1712 replies to this topic

[Jeoshua]

Addx, before you throw out Godels Incompleteness Theorem with shadowhawks bathwater, do look into it on your own. It is a fascinating mathematical theory which speaks to the inadequacy of any system to define everything that exists. It's not a proof of God. It's a disproof of absolute knowledge. The only reason that some people try to use it to ends it is not designed for is that they do not understand it fully, and may be banking on the fact that you don't understand it, either.

[platypus]

 

As to evidence God does not exist.  This is not the only reality, it is kataphotic.  You are right, we need information from another reality.  Why do you think I am a Christian and not a Jew?

 

 

Why are you not Mormon? 

[addx]

Addx, before you throw out Godels Incompleteness Theorem with shadowhawks bathwater, do look into it on your own. It is a fascinating mathematical theory which speaks to the inadequacy of any system to define everything that exists. It's not a proof of God. It's a disproof of absolute knowledge. The only reason that some people try to use it to ends it is not designed for is that they do not understand it fully, and may be banking on the fact that you don't understand it, either.

You're right, I googled it and it seems important for mathematics.

I didn't know which part of his post is the theorem, it all seemed like it was a theorem numbered and premised like that.

Nevertheless my answer remains, strike out the comment about the theorem itself.

I tried to read it, but I fail. I was never able to follow mathematicians train of thought. Everything but that.

It doesn't really seem that applicable unless I did understand it correctly initially to be a confusion between subjectivity and objectivity. It is natural that any system conceived by a subject has a subjective intent which can be detected from within the system but never proven. If the theorem actually states what I just said in so much garbled math word salad, then don't strike out my comment

Edited by addx, 10 April 2014 - 04:29 PM.

[addx]

As to evidence God does not exist.  This is not the only reality, it is kataphotic.  You are right, we need information from another reality.  Why do you think I am a Christian and not a Jew?

Why are you not Mormon?

I thought he was an atheist initially, didn't really read the whole thread

Edited by addx, 10 April 2014 - 04:33 PM.

[platypus]

 

 

As to evidence God does not exist.  This is not the only reality, it is kataphotic.  You are right, we need information from another reality.  Why do you think I am a Christian and not a Jew?

Why are you not Mormon?

 

I thought he was an atheist initially, didn't really read the whole thread

 

Mormons have received more and later info from the same God, so one would think that their way of worship is the most current one? 

[addx]

I dunno, I like how it was done in Conan the barbarian, the music was nicer.

Seriously, religion has its important cultural aspects, faith has its important psyche aspects. In other words, both have served humanity.... and humanity has served them in equal or greater amounts. There is a lot heritage there that should be conserved and remembered.

But I can not be served by or serve either of them any more now that Im outside their system

Edited by addx, 10 April 2014 - 04:54 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I was talking to Jeoshua:
   “Faith is trust.  It is a belief in a person or thing with incomplete evidence.  We all live by faith because we never have complete evidence of anything.  Faith does not mean no knowledge.  We do have knowledge but it is very limited.  You cant even cross a street with 100% knowledge a car is not coming nor are you sure of why you are crossing it.

Godels incompleteness therm guarantees faith must be a rational activity.  It also guarantees the ultimate answer must come from outside the physical world.  The answer must come to us.”

Appx reacted:
“The fact that a logical perversion has a name does not impress me. Infact it makes me feel digusted to read it.”

A logical perversion from one of the greatest scientists of our time.  The material world of Atheism can not explain itself completely.  The answer must come from outside the system.  How disgusting.  To bad, it is a basic principal of science and physics.

Maybe calling this a “Logical Perversion,” is unreasonable and being disgusted is irrational emotion?  Just saying.  We need the “tool.”  Let’s call names and commit logical fallacies and throw up.

Perhaps Tantra can help our mind tool or something else.

Why am I not a Mormon!!!!  Never was, that’s why.  I thought I was an Atheist.

Atheism sure has the evidence on its side.  What a tool!

 

[addx]

A logical perversion from one of the greatest scientists of our time.  The material world of Atheism can not explain itself completely.  The answer must come from outside the system.  How disgusting.  To bad, it is a basic principal of science and physics.

No, your abuse of it is disgusting. I just failed to research which part of your post was his theorem and which is yours. It seems all of it yours.

The material world of Atheism is not based on human conceived axioms and the mathematician made no such attempt as you did.

I told you, the fact that you can think there does not mean there exists.

The fact that the thought of the mind can exit any circle does not mean there is existence outside it. There does not HAVE to be anything. You simply said that as if it some accepted truth, it is not. Its your mind playing tricks on you. The mind can not comprehend or accept that there is nothing outside the universe. The mind also can not fathom a state in which it does not exist. These are limitations of the mind and you confuse them for rules of reality.

Anyway, I think enough has been said, cya.

Edited by addx, 10 April 2014 - 11:04 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

A logical perversion from one of the greatest scientists of our time.  The material world of Atheism can not explain itself completely.  The answer must come from outside the system.  How disgusting.  To bad, it is a basic principal of science and physics.

No, your abuse of it is disgusting. I just failed to research which part of your post was his theorem and which is yours. It seems all of it yours.

The material world of Atheism is not based on human conceived axioms and the mathematician made no such attempt as you did.

I told you, the fact that you can think there does not mean there exists.

The fact that the thought of the mind can exit any circle does not mean there is existence outside it. There does not HAVE to be anything. You simply said that as if it some accepted truth, it is not. Its your mind playing tricks on you. The mind can not comprehend or accept that there is nothing outside the universe. The mind also can not fathom a state in which it does not exist. These are limitations of the mind and you confuse them for rules of reality.

Anyway, I think enough has been said, cya.

 

For someone who did not even know who Godel was, but wrote lengthy rebuttals against him, I am not concerned that you didn’t understand my post.  You still don’t.  Irrational disgust.  Use your Tantric tool.

 

[Jeoshua]

Actually you're both right. Shadowhawks' use of Godel's theorem was a fairly misleading characterization of it, which it would have to be to try and use it, somehow, as a disproof of Athiesm. And the problems that addx rebutted actually pointed out some of the actual conclusions of Godel's theorem, like the fact that one can always draw a bigger circle (in Godel's theroem, adding a new axiom of G', then G'', etc ad infinitum).

Edited by Jeoshua, 11 April 2014 - 01:02 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Actually you're both right. Shadowhawks' use of Godel's theorem was a fairly misleading characterization of it, which it would have to be to try and use it, somehow, as a disproof of Athiesm. And the problems that addx rebutted actually pointed out some of the actual conclusions of Godel's theorem, like the fact that one can always draw a bigger circle (in Godel's theroem, adding a new axiom of G', then G'', etc ad infinitum).

What I said was, “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.”  All you have done is add an infinite number of things you can draw circles around.  No such infinity exists to draw circles around in the cosmos.  What is physically bigger than the cosmos?

.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 are clearly true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.

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.  Godel 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.  

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language or philosophy.

And: If the cosmos is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the cosmos and you can draw a circle around it..

That means Atheists claim they know only the physical exists is logically false.  Their evidence is incomplete.  You cannot prove Atheism.  They have to exercise faith because the evidence as to why there is something rather than nothing is incomplete. 

[Jeoshua]

What I said was, 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.  All you have done is add an infinite number of things you can draw circles around.  No such infinity exists to draw circles around in the cosmos.  What is physically bigger than the cosmos?

And that is where you did not follow Godel's theorem. The main thrust of the theorem, and why it does not apply as you are claiming it does, is that a mathematical system has certain truths. These are inside the system. But there is always something that can be said about those axioms that is not supported by the information within the system. You can then define that new axiom, which then becomes part of the system. But then, you can now say something about that new axiom in relation to the rest of the system, which is not then defined within the system until you create a new axiom.

There is no "outside" of the system until you define it, and then once defined it is now within the system, and this then points to new axioms that must be defined, etc ad infinitum.

This is not a geometry postulate, it is pure logic. I think your use of geometrical language may be muddying the point for those not versed in it.

That means Atheists claim they know only the physical exists is logically false.  Their evidence is incomplete.  You cannot prove Atheism.  They have to exercise faith because the evidence as to why there is something rather than nothing is incomplete. 

Here, you come back on the reason that many people have tried to use Godel's theorem to actually disprove God. And then claim that Atheism has something to prove. Why can't you just see that your definition of Atheism as a claim, by an Athiest, that they KNOW God doesn't exist, is not a true one. That's not what Athiesm is, at all. You're calling it a faith that God doesn't exist one minute, and a knowledge that God doesn't exist the other, and switching definitions whenever it is convenient to your point, all the time ignoring the truth that Athiests just don't believe in God, and aren't relying on evidence in the first place to achieve this. Play fair!

[addx]

A logical perversion from one of the greatest scientists of our time.  The material world of Atheism can not explain itself completely.  The answer must come from outside the system.  How disgusting.  To bad, it is a basic principal of science and physics.

No, your abuse of it is disgusting. I just failed to research which part of your post was his theorem and which is yours. It seems all of it yours.

The material world of Atheism is not based on human conceived axioms and the mathematician made no such attempt as you did.

I told you, the fact that you can think there does not mean there exists.

The fact that the thought of the mind can exit any circle does not mean there is existence outside it. There does not HAVE to be anything. You simply said that as if it some accepted truth, it is not. Its your mind playing tricks on you. The mind can not comprehend or accept that there is nothing outside the universe. The mind also can not fathom a state in which it does not exist. These are limitations of the mind and you confuse them for rules of reality.

Anyway, I think enough has been said, cya.

For someone who did not even know who Godel was, but wrote lengthy rebuttals against him, I am not concerned that you didnt understand my post.  You still dont.  Irrational disgust.  Use your Tantric tool.

No, I mauled your post. Which is why you won't even reply but took the opportunity to back out by acting offended or whatever.


Jeoshua, I don't have a problem with Goebels ideas in maths. Maths are hypothetic and always rest on an axiom which is subjective, irrational. This is why he made the conclusion he did.

The one thing missing from these mind experiments and I immediately pointed it out, is that there is obviously SOMEONE drawing the bigger circle and this someone is bigger than the circle he is drawing. The one who is drawing the circle sees that there is more to draw the circle around. Who is drawing the circle? Your thoughts maybe? So the fact that your thoughts can draw a circle around the universe means that something HAS to be out there on the other side of the circle, because your thoughts were there to draw it.

Depending on how your draw the circle, the inside of the circle has some things and doesn't have some others. This was decided from outside the circle. The decision maker keeps creating systems and noticing they're dependant on something since they were created.

Creating is a subjective phenomena. The subjective mind can not comprehend eternal existence so it is stuck imagining starting points.

So, from this stems that shadowshank implies that universe was created by someone outside the circle so there will be something missing in the circle to "explain itself" as it always happens with systems that humans bring into existence(by drawing circles inside the big system - the universe)


So, I don't mind Goebel with his frame of maths and hypothesis. But they're all based on some subjective truth which Goebel and all mathematicians admit. Its not something you can use to "calculate God or universe"

[addx]

This is the scientifically accepted nature of the universe:

Any organised system of matter (a self-aware human or a dumb-device, again operated by a self aware human) can not detect any other system of matter without interacting with it. Interaction is facilitated by an exchange of matter.

This means that anything "immaterial" as you said, outside the biggest circle can NOT be aware of anything material inside the circle nor can anything material inside the world ever have a shred of evidence on the immaterial outside the universe.

Being aware of it would inevitably result in the material world also being aware since the awareness is acheived by interaction of matter and affects or is detectable by both.

So, anything immaterial that exists outside the universe is not aware of the universe and so can have no intent or expectation out of it or vice versa. The universe can not "explain" itself to it nor vice versa without a material exchange. If there is material outside the biggest circle, you didnt draw a big enough circle.

This means that if anything is "out there" it is irrelevant and will NEVER interact with our universe.

If it can interact it means that is IS interacting as the reach of physical forces is infinite distance wise.

So, you're simply wrong, using the scientific method or simply using the "emotional method".

The standpoint of science(pinnacle of rational intelligence) is exactly as explained above and in concurrence with the standpoint of atheistic religions(pinnacle of emotional intelligence) which I have basicly also given in the post before.

Theistic religions are on the other hand a pinnacle of denial.

The fact that you abuse some scientific theorem to make some statement doesnt make the statement scientifically valid.

Edited by addx, 11 April 2014 - 09:21 AM.

[addx]

What I said was, 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.  All you have done is add an infinite number of things you can draw circles around.  No such infinity exists to draw circles around in the cosmos.  What is physically bigger than the cosmos?

Nothing. The fact that you can imagine some dot in your mind to be a universe and then look at the space around it does not mean this space actually exists or should be given a name or is separate from the universe. Its just your mind. This space exists in your mind because YOU imagined it.

I'm sure you're quite aware that space is defined as boundless and that the mind can not comprehend or imagine "boundless" no matter how hard it tries, so there's always another circle.

Are you seriously unable to comprehend this?
 

.You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But theyre all built on Euclids 5 postulates which are clearly true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.

Yes, but the 5 posutlates are within the head of the person that thought of them.

As said, you fail to account for what happens if an axiom is thought of within the system that already exists. And there is noone outside the system to prove itself to.

I know, the "already exists" is whats mostly troubling you, since it HAD to have been created right? By GOD.
 

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.  Godel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove.

There is always an idiot standing out there not realizing he's the idiot that created the circle and thus the point of whats in the circle can only be explained by him and not anything from within the circle itself.

Now if the idiot drew the circle around himself he would find that the circle is now able to explain itself by offering him to speak out and explain himself.
 

Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.

So the universe is a system that mathematicians came up with?
 

Godels Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; its equally true in science or language or philosophy.

No. Math is a very confined discipline and any action in math always depends on an initial set of axioms which are subjective. It's not equally true to anything. It is only true when an initial axiom is assumed.

Math is a tool of the initial axiom.

It infact describes our limitations, the limitations of our minds to define anything without the inital subjective truth that we instrinsicaly accept.
 

And: If the cosmos is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the cosmos and you can draw a circle around it..

No its not mathematical. It does not rest on a subjective axiom.

Well I guess it does for you, God made it. And yet you seem to fail to realise that if you assert that God made the universe I'll then assert that I can draw a circle around God and then ask who made him?

Numbers themselves are also quite not intrinsic to the universe, let alone the rest of math.

The universe does not follow math, math follows it and TRIES to describe it, but always based on an accepted subjective truth delivered by a human and conceived by observation of the universe.

Our limited ability to process the universe leads to us counting repeated observations and thus inventing "the number".

A number is nothing natural, it is our minds tool.

Nothing in the universe can actually be represented by a number other than an endless stream of digits which is not a possible representation(it can not be written or thought of to the end). No constant, no relation, from the number Pi to plancks constant.

Logic is a tool as well. An ability to disecct a moment and analyze it. It doesnt actually work in the universe when you go to quantum scale the universe rejects you knowing the position and moment of a single particle in a single point in time. Logic starts failing. Not what we expected. Our subjective axioms are at a loss.

Your mind fails to accept these limitations forcing the universe to succumb to an amporhpous structure of organic matter(your brain) wrongly computing that the universe has to have a God that created it because it can not comprehend eternal existence without asking "Why? Who put it there? Whats beyond that?" automatically forcing the universe to have a creator.

 

That means Atheists claim they know only the physical exists is logically false.  Their evidence is incomplete.  You cannot prove Atheism.  They have to exercise faith because the evidence as to why there is something rather than nothing is incomplete. 

Yes, I'm sure the plethora of evidence on the real world is comparable to the "evidence of afterlife".


So, lets call both "faith" and thus atheists are just as deluded as theists. Regardless of the fact that theists have their 99% incomplete evidence and theists have 0% incomplete evidence. There is a thing called "blind faith". And theism is THAT. So stop abusing and streching the meaning of language, logic and maths already. It's disgusting.

You're just amusing yourself here and this topic should in fact be removed because its just trolling.

There's no real attempt to discuss anything here. You're just taking a piss and this whole thread is a bate trap for your abuse of Goedels theorem.

So, have your fun, I'm outta here. Sorry I ever came.

P.S. Oh yea, if you ever prove the existence of God, message me, that means my 7 universes of unicorns is also proven. And my unicorns will own your God and my heaven is prettier. I just have to remember to hug bears.

Edited by addx, 11 April 2014 - 01:36 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

What I said was, 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.  All you have done is add an infinite number of things you can draw circles around.  No such infinity exists to draw circles around in the cosmos.  What is physically bigger than the cosmos?

And that is where you did not follow Godel's theorem. The main thrust of the theorem, and why it does not apply as you are claiming it does, is that a mathematical system has certain truths. These are inside the system. But there is always something that can be said about those axioms that is not supported by the information within the system. You can then define that new axiom, which then becomes part of the system. But then, you can now say something about that new axiom in relation to the rest of the system, which is not then defined within the system until you create a new axiom.

There is no "outside" of the system until you define it, and then once defined it is now within the system, and this then points to new axioms that must be defined, etc ad infinitum.

This is not a geometry postulate, it is pure logic. I think your use of geometrical language may be muddying the point for those not versed in it.

That means Atheists claim they know only the physical exists is logically false.  Their evidence is incomplete.  You cannot prove Atheism.  They have to exercise faith because the evidence as to why there is something rather than nothing is incomplete. 

Here, you come back on the reason that many people have tried to use Godel's theorem to actually disprove God. And then claim that Atheism has something to prove. Why can't you just see that your definition of Atheism as a claim, by an Athiest, that they KNOW God doesn't exist, is not a true one. That's not what Athiesm is, at all. You're calling it a faith that God doesn't exist one minute, and a knowledge that God doesn't exist the other, and switching definitions whenever it is convenient to your point, all the time ignoring the truth that Athiests just don't believe in God, and aren't relying on evidence in the first place to achieve this. Play fair!

 

Godel’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.  My son is a computer scientist.

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.

So, the geometrical language as applied to the real world results in this Syllogism:

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

 

We all know math is an abstract object. It may or may not exist.  What Godel describes is the cosmos using math.  So your objections usiing only math in an abstract way, miss the point of physical reality which you can draw a circle around.  An infinite regress is only a logical idea that does not exist.

I do know that Atheism is not true.  Don’t say the definition given is not true of Atheism.  Atheism is not Agnosticism and my question has to do with Atheism.  http://plato.stanfor...sm-agnosticism/

I am not the one committing a red herring here.  Since Atheists want us to believe something, it is reasonable to ask them what their evidence is.  The bait and switch motive is to avoid having to take the burden of proof.  I get it, there is no evidence for Atheism.  It is bankrupt.  The only thing atheists can do is attack others.

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 April 2014 - 07:25 PM.

[shadowhawk]

The references state what the real definition of atheism is:

• "Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not" (Academic American Encyclopedia).
• "Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason" (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).
• "Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy-1995).
• "Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods" (Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).
• "Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God" (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).
• "Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist" (The World Book Encyclopedia-1991).
• "According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…"(rejects eccentric definitions of the word) (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967).
• "Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good" (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987).
• "Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).
• "Atheism denies the existence of deity" (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I). See also Webster's dictionary. I could also give Greek sources.

[johnross47]

 

 

What I said was, 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.  All you have done is add an infinite number of things you can draw circles around.  No such infinity exists to draw circles around in the cosmos.  What is physically bigger than the cosmos?

And that is where you did not follow Godel's theorem. The main thrust of the theorem, and why it does not apply as you are claiming it does, is that a mathematical system has certain truths. These are inside the system. But there is always something that can be said about those axioms that is not supported by the information within the system. You can then define that new axiom, which then becomes part of the system. But then, you can now say something about that new axiom in relation to the rest of the system, which is not then defined within the system until you create a new axiom.

There is no "outside" of the system until you define it, and then once defined it is now within the system, and this then points to new axioms that must be defined, etc ad infinitum.

This is not a geometry postulate, it is pure logic. I think your use of geometrical language may be muddying the point for those not versed in it.

That means Atheists claim they know only the physical exists is logically false.  Their evidence is incomplete.  You cannot prove Atheism.  They have to exercise faith because the evidence as to why there is something rather than nothing is incomplete. 

Here, you come back on the reason that many people have tried to use Godel's theorem to actually disprove God. And then claim that Atheism has something to prove. Why can't you just see that your definition of Atheism as a claim, by an Athiest, that they KNOW God doesn't exist, is not a true one. That's not what Athiesm is, at all. You're calling it a faith that God doesn't exist one minute, and a knowledge that God doesn't exist the other, and switching definitions whenever it is convenient to your point, all the time ignoring the truth that Athiests just don't believe in God, and aren't relying on evidence in the first place to achieve this. Play fair!

 

Godel’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.  My son is a computer scientist.

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.

So, the geometrical language as applied to the real world results in this Syllogism:

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

 

We all know math is an abstract object. It may or may not exist.  What Godel describes is the cosmos using math.  So your objections usiing only math in an abstract way, miss the point of physical reality which you can draw a circle around.  An infinite regress is only a logical idea that does not exist.

I do know that Atheism is not true.  Don’t say the definition given is not true of Atheism.  Atheism is not Agnosticism and my question has to do with Atheism.  http://plato.stanfor...sm-agnosticism/

I am not the one committing a red herring here.  Since Atheists want us to believe something, it is reasonable to ask them what their evidence is.  The bait and switch motive is to avoid having to take the burden of proof.  I get it, there is no evidence for Atheism.  It is bankrupt.  The only thing atheists can do is attack others.

 

 

It is not the computer that is incomplete, it is the program run on it, so this whole silly exercise in trying to apply unconnected ideas to religion is futile. 

[shadowhawk]

johnross 47:  It is not the computer that is incomplete, it is the program run on it, so this whole silly exercise in trying to apply unconnected ideas to religion is futile.

You can apply math to anything physical.  Ever hear of physics?  The computer can’t explain itself siilly.  Without outside intelligence it can’t even do anything,

[Jeoshua]

Except we're not talking about something physical, we're talking about God or Atheism. So how do you apply mathematics to that?

Add on to that that the theorems that have been discussed are not classical mathematics, but more based on logics, and your point is no longer valid.

Edited by Jeoshua, 14 April 2014 - 06:33 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Except we're not talking about something physical, we're talking about God or Atheism. So how do you apply mathematics to that?

Add on to that that the theorems that have been discussed are not classical mathematics, but more based on logics, and your point is no longer valid.

Again, we are talking about Atheism which says materialism is all there is.  I am talking about the physical being able to explain itself.  The incompleteness theorems of Godel’s are arguably the #1 mathematical discovery of the 20th century.  If mathematics is anything, it’s logic.  It is an abstract object. By the way, Godel was a theist.  Perhaps these will help.

https://www.youtube....aid=P-1W946Ozbo

https://www.youtube....aid=P-vYh39vLfk

https://www.youtube....aid=P9YN6-BvSIo




 

[Jeoshua]

I knew more about Godel's theorem than you have shown me before I even entered into this discussion. And his personal beliefs do not change the fact that his Theorem says nothing about God, Atheism, or any of the things that you're attempting to force it to say. Talking down to everyone who comes into this thread and showing explanations of the theorem does nothing to change that. God is not Mathematics. Atheism is not mathematics. You are trying to bend a logical mathematical theorem to try and disprove a rejection of bad evidence. It's not working.

[shadowhawk]

I knew more about Godel's theorem than you have shown me before I even entered into this discussion. And his personal beliefs do not change the fact that his Theorem says nothing about God, Atheism, or any of the things that you're attempting to force it to say. Talking down to everyone who comes into this thread and showing explanations of the theorem does nothing to change that. God is not Mathematics. Atheism is not mathematics. You are trying to bend a logical mathematical theorem to try and disprove a rejection of bad evidence. It's not working.

 

Atheism, not God is what I have been talking about.  You are creating a red herring here and I am not talking down to you.  http://www.longecity...-24#entry655684

 

If you want to talk about God we can talk about Godel's arguments for the existence of God but it is off topic.
 

[johnross47]

 

johnross 47:  It is not the computer that is incomplete, it is the program run on it, so this whole silly exercise in trying to apply unconnected ideas to religion is futile.

You can apply math to anything physical.  Ever hear of physics?  The computer can’t explain itself siilly.  Without outside intelligence it can’t even do anything,

 

This is simply raving. It is not connected to the point you were failing to make. It has no bearing on the obvious fact that you don't even understand the analogy you screwed up. Incompleteness is not related to the physical means of expressing an idea, but to the provability of the idea itself. When you slip up and try to make a point of your own instead of quoting others, you reveal your own failure to grasp even relatively simple ideas.

[shadowhawk]

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math which your argument does, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language or philosophy.  And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe, the entire physical cosmos.  Does it not?

For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time today. You cannot prove that the universe is rational. You can only observe that mathematical formulas like E=MC^2 do seem to perfectly describe what the universe does.  However matnamatics is built on many assumptions.

Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. These laws rest on an assumption that the universe is logical and 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.

The cosmos is finite and though Atheists claim you do not need an outside explanation, you do.  

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.”  http://infidels.org/  

How rational!



 

[Jeoshua]

Science does not take things like gravity on "faith", as you are proposing. Good science makes predictions, and those predictions are then tested. I can come up with 1000 situations where objects are not falling, such as in space, when attached to rockets or balloons, or likewise things, and that does not disprove Gravity. In fact, these situations where Gravity is overcome require that we understand it, and predict how it will affect these things. And thus far, every prediction made about Gravity has come true. That is why it is believed. If there is ever an experiment that shows that our understanding is wrong, then a new Theorem would be created. Until that point, it is known as a fundamental law.

This is diametrically opposed to how the religious people of the world handle things. The Bible, or the Quran, or the Torah, are taken as the ultimate truth. Everything that says that they could be the slightest bit off is put down as heresy. Even those theists who would try to use Science to give evidence for their beliefs (that's you, Shadowhawk) do nothing but bend and twist facts to their breaking point in an attempt to lend some legitimacy to their already-decided beliefs.

There are theists who believed in God, and did not attempt to use Science to prove it, knowing it to be intellectually dishonest. You do Godel a great disservice by attempting to use his life's work to do something that he never intended it to be used for.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

johnross 47:  It is not the computer that is incomplete, it is the program run on it, so this whole silly exercise in trying to apply unconnected ideas to religion is futile.

You can apply math to anything physical.  Ever hear of physics?  The computer can’t explain itself siilly.  Without outside intelligence it can’t even do anything,

 

This is simply raving. It is not connected to the point you were failing to make. It has no bearing on the obvious fact that you don't even understand the analogy you screwed up. Incompleteness is not related to the physical means of expressing an idea, but to the provability of the idea itself. When you slip up and try to make a point of your own instead of quoting others, you reveal your own failure to grasp even relatively simple ideas.

 

It is connected to the point. Incompleteness is connected to describing the physical world.  It can’t explain itself.  I have made this point repeatedly.  I have done the same with the definition of Atheism which you refuse to get.

Math, the basic tool of science in describing the physical world is what we are talking about.  I have explained this in my last post.  However, you need to read your post carefully.  It is simply another example of name calling and personal attack and there is nothing substantial here.

[addx]

Godels Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math which your argument does, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; its equally true in science or language or philosophy.  And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe, the entire physical cosmos.  Does it not?

No, Godels theorem is specifically true only for hypothetical logical systems conceived by human intelligence.

And this boundary is specifically there because the first axiom of any human conceived system is always subjective and unprovable within the system. Its an "emotional truth".


The universe may very well be a logical system.

And it may very well be a closed system.

And this is where your inductive logic fallacy begins.


Fallacy #1

The universe must have been created.

- this is one of those "emotional truths"(while you seem to use and process it further in argumentation as an observed truth it in fact was only observed inside your head during imagining and thus subject to imagination abilities of your brain which is a real computing system and not something abstract). which means the minute you said it, you started creating a hypothetical logical system and that is your first axiom. and by Goedels theorem it is unprovable. in this unprovable logical system a creator MUST exist or logic inside the system will fail.


Fallacy #2

The universe must have a boundary

- another "emotional truth"(while you seem to use and process it further in argumentation as an observed truth it in fact was only observed inside your head during imagining and thus subject to imagination abilities of your brain which is a real computing system and not something abstract). which means the minute you said it you started creating a hypothetical logical system and that is the first axiom. and by Goedels theorem it is unprovable. in this unprovable logical system something must exist beyond the universe.


The two systems(or merged into one, whatever) can only be explained in full by you - the person who devised the first axioms. Now, we who need explaining can ask you, why is your system devised like that. And the only thing you can say is "because I wanted it so" demonstrating that in fact your subjectivity devised the system.

Notice that I keep saying you as an individual, because you have the habit of simply say that YOUR emotional/subjective truth is everyones and therefore the logical systems that YOU conceive of are impaled on all of us as common to all of us. they are you systems, your belief system. nothing about it makes it a universal truth. its all in your head. Even the mathematicians get it.



So, that's a correct application of Goedels theorem to your nonsense.


Even if we all agree to your points you in reality did nothing. You want atheist to go around saying they believe in atheism rather than simply saying atheism is true? Does it really change anything? Language is just a way to defer internal meaning which exists and has existed before people even devised words and letters. The internal meaning stays no matter what twisting of words you achieve.

Edited by addx, 15 April 2014 - 09:00 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Jeoshua:  Science does not take things like gravity on "faith", as you are proposing. Good science makes predictions, and those predictions are then tested. I can come up with 1000 situations where objects are not falling, such as in space, when attached to rockets or balloons, or likewise things, and that does not disprove Gravity. In fact, these situations where Gravity is overcome require that we understand it, and predict how it will affect these things. And thus far, every prediction made about Gravity has come true. That is why it is believed. If there is ever an experiment that shows that our understanding is wrong, then a new Theorem would be created. Until that point, it is known as a fundamental law.

You don’t have to describe the philosophy of science to me.  It is assumed, not proven.  In fact it is hotly debated.  Are you telling me you understand gravity, fundamental law or not?

  This is diametrically opposed to how the religious people of the world handle things. The Bible, or the Quran, or the Torah, are taken as the ultimate truth. Everything that says that they could be the slightest bit off is put down as heresy. Even those theists who would try to use Science to give evidence for their beliefs (that's you, Shadowhawk) do nothing but bend and twist facts to their breaking point in an attempt to lend some legitimacy to their already-decided beliefs.

This is an ad hominem list that ignores the contributions theists have made in science.  Shall I cite dozens of sources I have?  I have done this many times before.  Nonsense close to bigotry.  Finally, what fact have I bent.

 

There are theists who believed in God, and did not attempt to use Science to prove it, knowing it to be intellectually dishonest. You do Godel a great disservice by attempting to use his life's work to do something that he never intended it to be used for.

What is this?  More empty nonsense.  Godel was very interested in theism and now you claim you know somehow know he made no connection to God and I am doing him a disservice!  I find this highly unlikely.  You cannot prove that the cosmos is mathematical. But belief that the universe is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science. Toss out that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of western civilization crumbles.  You just made that assumption in your first statement.  Math is incomplete.  So we have the liars paradox.

    If the cosmos is illogical and inconsistent then it is possible for it to be complete.
    If the universe is logical and consistent then it is incomplete.
    If the universe is incomplete, then it depends on something on the outside.
    The cosmos is incomplete

In other words, if the laws of mathematics and logic apply to the universe, then the universe has to have a metaphysical source.  Thus atheism violates the laws of reason and logic.

 I think Godel knew this and that is why he tried to give proof for God.  Belief in God is not illogical and belief in an outside source is necessary.  However, this is off topic now so I will stop..

http://en.wikipedia....tological_proof
http://plato.stanfor...ical-arguments/
http://www.firstthin...-mathematicians
http://braungardt.tr...istence-of-god/
http://www.decodedsc...od-exists/38801
http://www.evanwiggs...cles/GODEL.html
 

[Jeoshua]

I must admit, you do have a way of spinning everything that anyone ever says into something it was never intended to be. You've done it with me, with addx, with Godel, over and over again.

 

What I said was that no intellectually honest theist has ever tried to use Science to prove God. I do not deny that a great many of the greatest thinkers were theists, but that is a... what would you call it? A Red Herring! What I said was not that theist thinkers don't exist, but the ones who are honest with themselves and others do not attempt to use Science to prove their points. And Godel never used his Theorem to prove anything except that mathematical systems of thought can never be complete. He called it the Incompleteness Theorem, not the Use This To Prove Or Disprove God Theorem.