1818 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

N.T.M. : Back to what I said before, it, again, seems like you didn't even read my post. You mentioned my reference to exclusivity completely out of context. I was referring to "a god; any god; anything that might remotely be considered a deity," and I thought that was very clear given the context. Premise two is just an inference from another faulty premise (garbage in, garbage out). I'll ask again, how do you substantiate the first premise, because I don't accept it.

Here's another proof by contradiction: Many people want to do things outside of their ability. This constitutes desire. Does this mean that they can do [whatever it is]? Obviously the answer is no, but even if you said yes it would pose a contradiction by changing the one criterion that their wish is based on, that being something that they cannot do.

What about this is unclear? When we discussed it earlier I thought you agreed that it was frivolous nonsense.

So you don’t accept that most of the people of the world desire God. Does a very large percentage of humanity desire God? For example is the Roman Catholic Church alone bigger than China? Is this large enough or do we have to dig out the stats on other religions?

The argument from desire does not mean you can accomplish your desire, only that the object of your desire is in some way real. Even fantasy is made up of the real. This does not defeat the argument from desire.

Does that mean that if I desire that bigots disappear from existence, does that mean that in some alternate reality, they actually don't exist?

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M. : Back to what I said before, it, again, seems like you didn't even read my post. You mentioned my reference to exclusivity completely out of context. I was referring to "a god; any god; anything that might remotely be considered a deity," and I thought that was very clear given the context. Premise two is just an inference from another faulty premise (garbage in, garbage out). I'll ask again, how do you substantiate the first premise, because I don't accept it.

Here's another proof by contradiction: Many people want to do things outside of their ability. This constitutes desire. Does this mean that they can do [whatever it is]? Obviously the answer is no, but even if you said yes it would pose a contradiction by changing the one criterion that their wish is based on, that being something that they cannot do.

What about this is unclear? When we discussed it earlier I thought you agreed that it was frivolous nonsense.

So you don’t accept that most of the people of the world desire God. Does a very large percentage of humanity desire God? For example is the Roman Catholic Church alone bigger than China? Is this large enough or do we have to dig out the stats on other religions?

I do accept that, but what does that have to do with the first premise?

Does that mean that if I desire that bigots disappear from existence, does that mean that in some alternate reality, they actually don't exist?

It would seem so, because the first premise is all-inclusive, hence "every."

Edited by N.T.M., 07 February 2014 - 03:02 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Block time is not true in this cosmos. You are within, and time moves and changes. That is all you can know about the real cosmos we live in. That is the world of the Kalam.

The problem is that events that for you lie all in the present for another lie in an ordered timeline(past present future) abc, yet for another cba. Likewise events that for you lie in a timeline can lie in a simultaneous plane for another. So what do you have? The past present and future being simultaneous from some valid frames of reference, and the sequence of events being invertible from yet another unless there is causal connectivity. The rate at which time passes also differs between observers. All of this points to block time, so your statement that it is not true is not irrefutable.

Since you know what exists, what for you does exist? What time is it?

Depending on how precise the clocks for standardized time are made, even moving them from one floor to another in a building will cause relativistic effects to affect the calculations.

I don’t believe they are different for you or anyone else, in this space time dimension. We all know what time it is and operate our lives accordingly. On a QM level we can discuss its randomness and mysteries but when it arrives dimensionally at our level of relativity it is ordered and timely. You became, you move and you have your being in this dimension.

[shadowhawk]

Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

NTM
I do accept that, but what does that have to do with the first premise?

People desire God. It is natural and innate in human beings. (Lots and lots of them)

Duchykins,
Does that mean that if I desire that bigots disappear from existence, does that mean that in some alternate reality, they actually don't exist?

No. There are Bigots and you don’t want them to exist. Bigots do exist corresponding to some real object. If you could make them not exist your desire would be meet. You desire something real.

[shadowhawk]

Godel's incompleteness proof
“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.”

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.
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.

[Duchykins]

Godel's incompleteness proof
“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.”

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.
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.

"Reason is the greatest enemy faith has" - Martin Luther

Just sayin.

But he was antisemetic so who cares!

I do not dispute Godel's incompleteness theorem. I do dispute your interpretation and application of it. You see theology in it, I see physics in it. *shrug* Oh well.

Anyways on a more serious note, you do an awful lot of asserting. I have a tendency to summarily dismiss assertions if they go against what I know of philosophical logic and science. I will engage meatier arguments, however. The choice is yours.

A closed system is not quite the same as an isolated system.

Also, the bit about drawing circles, that's an example of an infinite regress.

Do you wish to change your position on infinite regress?

Edited by Duchykins, 07 February 2014 - 04:53 AM.

[Deep Thought]

I cannot believe there is an evolution debate in a thread about evidence supporting a specific religion. So stupid, I would expect to see crap like that on Facebook, not here.

The KCA hinges on A-theory of time being correct. Currently, A-theory has been largely abandoned by physicists in favor of B-theory of time, which has some supportive evidence from QM. Nowadays you typically only see some philosophers (not most), and you guessed it, theologians! Favoring A-theory of time. Why? Partly because it's intuitively satisfying, despite the fact that a great deal of things shown to be true in science are counterintuitive. Religionists tend towards intuitive reasoning, it's part of the reason they are religious.

I tend to agree with you here but evolution deals with time. There is a false bigotry that Theists do not consider evolution. We will discuss this later when we try to make the case for Christianity and a view of Genesis.

God in much of theism is timeless and God exists without the universe. The KCA is about the universe becoming and has to do with time. Anything less than God, such as the universe, exists in time. Time is a measurement of the less than the whole. If you were the alpha and the omega, you would not be in time. The KLC is about the cosmos becoming and the implications of that.

What time is it by the way? Does it depend on QM? Is that why we are religious, because we can tell time? That intuitive reasoning will get you every time. Enjoy your infinite regress.

The universe is defined as being the totality of all existence. Not really surprised you don't define God as being part of reality. If God was part of the universe he'd be subject to actual logical reasoning, but as you have defined God, we can't really falsify the existence of God.

Let me reply to this post for you.

"NAME CALLING!" OFF-TOPIC. Forum rules that way! Bad atheist.

There.

FOR EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE THE FOLLOWING MUST HAPPEN.
1. It is possible to add biological information.
2. There are more upward steps than downward steps (or at least a way to get more upward steps than downward steps at least some of the time).
3. There does exist a gradual genetic pathway that can be climbed in tiny, incremental steps.
In order for evolution to be true, not only does information have to be added over time, but each successive change must occur in a living organism and it must be conserved by being passed on to offspring. Thus, the change cannot kill the organism or seriously disable it, or the change will not be passed on. This must be the case for EVERY step in the entire evolutionary sequence, no matter how small. At every step you must have a functional organism. Thus, the changes must be gradual enough that the tiny upward steps (if they exist) can achieve each new level without killing or disabling the organism.

We used evolution as an argument for the existence of God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845

1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evdience for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255

3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built

2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language

3) All language comes from a mind DNA.

4) Therefore all things containing the logic of language are designed

For evolution to be true, natural selection must take place.

Antibiotics and bacteria prove natural selection or something akin to natural selection is taking place.

The way you constructed the proof reminds me of mathematical induction.

Mathematical induction is a method of mathematical proof typically used to establish a given statement for all natural numbers. It is done in two steps. The first step, known as the base case, is to prove the given statement for the first natural number. The second step, known as the inductive step, is to prove that the given statement for any one natural number implies the given statement for the next natural number. From these two steps, mathematical induction is the rule from which we infer that the given statement is established for all natural numbers.

Also, I think it's fascinating that after you were called out on your logical fallacies, you began accusing everybody else of committing them. What's that called? Denial?

Godel's incompleteness proof
“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.”

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.
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.

As spoken by William Lane Craig.

Faith and Reason, raised an eyebrow with me. You forgot to convert to lowercase, that would've hidden the CnP more efficiently:
http://consultingbyr...ot-enemies.html

Godel's incompleteness proof only proves that everything we know is modeled by the human brain. The brain creates references to other known facts, it happens all the time.

Not all systems of logic and numbers rest on unprovable assumptions. Wouldn't you agree that the concept of having one apple and getting another apple aptly describes 1+1=2?

No? Ok, let me go more slowly. You in hand, uuuuck, take da apple? Ok... Now someone put da odder apple in yous hand... now house manies apples shadowhawk gots?! 3! No shadowhawks! You has 2 apple.s..

So, let me see if I got this straight, the fact that shadowhawk can draw a circle, and then draw a bigger circle around it, proves that faith and reason are not enemies and that all of mathematics rest on unprovable assumptions? Ok, makes no sense.

Edited by Deep Thought, 07 February 2014 - 06:29 PM.

[N.T.M.]

NTM
I do accept that, but what does that have to do with the first premise?

People desire God. It is natural and innate in human beings. (Lots and lots of them)

All right, but you still didn't answer my question.

[shadowhawk]

NTM
I do accept that, but what does that have to do with the first premise?

People desire God. It is natural and innate in human beings. (Lots and lots of them)

All right, but you still didn't answer my question.

http://www.longecity...450#entry641901
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

NTM: I'll ask again, how do you substantiate the first premise, because I don't accept it.

I assume you accept premise one.

NTM: Many people want to do things outside of their ability. This constitutes desire. Does this mean that they can do [whatever it is]? Obviously the answer is no, but even if you said yes it would pose a contradiction by changing the one criterion that their wish is based on, that being something that they cannot do.

That you desire something real does not mean you get it. You are changing the argument to something else so you can defeat it. You both have misread the argument. There is no contradiction



.

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins: Reason is the greatest enemy faith has" - Martin Luther
Just sayin.
But he was antisemetic so who cares!

Reason as Godel used it is not the enemy of faith. http://www.longecity...480#entry641947 Reason as Atheists use it, is not reason. Context.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

I do not dispute Godel's incompleteness theorem. I do dispute your interpretation and application of it. You see theology in it, I see physics in it. *shrug* Oh well.

See what you subjectively want. A reasonable person can see many issues of faith and physics. I shall continue pointing them out. You are the one who brought up Godel and it fit the topic.

Anyways on a more serious note, you do an awful lot of asserting. I have a tendency to summarily dismiss assertions if they go against what I know of philosophical logic and science. I will engage meatier arguments, however. The choice is yours.

Just stay on topic and don’t trun this into a Red Herring.
Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html

A closed system is not quite the same as an isolated system.
Also, the bit about drawing circles, that's an example of an infinite regress.
Do you wish to change your position on infinite regress?

Not if the circle is a present aorist. What part of the circle are you talking about that shows an infinite regress? Are you saying you can have an infinite number of circles? What is the number of circles Godel was talking about?

[Castiel]

Block time is not true in this cosmos. You are within, and time moves and changes. That is all you can know about the real cosmos we live in. That is the world of the Kalam.

The problem is that events that for you lie all in the present for another lie in an ordered timeline(past present future) abc, yet for another cba. Likewise events that for you lie in a timeline can lie in a simultaneous plane for another. So what do you have? The past present and future being simultaneous from some valid frames of reference, and the sequence of events being invertible from yet another unless there is causal connectivity. The rate at which time passes also differs between observers. All of this points to block time, so your statement that it is not true is not irrefutable.

Since you know what exists, what for you does exist? What time is it?

Depending on how precise the clocks for standardized time are made, even moving them from one floor to another in a building will cause relativistic effects to affect the calculations.

I don’t believe they are different for you or anyone else, in this space time dimension. We all know what time it is and operate our lives accordingly. On a QM level we can discuss its randomness and mysteries but when it arrives dimensionally at our level of relativity it is ordered and timely. You became, you move and you have your being in this dimension.

You might not believe it, but it is a consequence of relativity.

According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space, such as a car crash in London and another in New York. The question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in other frames (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still other frames the New York crash may occur first. However, if the two events are causally connected ("event A causes event B"), the causal order is preserved (i.e., "event A precedes event B") in all frames of reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

[N.T.M.]

NTM: Many people want to do things outside of their ability. This constitutes desire. Does this mean that they can do [whatever it is]? Obviously the answer is no, but even if you said yes it would pose a contradiction by changing the one criterion that their wish is based on, that being something that they cannot do.

That you desire something real does not mean you get it. You are changing the argument to something else so you can defeat it. You both have misread the argument. There is no contradiction.

All innate desires correspond to real things (something that my example satisfies). This, of course, isn't a guarantee that you'll get it; however, going back to my original example, if it can be shown that this thing doesn't exist--as evidenced by nobody getting it, ever--then you have a contradiction. In my argument I never said anything about somebody having to get anything.

I'd respond to your other points, but you've yet to address even one of mine. It's like somebody asking, "If you have three pieces of candy and take away two, how many pieces do you have?" And then in response you talk at length about the origin of candy, your candy preferences, and the various health benefits of different types of candy. To be honest, I'm not sure whether you're trolling everybody here, or if you have some sort of disability.

[Deep Thought]

A closed system is not quite the same as an isolated system.
Also, the bit about drawing circles, that's an example of an infinite regress.
Do you wish to change your position on infinite regress?

Not if the circle is a present aorist. What part of the circle are you talking about that shows an infinite regress? Are you saying you can have an infinite number of circles? What is the number of circles Godel was talking about?

If I may interrupt.

The limit of a polygon with an infinite number of sides approaching infinity is a circle.

Infinity is defined as having no limit, thus being unbounded.

If a circle is drawn around another circle where the limit of the distance between the centers of the circles approaches infinity, I think you can.

Edited by Deep Thought, 07 February 2014 - 08:58 PM.

[shadowhawk]

A and B theory of time

[shadowhawk]

NTM: All innate desires correspond to real things (something that my example satisfies). This, of course, isn't a guarantee that you'll get it; however, going back to my original example, if it can be shown that this thing doesn't exist--as evidenced by nobody getting it, ever--then you have a contradiction. In my argument I never said anything about somebody having to get anything.

HOWEVER, BILLIONS DO GET IT!!! You haven’t shown otherwise. You apparently don’t get it, though I believe you could, but many humans have had their desire for God meet.

I'd respond to your other points, but you've yet to address even one of mine. It's like somebody asking, "If you have three pieces of candy and take away two, how many pieces do you have?" And then in response you talk at length about the origin of candy, your candy preferences, and the various health benefits of different types of candy. To be honest, I'm not sure whether you're trolling everybody here, or if you have some sort of disability.

I haven’t addressed even one of your points, you claim and then you start calling me names. Your illustration is so off the mark and frankly is disappointing. I have felt we were having a civil discussion. OK

[Duchykins]

Duchykins: Reason is the greatest enemy faith has" - Martin Luther
Just sayin.
But he was antisemetic so who cares!

Reason as Godel used it is not the enemy of faith. http://www.longecity...y641947 Reason as Atheists use it, is not reason. Context.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

I do not dispute Godel's incompleteness theorem. I do dispute your interpretation and application of it. You see theology in it, I see physics in it. *shrug* Oh well.

See what you subjectively want. A reasonable person can see many issues of faith and physics. I shall continue pointing them out. You are the one who brought up Godel and it fit the topic.

Anyways on a more serious note, you do an awful lot of asserting. I have a tendency to summarily dismiss assertions if they go against what I know of philosophical logic and science. I will engage meatier arguments, however. The choice is yours.

Just stay on topic and don’t trun this into a Red Herring.
Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html

A closed system is not quite the same as an isolated system.
Also, the bit about drawing circles, that's an example of an infinite regress.
Do you wish to change your position on infinite regress?

Not if the circle is a present aorist. What part of the circle are you talking about that shows an infinite regress? Are you saying you can have an infinite number of circles? What is the number of circles Godel was talking about?

*sigh*

Speaking of red herrings, were you ever going to get around to addressing B-theory of time, since I originally brought it up in response to the KCA?

Any time now. Go ahead and google it.

[shadowhawk]

GODEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THORMEM post 2
“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.”
http://www.longecity...480#entry641947

Godel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. From a theists point of view, outside the circle is God. We don’t need to prove god to be true.

Godel’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.

You could tell a lie and confess,

“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?

Godel, 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

There are more things that are true than you can prove. What does it mean?

Here’s what it means as I stated in my last post:

1. 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.
2. All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
3. You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.

Applied to science:
All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws. You cannot PROVE this. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.

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):

1. There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
2. The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
3. The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
4. Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect. Is it God? You will need faith just as in everything else.

Who is Godel? Next post.

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins: *sigh*
Speaking of red herrings, were you ever going to get around to addressing B-theory of time, since I originally brought it up in response to the KCA?
Any time now. Go ahead and google it.

I guess this is the “meat’, promised.
This is 13 years of study of time. I don’t think I can do better.




http://en.wikipedia....osophy_of_time)

Took these out of my bookmarks. Also I have several books on the subject.

[N.T.M.]

NTM: All innate desires correspond to real things (something that my example satisfies). This, of course, isn't a guarantee that you'll get it; however, going back to my original example, if it can be shown that this thing doesn't exist--as evidenced by nobody getting it, ever--then you have a contradiction. In my argument I never said anything about somebody having to get anything.

HOWEVER, BILLIONS DO GET IT!!! You haven’t shown otherwise. You apparently don’t get it, though I believe you could, but many humans have had their desire for God meet.

I'd respond to your other points, but you've yet to address even one of mine. It's like somebody asking, "If you have three pieces of candy and take away two, how many pieces do you have?" And then in response you talk at length about the origin of candy, your candy preferences, and the various health benefits of different types of candy. To be honest, I'm not sure whether you're trolling everybody here, or if you have some sort of disability.

I haven’t addressed even one of your points, you claim and then you start calling me names. Your illustration is so off the mark and frankly is disappointing. I have felt we were having a civil discussion. OK

Shown otherwise? I didn't try to; I conceded.

If we were having a civil conversation then I'll ask again: Can you substantiate the first premise? And I didn't call you a name. I made an honest judgement and provided my reasoning for it. I'm welcome to any critiques you have to offer.

[Duchykins]

Duchykins: *sigh*
Speaking of red herrings, were you ever going to get around to addressing B-theory of time, since I originally brought it up in response to the KCA?
Any time now. Go ahead and google it.

I guess this is the “meat’, promised.
This is 13 years of study of time. I don’t think I can do better.




http://en.wikipedia....osophy_of_time)

Took these out of my bookmarks. Also I have several books on the subject.

I guess I'll come back when you make an argument. Good night! :-)

[Deep Thought]

Duchykins: *sigh*
Speaking of red herrings, were you ever going to get around to addressing B-theory of time, since I originally brought it up in response to the KCA?
Any time now. Go ahead and google it.

I guess this is the “meat’, promised.
This is 13 years of study of time. I don’t think I can do better.




http://en.wikipedia....osophy_of_time)

Took these out of my bookmarks. Also I have several books on the subject.

I like the quantum field theory of time a little better, it's more mind boggling.

Although I'm not really surprised that William L. Craig used a relational model to describe time, his conception of time is interesting. But 13 years? Seems like an awful lot of years.

Also, the interviewer should let William Lane Craig explain himself and not finish his sentences for him.

Edited by Deep Thought, 08 February 2014 - 03:41 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins: *sigh*
Speaking of red herrings, were you ever going to get around to addressing B-theory of time, since I originally brought it up in response to the KCA?
Any time now. Go ahead and google it.

I guess this is the “meat’, promised.
This is 13 years of study of time. I don’t think I can do better.




http://en.wikipedia....osophy_of_time)

Took these out of my bookmarks. Also I have several books on the subject.

I guess I'll come back when you make an argument. Good night! :-)

No disagreement. There is an A and B theory of time. We agree. Have a good night. Back to incompleteness, or less than.

Edited by shadowhawk, 08 February 2014 - 07:36 PM.

[johnross47]

GODEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THORMEM post 2
“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.”
http://www.longecity...480#entry641947

Godel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. From a theists point of view, outside the circle is God. We don’t need to prove god to be true.

Godel’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.

You could tell a lie and confess,

“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?

Godel, 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

There are more things that are true than you can prove. What does it mean?

Here’s what it means as I stated in my last post:

1. 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.
2. All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
3. You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.

Applied to science:
All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws. You cannot PROVE this. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.

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):

1. There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
2. The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
3. The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
4. Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. So by definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect. Is it God? You will need faith just as in everything else.

Who is Godel? Next post.

You appear to be visualising drawing a circle as a physical activity requiring a standpoint outside the object drawn round. I can draw a circle around myself from the inside of the circle. Also....it is metaphorical. isn't it?

[johnross47]

If we draw a circle round everything then what is outside is nothing.

[Castiel]

Duchykins: *sigh*
Speaking of red herrings, were you ever going to get around to addressing B-theory of time, since I originally brought it up in response to the KCA?
Any time now. Go ahead and google it.

I guess this is the “meat’, promised.
This is 13 years of study of time. I don’t think I can do better.




http://en.wikipedia....osophy_of_time)

Took these out of my bookmarks. Also I have several books on the subject.

I guess I'll come back when you make an argument. Good night! :-)

No disagreement. There is an A and B theory of time. We agree. Have a good night. Back to incompleteness, or less than.

B theory is what seems to be a consequence of relativity. If simultaneity is relative, if there is no present

to which all agree. How can it be anything other than b theory?

[shadowhawk]

http://www.longecity...480#entry642188


Castiel: B theory is what seems to be a consequence of relativity. If simultaneity is relative, if there is no present

to which all agree. How can it be anything other than b theory?

All do not agree, thats obvious.

[shadowhawk]

If we draw a circle round everything then what is outside is nothing.

Nothing explains nothing. You obviously do not understand Godel. Read again. http://www.longecity...480#entry642183

[shadowhawk]

johnross47: You appear to be visualising drawing a circle as a physical activity requiring a standpoint outside the object drawn round. I can draw a circle around myself from the inside of the circle. Also....it is metaphorical. isn't it?

Not at all. You can still draw a circle around you. You seem to think nothing explains it...

[johnross47]

johnross47: You appear to be visualising drawing a circle as a physical activity requiring a standpoint outside the object drawn round. I can draw a circle around myself from the inside of the circle. Also....it is metaphorical. isn't it?

Not at all. You can still draw a circle around you. You seem to think nothing explains it...

This is unfortunately, meaningless. I seem to think nothing explains, what? What is, it? As for "You can still draw a circle around you"....what is that supposed to convey? I already said I can draw a circle around myself. I can only do that from the inside. I can draw a circle around other things either from the outside, excluding me, or the inside including me. If the circle includes everything it also includes me, and if, as is implied there is nothing left out, then nothing is exactly what is outside. Once again you have to depart from the world of reason, evidence and rationality if you then suppose you can take this to prove god is outside. To demand faith for no good reason, just to support your predetermined belief, is silly.
Like all these arguments, all you can really say is that you don't know what the outside cause is, or even if any such thing exists at all.

[shadowhawk]

GODEL continued: 3

http://www.longecity...480#entry641947
http://www.longecity...480#entry642183
http://en.wikipedia....teness_theorems
http://en.wikipedia....tological_proof

A biographical sketch

Kurt Godel was born in what is now Brno in the Czech Republic in 1906. (At the time it was part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire.) In 1923, he attended the University of Vienna and received his doctorate in 1929 under the supervision of Hans Hahn (1879-1934), best known to mathematicians as one half of the Hahn-Banach Theorem. Gödel joined the faculty of the University of Vienna, and became a member of the famous group of positivist philosophers until 1938. While he was a part of this philosophical circle, his thinking was also much influenced by the work of Leibniz. This was to influence his thinking about the ontological argument.

With the outbreak of World War II, Kurt Godel decided to leave Vienna. He emigrated to the United States in 1940, and joined the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in 1953 until his death in 1978

In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Godel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.

In one salvo, he completely demolished an entire class of scientific theories.

Godel’s discovery not only applies to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has earth-shattering implications.

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem again says:

“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:

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.

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.

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. Everything that you can count or calculate. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language and philosophy.

Godel created his proof by starting with “The Liar’s Paradox” which we examined.
http://www.longecity...480#entry641947
http://www.longecity...480#entry642183

Faith is not unreasonable and we need God to explain the universe.

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 February 2014 - 09:38 PM.