You continue not to address my posts. Your dodging and deceitful debate strategy is not only tactless, but also obvious. You only reply to the parts of my posts which are most convenient for you. Despite this fact, I will spend my time and energy to convince you that it is utterly and totally pointless for you to believe in a deity when there are far more rational, evidence based explanations which are a lot more useful then a fairytale god which does not even impact our universe in any way.
You cling to this notion of a god as if it's a vendetta; as if having some sort of universal master satisfies you in some way. I'll tell you this: I have no master, and if I do, let him come and strike me with lightning this very instant. Oh, what's that? I'm still alive.
Before we go on with this debate, tell me why you choose to believe in something that you can't see, smell, touch, taste, or sense with any human sense or other instrument we can create. Why do you believe in god?
Okay, now that this question is out of the way, I will proceed to address even more of your illogical arguments.
And you complained about the legnth of my posting William Lane Craigs take on the Flying Spaghetti Monster something that has been all over the internet for the last five years or so. Craig has one of the best responses to the idea the Spaghetti Monster being a false comparison and I see no need to write it again.and again when it already dealt with your points..
God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5933
For anyone interested check it out.
The website first claims that it is pointless to put a label on God. You can call God the Flying Spagetti Monster or The Magic Zombie, but whatever label you give God, it doesn't diminish his existence. I quote: "The inference to a Designer is not an inference to any particular deity."
This argument is entirely missing the point. The point isn't about a label, but rather about the millions of things you could believe in, such as an invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter. Why would you believe something like this when there is no evidence for it?
The website then goes on to claim: "The kalam cosmological argument, if sound, gives us grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe. Again, a being with such attributes cannot be anything like the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
This is statement is incorrect according to the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster. The Flying Spagetti Monster is a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe, according to the Chuch of the Flying Spagetti Monster. Why is the pastafarian holy book untrue and Christianity's book true?
As you can see, the Flying Spagetti Monster is just like God, and is also like the Invisible Teapot Orbiting Jupiter. All three are exactly the same: irrational constructs not founded on any sort of physical evidence.
Now to Gödel. In 1931, the young mathematician
Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.
In one salvo, he completely demolished an entire class of scientific theories.
Gödel's discovery not only applies to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has earth-shattering implications.
Oddly, few people know anything about it.
Allow me to tell you the story.
Mathematicians love proofs. They were hot and bothered for centuries, because they were unable to
PROVE some of the things they knew were true.
So for example if you studied high school Geometry, you've done the exercises where you prove all kinds of things about triangles based on a set of theorems.
That high school geometry book is built on Euclid's five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody's figured out a way to prove them.
Yes, it does seem perfectly "obvious" that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions, but no one has been able to PROVE that. We can only demonstrate that Euclid's postulates are a reasonable, and in fact necessary, set of 5
assumptions.
Towering mathematical geniuses were frustrated for 2000+ years because they couldn't prove all their theorems. There were so many things that were "obviously true," but nobody could find a way to prove them.
In the early 1900's, however, a tremendous wave of optimism swept through mathematical circles. The most brilliant mathematicians in the world (like Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Ludwig Wittgenstein) became convinced that they were rapidly closing in on a final synthesis.
A unifying
"Theory of Everything" that would finally nail down all the loose ends. Mathematics would be complete, bulletproof, airtight, triumphant.
In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible. He proved they would never prove everything. (Yeah I know, it sounds a little odd, doesn't it?)
Gödel's discovery was called "The Incompleteness Theorem."
If you'll give me just a few minutes, I'll explain what it says, how Gödel proved it, and what it means - in plain, simple English that anyone can understand.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says:http://en.wikipedia....teness_theorems"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 can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they're all built on Euclid's 5 postulates which we know are true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.
Stated in Formal Language:
Gödel's theorem says: "Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory."The
Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.
Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)
Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.
Syllogism:
1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete
You can draw a circle around a bicycle. But the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.
You can draw the circle around a bicycle factory. But that factory likewise relies on other things outside the factory.
Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Everything that you can count or calculate. Incompleteness is true in math; it's equally true in science or language and philosophy.
Gödel created his proof by starting with "
The Liar's Paradox" — which is the statement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t4z-CL9N7k
"I am lying.""I am lying" is self-contradictory, since if it's true, I'm not a liar, and it's false; and if it's false, I am a liar, so it's true.
Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted this Liar's Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that no statement can prove its own truth.
You always need an outside reference point.
The Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the "positivists" of the time. They insisted that literally anything you could not measure or prove was nonsense. He showed that their positivism was nonsense.
Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic. Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.
He wasn't wrong. It was really true.
There are more things thue than you can prove.are true.
A
"theory of everything" - whether in math, or physics, or philosophy - will never be found. Because it is mathematically impossible.
OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?
Here's what it means:
* Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
* All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
* You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
Reasoning inward from a larger circle to a smaller circle (from "all things" to "some things") is
deductive reasoning.Example of a deductive reasoning:
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal
Reasoning outward from a smaller circle to a larger circle (from "some things" to "all things") is
inductive reasoning.
Examples of inductive reasoning:
1. All the men I know are mortal
2. Therefore all men are mortal
1. When I let go of objects, they fall
2. Therefore there is a law of gravity that governs all falling objects
Notice than when you move from the smaller circle to the larger circle, you have to make assumptions that you cannot 100% prove.For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it's consistently true every time.
Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.You cannot PROVE this. (You can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don't know that
outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.
http://en.wikipedia....ophy_of_science(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)
Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can - around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we're drawing a circle around all of them too):
* There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
* The universe as we know it is finite - finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
* The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
* Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
* If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel's theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Because all the matter and energy are inside the circle. It's immaterial.
* Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system - i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
* Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.
We can apply the same inductive reasoning to the origin of information:
* In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.8 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
* The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time.
* All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
* Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.When we add information to the equation, we conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite and immaterial, it is also self-aware.
Isn't it interesting how all these conclusions sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?
Maybe that's why it's hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it's intuitive to most folks. But Gödel's theorem indicates it's also supremely logical. In fact it's the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.
The person who proudly proclaims,
"You're a man of faith, but I'm a man of science" doesn't understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!Interesting aside…
If you visit the world's largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement:
"Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it."
If you know Gödel's theorem, you know all systems rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel's Incompleteness theorem, the folks at Infidels cannot be correct. Because the universe is a system, it has to have an outside cause.Therefore Atheism violates the laws mathematics.
The Incompleteness of the universe isn't proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it's necessary.
Euclid's 5 postulates aren't formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid's 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.
Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. They are two sides of the same coin. It had been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved it.
No time in the history of mankind has faith in God been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by rational thought, science and mathematics.
Most of this argument came from Perry Marshall. See his take on evolution.
http://www.cosmicfin...hyperevolution/Note: I agree with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and it's mathematical and scientific ramifications. I disagree with it's use to justify belief in God. Here is why:
You used an example:
A straight line can extend forever in both directions, and no one has been able to prove this. This is a reasonable assumption that is necessary. The first part of your example is a comparison, I assume, to God. You believe in God, and nobody has been able to prove that he exists, but you choose to believe in him anyway.
You use Gödel's Theorem to assert the following (I paraphrase):"Some things are true, such as God, but can never be proven."
You go on to claim, via indirect comparison to Gödel's Theorem, that this is a reasonable assumption that is necessary, just as Euclid's 5 postulates are necessary in mathematics.
I disagree. Let's say I choose to believe in something with no proof, such as "Pigs fly when I don't look." I too can use Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to justify this silly argument.
So what is the difference in the use of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics and its use to justify the flying pigs? The difference lies in the utility of the assumption. In the first case, the mathematical assumptions yield working mathematics which help quantify and model our world accurately. We have tested the mathematics countless times in building nuclear reactors, airplanes, and basically every possible technology in existence. These assumptions have been tested over and over, with definite physical and quantifiable accuracy.
So, what about using Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to justify the flying pigs? What utility does this assumption provide? In essence, nothing. We can't test the assumption, and nor does belief in flying pigs yield anything remotely useful.
So, what about using Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to justify god? What utility does this assumption provide? In essence, nothing. We can't test the assumption, and nor does belief in God yield anything remotely useful.
Thus, it is inappropriate to use Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem as a justification for God, as much as it is inappropriate to use Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem as a justification for the existence of undetectable planet-sized water bottles or invisible zombies.
Edited by Elus, 19 August 2010 - 04:52 AM.
