation for what goes on within it...His own theorems strongly suggest that while the finite can infer something bigger than itself, it cannot prove the infinite. As in this article, reason can only show that it is reasonable to believe in a spiritual God who transcends the limits of the universe." --- It is perfectly reasonable to point to a spiritual creator, I would be delighted if anyone proved capable of indicating to me the source of all creation. The fact of the matter is that where you point, I see only air. Your misapplication of Godel's theorem doesn't save your method of positing God as an explanation for the observed universe. I see no compelling reason to treat the universe as a formal system. Should you give me one, I would be most interested in coming back to this point, the relation of mathematics to reality is a very deep question to me. As of now, I simply fail to see how your argument indicates to us that reason can only show that it is reasonable to believe in a spiritual God who transcends the limits of the universe. --- "As a third implication of Gödel's theorem , faith is shown to be (ultimately) the only possible response to reality. Michael Guillen has spelled out this implication: "the only possible way of avowing an unprovable truth, mathematical or otherwise, is to accept it as an article of faith."(8)" --- "Faith is the only possible response to reality."? Do we merely have faith that the Godel sentence is true? No, we know it is true, faith has nothing to do with it. Godel merely demonstrated that the setence G (That asserts it's own unprovability) is unprovable within the system. Again, your conclusion doesn't follow. I think that arguments should relate clearly to conclusions. If you don’t feel that this is the case, you might save yourself some time and simply to drop all pretense and boldly conjure up whatever conclusions you see fit. "In other words, scientists are as subject to belief as non-scientists. And scientific faith can let a man down as hard as any other." This is not the same meaning in other words. These sentences I wholly agree with. All humans have some sort of beliefs. (Unless there is some strange neurological disorder I'm not aware of. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It is the content, the explanatory power, the basis of these beliefs that is the pivotal issue. Merely because every belief system is nested in a meta-system of assumptions and theories doesn't mean that what is required is an infinite system of ultimate certainty. I feel that seeking this certainty within God is as misguided as seeking it within mathematics. If we could actually find it, I would be happy to be wrong, but I’m not confident that we can. ---------------------- Regarding: QUESTIONS FOR ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS --- “If we dwell in a finite world created by an infinite God, is not a Gödelian theorem exactly what we should expect to find?” --- Why does the predictive power offered by God as an explanatory theory always appear after the fact? And the answer to your question is no, no one expected Godel's theorem (with the possible exception of a few mathematicians and they certainly did not do so on theological grounds). Positing a finite world created by an infinite God gives us no predictive power at all. "Why was it that Christian theology and Christian thinkers impelled the major modern developments in infinity theory?" Christian theology is related to all developments in western thought. Candle wax was also related to all developments in western thought. Neither impelled the aforementioned developments. The fact that many prominent thinkers were Christian has to do with the fact that most of the population in the western world has been Christian. "In light of Gödel's proofs and Christ's transfinite claims, won't you yield yourself to God?" My soul is still on sale for 2,000 dollars. Figures are in US, money will be taken up front. Sorry, no COD. If God is able and willing to invest the money, I'm still waiting.
*Originally posted by synaesthesia Godel's theorem proves incompleteness or inconsistency must always be a feature of any formal system. It makes no sweeping statements about the universe.* While this is literally true, a corollary to incompleteness of a formal system would be that sweeping statements, such as, "there is no God," based on the findings of a formal system, are incomplete and/or inconsistent. *the example of car registrations: To put this in mathematical jargon, we construe each series as potentially infinite, the function from VIN to PIN is a noncomputable function.* This is prima facie error. It is easily computed by computers every day. The error that Searle makes is that he assumes that computation necessarily operates on the data represented by symbols, rather than the symbols themselves. In the case of car registrations, the meaning is IN the symbols, as opposed to being represented by the symbols. *The question "Is consciousness computable?" only makes sense relative to some specific feature or function of consciousness and at some specific level of description. And even if you have some specific function that is noncomputable, my seeing the truth of Godel sentences for example, it does not follow that the underlying processes that produce that ability are not themselves simulatable computationally at some level of description."* On the other hand, it also does not follow that they are. *I do not believe that the emulation of human thought is forthcoming in the near future.* You do not have a lot of support among the believers in materialism. *Both the christian appeal to ghostly entities and Penrose's to undeveloped physical theories remain extraneous.* Extraneous to what? * The fact of the matter is that where you point, I see only air.* That is a good expression of Godel's theorem as practically applied. Formal systems tell you there is only air there. The incompleteness of those systems should alert you to the possibility that there is something else there. *I see no compelling reason to treat the universe as a formal system.* It would be incomplete if you did. However, the formal systems which tell you what the universe consists of, are also incomplete and inconsistent. A corollary to that would be that the amount of information gained from formal systems is unknown in quantity. Another corollary is that since the amount of unknown information is itself unknown, it could actually be far greater in quantity than that which is known. In fact, it could be infinitely greater. And unless you can think of a limit to knowledge or a known limit to that which is unknown, it IS infinitely greater. This means that the quantity of unknown knowledge itself transcends the limits of the universe. *"Faith is the only possible response to reality."? Do we merely have faith that the Godel sentence is true? No, we know it is true, faith has nothing to do with it.* Faith has everything to do with it. At any point, you could choose not to believe it. *Merely because every belief system is nested in a meta-system of assumptions and theories doesn't mean that what is required is an infinite system of ultimate certainty.* It certainly isn't required. You could choose to believe in a finite system of ultimate uncertainty, such as those found in many belief systems. *I feel that seeking this certainty within God is as misguided as seeking it within mathematics. * Of course, your own formal system of thought, the one that led you to that statement, is also incomplete and inconsistent. *Positing a finite world created by an infinite God gives us no predictive power at all.* Sure, it does. One can predict that many people will behave as though God is finite, as though infinity itself is finite, as though the finite world is all there is and as thought that finite world by nature of its finitude will be fully comprehended by finite man. *Christian theology is related to all developments in western thought. Candle wax was also related to all developments in western thought. Neither impelled the aforementioned developments.* No, but they facilitated said developments. Both introduce light. For comparison, we can go to cultures who were uninfluenced by Christianity. American Indians were relatively isolated. We can see the tremendous advances they made. Similarly the Chinese were relatively isolated. They now claim Third World status. *My soul is still on sale for 2,000 dollars.* Not yours to sell. You are a servant and as such, do not have the right to sell your owner's property. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. (Romans 6:20, KJV).
<i>*My soul is still on sale for 2,000 dollars.* </i> I very much doubt that! - Hypothetical: I offer you 2,000 dollars -- and I do have it in the bank (in fact I will be getting another three thousand in scolarships soon) -- and tell you that all you had to do was worship little ugly monkeys in red suits and their monkey-king (named King Kong). By the way, in order not to provoke the red-suited monkeys, you must never eat another vegetable in your life. And you can never-ever leave the "faith", or the red-suited monkeys will sick the army of flying monkeys (from Wizard of Oz) on you. I very much doubt that you would believe such nonsense - even if I offered you $10,000!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The point is, you ought to really discover if what you are believing is true. If I were to pay you $2,000, would you believe the world is flat? (I'll even make that one of the fundamental principles of monkeyism) What I'm getting at, is that it would be foolish to believe something if you weren't absolutely sure that it was true. Furthermore, no amount of money can ever make something that is against reality suddenly be true. Therefore, anything that you believe as a religion should not be done for money, but for truth. That's why I'm not an atheist, anyways. ~Caleb
Caleb wrote: "I very much doubt that! The point is, you ought to really discover if what you are believing is true. If I were to pay you $2,000, would you believe the world is flat? (I'll even make that one of the fundamental principles of monkeyism)" Belief, to the best of my understanding of Christian theology, is not synonymous with the soul. The soul which grants the capacity to belief, to have free will and to have moral character but it is itself none of the above. Therefore, although you may have legal ownership of my soul, you would not have the ability or authority to control what I believe. This applies even if, as tony suggested, God is the owner. (I do not grant this to be the case, the almighty has to fork over the cash, same as anyone.) Oh, by the way, I will sign a duration specific contract to believe monkeyism if you do pay an additional 10,000. Tony1: "While this is literally true, a corollary to incompleteness of a formal system would be that sweeping statements, such as, "there is no God," based on the findings of a formal system, are incomplete and/or inconsistent." That's a rather dramatic non-sequiturs. Godel's theorem doesn't entail that kind of prepositional restriction at all. We can, after all, prove the truth of such statements as, y)Frank was not born. z)The invisible elf never existed. Your assertion that being able to derive "there is no God" within a formal system entails a contradiction would require that my own example, "The invisible elf never existed" is also one. Their logical structure is the same, both sentences assert the non-existence of something. If there's no logical contradiction in asserting the nonexistence of the invisible elf, there is no logical contradiction in asserting the same of modems, bigfoot or God. I would like to reiterate that the truth of these sentences isn't at issue. Obviously our invisible elf doesn't exist and modems do indeed exist. If a derived sentence (a) entails that the system is inconsistent, a is a logical contradiction. Godels theorem does still suggest that a formal system can be consistent. It simply cannot be both complete and consistent. Sorry folks, even with Godel's theorem, a sound logical argument is still sound even if you don't like it. Tony1 also wrote: "*the example of car registrations: To put this in mathematical jargon, we construe each series as potentially infinite, the function from VIN to PIN(edit: My mistake, it¹s LPN) is a noncomputable function.* This is prima facie error. It is easily computed by computers every day. The error that Searle makes is that he assumes that computation necessarily operates on the data represented by symbols, rather than the symbols themselves." Meaning isn't really relevant to this discussions. Computability, by definition, is a syntactic issue. The point is that for every Vehicle Identification Number there is a Licence Plate Number, each of which, individually, is easily computable. However, despite the 1:1 correspondence between the VIN and the LPN, given any given VIN I cannot algoritmically derive it's associated LPN. It is the relation between the two that is noncomputable. As you pointed out, it does not follow that our brains are computational machines. I quite agree. The grounds for believing this are quite independent of Godels theorem. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of Penrose's argument. "*Both the christian appeal to ghostly entities and Penrose's to undeveloped physical theories remain extraneous.* Extraneous to what?" Extraneous to nothing. (That's a syntactical point.) By extraneous I mean that such explanations are not required to explain the data. They come into play as a result of old philosophical notions, not because of arguments stemming from the above computational issues. ------ * The fact of the matter is that where you point, I see only air.* Formal systems tell you there is only air there. The incompleteness of those systems should alert you to the possibility that there is something else there. *I see no compelling reason to treat the universe as a formal system.* It would be incomplete if you did. ... A corollary to that would be that the amount of information gained from formal systems is unknown in quantity. ... Another corollary is that since the amount of unknown information is itself unknown, it could actually be far greater in quantity than that which is known. ... In fact, it could be infinitely greater. And unless you can think of a limit to knowledge or a known limit to that which is unknown, it IS infinitely greater. ... This means that the quantity of unknown knowledge itself transcends the limits of the universe. ... "Faith has everything to do with it. At any point, you could choose not to believe it." ----------- I started to type a reply to this a number of times but, in all honesty, I can't say where to start. I'm stumped because I realize that I'm going about this all wrong. Tony clearly has little or no understanding of what Godels theorem means, and even then he uses his misinterpretations to build logically unsound arguments. He thinks that we rely on FAITH to believe in logic. We have FAITH that 1+1=2 and that if a implies b and a is true, b is true. Don't let me do the talking, just look at his arguments. "Unless you can think of a limit to knowledge or a known limit to that which is unknown, it IS infinitely greater." I strongly suggest that all interested parties visit: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html and read it. Please, try to digest this information. Read lines like "Firstly, logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe" twice. Just for practice, try translating a few simple arguments into truth tables. Many issues are being brought into play that have absolutely nothing to do with Godel¹s theorem. It seems that the author of the article that Caleb provided us, for an example, developed some severely faulty analogies. It is from these faulty analogies that the theological arguments are drawn. Godel's theorem says nothing about God or Gods, nothing "*Merely because every belief system is nested in a meta-system of assumptions and theories doesn't mean that what is required is an infinite system of ultimate certainty.* It certainly isn't required. You could choose to believe in a finite system of ultimate uncertainty, such as those found in many belief systems." Ultimate uncertainty? What' the difference between that and no belief system at all? Frankly, I'm less interested in belief than in the truth. "*I feel that seeking this certainty within God is as misguided as seeking it within mathematics. * Of course, your own formal system of thought, the one that led you to that statement, is also incomplete and inconsistent." Again, this kind of argument is rooted in your misunderstanding of what logic is. My formal system of though is the same as yours is. My quoted statement about certainty is my opinion and was not derived from logical argument. "*Positing a finite world created by an infinite God gives us no predictive power at all.* Sure, it does. One can predict that many people will behave as though God is finite, as though infinity itself is finite, as though the finite world is all there is and as thought that finite world by nature of its finitude will be fully comprehended by finite man." One aspect demanded of theories by rationalists such as myself is that the implications are derived concretely. As far as I can see you¹ve gone from "finite world created by an infinite god", waved your hands and magically arrived at your prediction. By analogy, I can say that, "We can predict quantum non-locality by positing that Ernie and Bert are homosexual." Well that may be, but how do they relate? How did I derive such a prediction? "No, but they facilitated said developments." Ah, that¹s more like it. So could you explain how Christianity¹s suppression of rationality facilitated the proliferation of science? "For comparison, we can go to cultures who were uninfluenced by Christianity. American Indians were relatively isolated. We can see the tremendous advances they made." Correlation does not imply causation. I am holding in my hand a tea cup designed and made in Europe. It is the composite atoms of this tea cup that played a pivotal role in facilitating the industrial and scientific revolutions. After all, look at Africa, they didn't have those iron atoms and look at the sorry state they're in. Hence, these atoms were indeed responsible. "*My soul is still on sale for 2,000 dollars.* Not yours to sell. You are a servant and as such, do not have the right to sell your owner's property." I admit that I did give my soul to God as a child. However, I believe that the contract was illegal -There was no consideration exchanged. I never received anything in exchange for my soul. -I was not familiar with market prices involved in souls. God, being fully aware of them, should have been scrupulous enough to notify me. -Undue coercion was involved, pressure from parents, priests and peers. This qualifies as such because: -I was not at the age of majority at the time. Therefore, my soul is legally on the market and is still available. Remember, 2,000 dollars. I do accept major credit cards.
*Originally posted by synaesthesia Therefore, although you may have legal ownership of my soul, you would not have the ability or authority to control what I believe. This applies even if, as tony suggested, God is the owner. (I do not grant this to be the case, the almighty has to fork over the cash, same as anyone.) * You didn't read my quote. It is not God who owns you, but sin. *That's a rather dramatic non-sequiturs.* Connected thoughts only appear to be non-sequiturs if you cannot follow them. *Godel's theorem doesn't entail that kind of prepositional restriction at all. We can, after all, prove the truth of such statements as, y)Frank was not born. z)The invisible elf never existed.* I'd like to see you try. They are both literally paradoxical and nonsensical when considered practically. *Your assertion that being able to derive "there is no God" within a formal system entails a contradiction would require that my own example, "The invisible elf never existed" is also one. Their logical structure is the same, both sentences assert the non-existence of something. If there's no logical contradiction in asserting the nonexistence of the invisible elf, there is no logical contradiction in asserting the same of modems, bigfoot or God.* Wow! Did you read any of what I wrote? I actually said that making statements such as "there is no God," based on the findings of a formal system, would be incomplete and/or inconsistent. I made no claim that one would be able to derive such a statement via a formal system; in fact, I would say that such a derivation is impossible for much the same reasons you just presented. *If a derived sentence (a) entails that the system is inconsistent, a is a logical contradiction.* I agree. Thus, if one derives the statement "there is no God," and any inconsistency results, then the statement "there is no God" is indeed a logical contradiction. *Godels theorem does still suggest that a formal system can be consistent. It simply cannot be both complete and consistent. Sorry folks, even with Godel's theorem, a sound logical argument is still sound even if you don't like it.* That is really bad news for those who wish to argue for no God. *Meaning isn't really relevant to this discussions. * Tjkhn asfjnfj sajifur djjashdfhf fjkajfkjd askjdk asdkjsah. Thus, it is easily proven that jhsjdhfjhf fdhjewfjhwfe qwjhdf djhqwdhjwq. Hard to follow the logic? Well, maybe meaning does have some relevance. *Computability, by definition, is a syntactic issue. The point is that for every Vehicle Identification Number there is a Licence Plate Number, each of which, individually, is easily computable. However, despite the 1:1 correspondence between the VIN and the LPN, given any given VIN I cannot algoritmically derive it's associated LPN. It is the relation between the two that is noncomputable.* That is also prima facie error. There are two series of symbols. There is a 1:1 correspondence between those two series. The algorithm goes like this: "For each x,y" *He thinks that we rely on FAITH to believe in logic.* So do you, apparently. What on earth do you think "believe in" means? You cannot express the relationship between you and logic without drawing on faith. *Godel's theorem says nothing about God or Gods, nothing * You are right, of course. *Ultimate uncertainty? What' the difference between that and no belief system at all?* I wish I could get believers in false religions to ask themselves that question this quickly. I personally don't think there is any difference either, but there are millions of people around who think that ultimate uncertainty is a valid belief system. *My quoted statement about certainty is my opinion and was not derived from logical argument.* Admittedly, it is your opinion, but if you didn't derive it from logical argument, then it must have been derived from illogical argument. What would be the point of holding opinions based on illogical argument? *One aspect demanded of theories by rationalists such as myself is that the implications are derived concretely.* But not necessarily derived logically, based on your earlier statement. * As far as I can see you1ve gone from "finite world created by an infinite god", waved your hands and magically arrived at your prediction.* It is only magic if you don't understand it. *By analogy, I can say that, "We can predict quantum non-locality by positing that Ernie and Bert are homosexual." Well that may be, but how do they relate? How did I derive such a prediction?* Based on illogical argument, perhaps? *Ah, that1s more like it. So could you explain how Christianity1s suppression of rationality facilitated the proliferation of science?* Sure. "Christian suppression of rationality" is propaganda you learned in school, rather than actual fact. You see, your teachers knew you had no alternate source of information, so they simply told you that. In the guise of "rational thinking" they gave you references to check, who in turn also just told you that. You, like a good little student, have now "learned" that, and regurgitate it just like you were told. A+ in schoolwork, D- in life. *Correlation does not imply causation.* Another good little student statement. Did they forget to tell you that correlation proves absence of non-causation? *I admit that I did give my soul to God as a child. However, I believe that the contract was illegal -There was no consideration exchanged. I never received anything in exchange for my soul. -I was not familiar with market prices involved in souls. God, being fully aware of them, should have been scrupulous enough to notify me. -Undue coercion was involved, pressure from parents, priests and peers. This qualifies as such because: -I was not at the age of majority at the time.* The consideration was the blood of Christ. You would have received eternal life. The price for one soul is blood. If you believe the contract is null and void then it is. Thus your soul reverts to the original owner, sin, and is not legally for sale. That is why you have no takers. The takers know they own you already.
Tony, You are not attempting to clarify your position nor to understand mine. When you don't understand my points or are ignorant of some prerequisite knowledge that I presume the reader has, you don't seek to learn about them, you simply ridicule. It is manifestly obvious that you have not read the website, and I suggest you make a better attempt to understand it than you did to understand me. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html If I thought that anyone could make sense of your arguments, I might think it worthwhile to refute them. As it stands, there seems to be little danger of that.
synaesthesia@godisdead.com synaesthesia@godisdead.com No he's not dead yet............... <img src="http://www.3w-art.com/picasso/pic33.jpg"> THE FACE OF PEACE Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! re, howard/howard
*Originally posted by synaesthesia You are not attempting to clarify your position nor to understand mine. When you don't understand my points or are ignorant of some prerequisite knowledge that I presume the reader has, you don't seek to learn about them, you simply ridicule.* Sorry I was speaking over your head. *If I thought that anyone could make sense of your arguments, I might think it worthwhile to refute them.* Since my arguments are simply responses to yours, I can only assume that you either do not understand your own position, or you do not understand the ramifications of your own position. *As it stands, there seems to be little danger of that.* Oddly, I'm in total agreement there. It does not look likely that you would be able to refure my arguments.
