Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Bob Enyart]

Attention wrote: "Before you ask such a question, can I ask you have you ever read the proof Kurt Godel himself delivered? Before raising unprofound doubt, perhaps first read the thing itself, and only then try to raise a point about it... -- Rob"

I wasn't trying to cast doubt; I was simply asking, Was Godel's argument true? Since I haven't rec'd a direct answer to that question, let's try an easier one:

Is it true that posts on this thread have been mentioning Godel?

Yes or No? Perhaps that question is too esoteric or difficult for you non-theists in the Grandstands.

If you answer "No, it's not true," then, good, I'll forget you ever mentioned it.

Sincerely, -Bob

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Bob Enyart

I wasn't trying to cast doubt; I was simply asking, Was Godel's argument true?

There's a wonderful chance here to go down that oldest of philosophical rat-holes, "what is truth?" - but I'll try to avoid it....

Yes, Godel's argument - actually, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem - is "true". One of Kurt Godel's claims to fame - probably his greatest - was his proof that it is impossible to create any consistent system of mathematics in which all propositions are "decidable" (i.e., no system can be both internally consistent and at the same time "complete", hence the name); or in simpler terms, there is no way that a system can exist in which all questions are definitely answerable. Unlike science, in which theorIES are never assumed to be conclusively proven, mathematics is a field in which theorEMS (note the distinction) are proven all the time.

Since I haven't rec'd a direct answer to that question, let's try an easier one:

Is it true that posts on this thread have been mentioning Godel?

It's two-for-one night here, so you'll now have BOTH questions answered.

Since your own post is in this thread, and since it clearly mentions Godel, I hope it's clear that the answer to this second question is "yes".

 

[bmyers]

By the way, for anyone interested, here's a link...

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

...to a page which not only provide a nice, succinct discussion of Godel's theorem, but also a link to a copy of his original paper on the subject.

Enjoy...

 

[jeremiah]

......Does Godel's incompleteness therom, also apply to Science and Atheism?

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by jeremiah
......Does Godel's incompleteness therom, also apply to Science and Atheism?

The theorem applies to any internally consistent axiomatic system. So if you can show that "science" or "atheism" are such, then yes, it would apply.

Let's assume for a moment, though, that they ARE such systems and that it DOES apply. What this would really be saying is that it is possible within either system to formulate true statements which cannot be proven true through application of the axioms of the system. Is that what you were looking for here?

Or were you thinking, as I suspect is the case, that Godel's theorem was saying something different?

 

[attention]

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
Attention wrote: "Before you ask such a question, can I ask you have you ever read the proof Kurt Godel himself delivered? Before raising unprofound doubt, perhaps first read the thing itself, and only then try to raise a point about it... -- Rob"

I wasn't trying to cast doubt; I was simply asking, Was Godel's argument true? Since I haven't rec'd a direct answer to that question, let's try an easier one:

Is it true that posts on this thread have been mentioning Godel?

Yes or No? Perhaps that question is too esoteric or difficult for you non-theists in the Grandstands.

If you answer "No, it's not true," then, good, I'll forget you ever mentioned it.

Sincerely, -Bob

Bob,

Now let us state here as truthfull as I can that to my knowledge, and fair and honest observation, that posts on this forum have been referring to and mentioning Godel, and more specifically to his "incompleteness theorem".

So, that may count as a firm "Yes" then.

Now, the other question which you mentioned was: Was his argument true?

I would gladly mention you an equal fair and honest answer to that question, but for the readers on this forum, I don't think a simple Yes or No would suffice, since some may not even know what this theorem of Godel states in the first place.

Without going in to much detail, it might therefore be good to explain what this theorema is about. I happened to first meet this theorema as part of the book "Escher, Godel and Bach: An eternal golden braid" by Douglas R, Hofstadter, which is quite a good explenation of the theorema of Godel.

In brief the theorema of Godel is a statement about formal, axiomatic systems, which as proven by this theorema, are either inconsistent or incomplete. The proof of this theorema is delivered by showing that any formal axiomatic system T can contain a sentence G (an expression encoded in the language of formal axiomatic system T) which says about itself that G is not part of the formal axiomatic system T.

So, if one explores the question wether or not sentence G itself is or is not part of formal axiomatic system T, the following dillema arises:

If one assumes that G is part of formal axiomatic system T then G must express a truth: G is not part of formal axiomatic system T. A contradiction!

But if we assume G is not a part of formal axiomatic system T, then despite that G id not part of formal axiomatic system T, G is nevertheless true.

This then means that either the formal axiomatic system T is inconsistent (if G is part of T) or incomplete (if G is not part of T).

Of course, the most clever part of this proof (which I will not explain in further detail here, but provide links to webpages explaining that in detail) is to come up with a method in which a formal axiomatic system can refer to itself.

To review the full proof, I refer below to some sources about this mathematical theorema.

For answering the very question of pastor Bob Enyard, I refer to this website, which makes relevant comment on that particular issue raised by him.

Just in short, these comments entail that the theorema is about formal provability only, and not about truth itself.

This would make the answer therefore be: No

A formal system that makes a statement that can be proven is not a statement about truth itself (in the more broad sense of 'truth').


Regards,

Rob


Godel on the Net

Godel on the Net


As is perhaps interesting for this discussion on the net, are some comments regaring this theorema, which take the theorema outside of context of a formal axiomatic system, like for instance the implication as if Godel's proof would be useuable also to state that the Bible is incomplete or inconsistent.
Wether or not that is the case, this is at least not implied by the Godel theorema, as is commented here.

And more good news for Theists is that Kurt Godel even made himself an ontological proof for the existence of God, which can be read here.

Some more ontological arguments / proofs for the existence of God can be found here

Not that I think that an ontological argument would proof in the least that an entity such as God would in fact exist, since ontological arguments deal with arguments that are not derived from observation, but from reason alone, and therefore can't provide us truth.


In the same way, we could theoritize about a hypothetical consciouss being of which only is stated that it can reason and nothing else, to which is adressed the question as why at all a material world exists, instead of nothing. Since the nature of this question does not allow us to assume anything that exists, and could provide ground for answering this particular and peculiar question, such a consciouss being would not know the answer to that question, and could not discover the truth.

We, however, as consciouss human beings, do know the answer to that particular question, since we actually observe there is a world, and since we can also know that in the mind of that hypothethical consciouss being, we could never have ariven at that answer that there is a world, we can be pretty sure that the material world itself was in neverlasting existence itself. In fact, the world itself states it's own existence, positively admits that it exists and can not fail to exist, which - if we are ever able to have the world speak for itself - would have the world reveal it's own truth: I AM.

Since however it is not the case that the material world itself is or can be a subjective or conscious being (see note below), and is not susceptible to ever speak to us in person, we will never hear these words coming out of the 'mouth' of the world itself.
Unless of course, nature itself would find a way of developing a suitable consciouss entity that is able of interpreting that truth and can speak in the name of the world itself.

See also my thread dealing with this same issue The Fundamental Question


Note:
This would mean namely that the material world would be able of being consciouss of something that is apart, outside and independend of itself, but this is not possible since the material world is all there is, there is nothing outside of it.
Neither it is the case that there is anything that distinguishes between the material world and something outside of it, which therefore also exclused self-consciousness.
Conscousness is a subjective form of existence; the existence of subjective existence already assumes that there is objective existence.

 

[jeremiah]

To bmyers:
No actually I was looking at his first main theorem, and not the second which you referred to. According to your website, the first theorem could be summed up as. " He proved it IMPOSSIBLE to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems, unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the systems themselves." It also said, " Rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth."
In other words it must go outside of itself to a higher and more complete system.
Regarding rational and reasonable Atheists who KNOW that there is no God, according to Godel, I would conclude, that would be an impossible statement to make.
Regarding Science and 1, Evolution or 2, the beginning of the Universe, I think the forever deepening, and widening, and "explaining" of the theory of evolution: as we discover more and more concerning the complexity of a SIMPLE cell: similarly the "progress", in the theory of the Big Bang and the vastness of the Universe: the increasing complexity generated by each new discovery, casts doubt on both these theories just as Godel PROVED? Does this glove fit his therom?
I would hazard a guess that Godel had to at least be a "brilliant" agnostic, if not more probably a theist.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by jeremiah
To bmyers:
No actually I was looking at his first main theorem, and not the second which you referred to. According to your website, the first theorem could be summed up as. " He proved it IMPOSSIBLE to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems, unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the systems themselves." It also said, " Rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth."
In other words it must go outside of itself to a higher and more complete system.
Regarding rational and reasonable Atheists who KNOW that there is no God, according to Godel I would conclude that would be an impossible statement to make.
Regarding Science and Evolution or the beginning of the Universe, I think the complexity of the theory as we discover more and more concerning the complesity of a SIMPLE cell, and the vastness of the Universe, it casts doubt on the whole theory just as Godel PROVED? Does this glove fit his therom?

To sum up the theorema, it shows that any formal axiomatic system of some minimal strength (it must be possible in that axiomatic system to contain propositions that refer to itself) must be either inconsistent or incomplete.

In a way you could compare the reasoning system of our consciousness as something that resembles a formal axiomatic system.

One peculiarity of such a reasoning system is this. Although anybody happens to know there is a world, in which we live, from our thoughts or reason alone, we could never arrive at the conclusion that there must be a world. Our reasoning system itself, can not even conclude such a simple fact about reality. All our reasoning system CAN state are things that are formal and abstract truths. The only fundamental truth which relfects outside reality that it can state that it itself (the reasoning system) must exist, since without it, it could not function. According to our reasoning system therefore, the most fundamental things that exists in it's world (the world of consciousness itself, which does not know the outside truth), is itself.

Another peculiarity is that we are not just a reasoning system, but also a biological system as well that strives for it's own existence, and that has inherited from our survival journey through nature the property of a being that is caring about it's own existence, that we do not like the 'possibility' that it could have been the case that no world at all would exist.

Since both of these facts happen to be the case, we therefore "invent" an entity that is in a way responsible, taking care, and proving sufficient ground for there being a world, instead of not a world, and causing our existence.

And since we are humans with a human consciousness, we attribute our inhereted properties from our "survival race" to this invented entity that was responsible for our existence, such as purpose, intend and will.

We happen to do that, and history shows us that all people in their earlier human development phase, have come up with such similar answers to their reason or purpose of being.

This whole peculiarity of our reasoning capacity, which found or invented an entity or necessary being, responsible for there being a world and there being human consciousness, just shows that from our reasoning capacity alone, we can never fully account for these facts.

But surprisingly (or not surprisingly) the answers to all our questions about why there is a world in the first place, instead of not a world, are already implicitly there.

We would not even HAVE to reason about it, since when we would open our eyes, we would already see the truth right before our nose: THERE IS A WORLD.
This answer already provides us sufficient grounds for answering the question as to why it is the case that there is a world, instead of not a world, which is: BECAUSE THERE IS A WORLD.

This feature of being human, being consciousness, having a reasoning system capacble of formal and abstract thougt, and being a biological organism that through the course of evolution has strived for it's existence, has gotten us in a peculiar "dualistic" position against nature itself.
We know from first hand and direct observation, and from all day experience, there is a world, in which we live.
But to our reasoning system itself, the situation is totally unclear. It can reason about all kind of things, but as of yet it is not even capable of stating this fundamental truth that there happens to be a world, which is outside, apart and independend from it. "We" know that, but our reasoning system in a peculiar and fundamental way, does not know that. It is just capable of making logical conclusions, and which at the bottom layer, does state and acknowledge the fact that itself (the reasoning system itself) is existent. But it has no way of knowing what is to account for that fact.

This dualistic nature of our being, therefore contains two kinds of truths. The first truth, the external one is that we happen to live in a world, we observe it daily, and about which we do not doubt.
The second truth is that our reasoning system knows that itself is a necessary component, but it does not know that there is a world outside, apart and independend of it. It came up therefore with a "reasonable" explenation, that something infinite, eternal and more supreme as itself, omnipotent and omniscient, has created this reasoning system, and formed the cause for it's existence.

If we combine this external truth with the internal one, we get a coherent picture of reality. There is a material world, it is the world which we live in and which we know from outside. From our reasoning system we just know that that which has to account for it, is not knowable in a direct way, but must be something infinite, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. What it doesn't know is that which it figured out as it's cause, is the same "thing" as what we know from outside: the material world itself, which indeed does not have a begin, and is not in any way a finite entity.

It is only from exhaustive reasoning and trying to fit hypothesis about reality into reality, and exploring the material world, that we found that these two truths somehow are pointing to the same thing, entity or substance, that of matter itself, which provide us the reasons and causes for our existence.

The nature of these two not-corresponding and somehow opposite realities united within our own being, are accounting for the fact that mankind has struggeled a long time with this particular and peculiar question, and which is therefore also known as the basic question in Philosphy: which is the issue of Being versus Thinking. The basic question in Philosophy is which of these is primary: Being or Thinking. Primary is meant here as to state that it is independend of anything else.
Would somehow the material world itself be dependend on some concious entity (as proposed by our reasoning system), or would on the other hand our consciousness be dependend on the material world.

The answers given by various philosophers in the course of time, has given rise to a division into two major schools of thought:
1. That of Idealism, which states that consciousness is primary and the material world is secondary. (This is also the way Theism answers the basic question)
2. That of Materialism which states that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary.

Just as a little philosophical side note to this issue, and perhaps worth mentioning in this discussion.

 

[Flake]

Originally posted by PureX
My best definition of God would be that God is a word I use to describe the profound mystery that is the source, sustainance, and "character" of all that is. I also have chosen to believe that this mysterious source is benevolent in character and that this benevolence is being expressed constantly throughout all of existence, and I can experience this mysterious "God" through this benevolence if I choose to.

A very interesting representation. God is the "personification", for some, of this process of everything. I however dont see it as benevolent as that indicates purpose, leading to possible assertions of intelligence. The illusion of benevolence is easy to fall for because we are alive and are being sustained, and we see other "purpose" expressed leading to seemingly benevolent conclusions. Like we can say cars are good, but those that are adversely affected by cars, say being run over, or allergy or conditions arising because of car emissions, would say the opposite, so its a matter of perspectives. All the species that where once alive and are now extinct would have a different perspective. The same could be said for anybody and anything that suffers during existence. Also, for all thoses planets where life cannot exist because the "hand of god" chose not to "wave" over them.
I would view "god" as neutral in this regard. When the Earth finally collides with the Sun, no benevolence or malevolence will be expressed, just due process.

 

[Psycho Dave]

I wasn't trying to cast doubt; I was simply asking, Was Godel's argument true? Since I haven't rec'd a direct answer to that question, let's try an easier one:

Is it true that posts on this thread have been mentioning Godel?

Yes or No? Perhaps that question is too esoteric or difficult for you non-theists in the Grandstands.

If you answer "No, it's not true," then, good, I'll forget you ever mentioned it.

Sincerely, -Bob

Bob, I don't know if you've been reading this thread, but someone did say that Godel's theorem was essentially proven true.

I maintain that we need to use the proper terminology, as dictated by Godel, which is that theorems are either valid or invalid", since all scientific knowledge is incomplete, and subject to change.

So for the rednecks out there, Godel's theorem was proven true.
For the scientists out there, Godel's theorem was validated.

No more word games, people, okay?

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Flake
A very interesting representation. God is the "personification", for some, of this process of everything. I however dont see it as benevolent as that indicates purpose, leading to possible assertions of intelligence. The illusion of benevolence is easy to fall for because we are alive and are being sustained, and we see other "purpose" expressed leading to seemingly benevolent conclusions. Like we can say cars are good, but those that are adversely affected by cars, say being run over, or allergy or conditions arising because of car emissions, would say the opposite, so its a matter of perspectives. All the species that where once alive and are now extinct would have a different perspective. The same could be said for anybody and anything that suffers during existence. Also, for all thoses planets where life cannot exist because the "hand of god" chose not to "wave" over them.
I would view "god" as neutral in this regard. When the Earth finally collides with the Sun, no benevolence or malevolence will be expressed, just due process.

I agree that when we "personify" God we deceive ourselves. This personification is inevitably a projection of ourselves into an unknown in order to resolve the mystery to our own satisfaction, which is basically a lie. I also agree that when we inevitably judge the nature of being (God) according to our own pleasure and pain we are contradicting our own definition of God. Yet we humans have a stong desire to do both of these, and this is where our religions come from. Religions are human beings inventing God and inventing divine reason so that they can pretend to "know" what they can't actually know.

This is why I reject religions.

By benevolence, I meant existential benevolence. That is that I see the character of existence as being structured in such a way as to allow for the greatest posible number and variety of forms of being. Viewed selfishly, we don't like this, because it means our individual form will end so that new forms can happen. But viewed wholistically, the dynamism of existence (that destroys us) is what allows for so many new forms to happen, and what allowed for us to happen in the first place. It's because we die that we can be here at all. It's because forms compete to exist that existing is so interesting and valued an experience. Our existence as the individual and unique forms that we are is a gift precisely because it must have an end.

I admit that I am choosing to view this as benevolence. But then we are ALL choosing how we view the experience of existing all the time. We can't avoid it. So why not choose a positive view rather than a negative one, if the positive view helps us to be grateful for the experience?

Is there a purpose behind this "benevolence"? I have no idea. All any of us could do is guess about this. Or we could just let the mystery be a mystery. I personally think that we should let our own joy guide us in responding to this question as much as reason or logic. Sometimes reason and logic give us the illusion of knowing just like religion does. In the end we can't know the answer to this kind of question, so we may as well choose the response that makes us happy.

 

[jeremiah]

....... Upon reading and understanding the philosophical arguments of Godel's work, but not the logic and mathmatical symbols, three things are clearer to me in relation to this debate.
1. Bob Enyart originally warned Zakath not to try to "rationalize complexity with more complexity."
2. The oft repeated statement, "that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in God."
3. That it would seem to be impossible to be a "hard" Atheist, if that means that you can say with certainty that there is no God.
As has also been said many times, to reach that ultimate conclusion, you would have to say that you have all knowledge, of all reality, or that you stand outside and above all the rest of humanity. For the Atheists who may pride themselves on their reasoning and rationality, it is a most unreasonable and irrational position, according to Godel's theroem.
A more reasonable position, would be that of an agnostic or a "soft" atheist. From the "limited" knowledge that they have, they do not know, or believe that there is a God. That is the most one should be able to honestly or reasonably say.
Thanks for providing the sites to Godel's work. It was interesting, and certainly bolster's the idea of God, from an ontonological standpoint.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by PureX
In the end we can't know the answer to this kind of question, so we may as well choose the response that makes us happy.

This reminds me of the following quote which I catalogued years ago.

attributed to Cyril Connolly
We must select the illusion which appeals to our temperment and embrace it with passion, if we want to be happy.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by jeremiah

In other words it must go outside of itself to a higher and more complete system.
Regarding rational and reasonable Atheists who KNOW that there is no God, according to Godel, I would conclude, that would be an impossible statement to make.

Correct - however, it is no more "impossible" than the converse statement that might be made by theists: that they KNOW that there IS a God, and that this belief is based solely on reason.

We often use the words "know" and "certain" very sloppily; in truth, a person arguing solely from reason would have to acknowledge that no knowledge can be absolutely certain, or at least "proven" beyond any possible doubt strictly through rational means. This can get into some pretty esoteric discussions of epistemology, but I'm hoping we can just all agree on this as a basic axiom and move on. This does not stop us, though, from using "know" and "certainty" in the more casual sense that they're usually intended.

Still, I would have to say that I find few things to be more disturbing than a person who claims to be "absolutely certain" about anything. If that claim is really true, then what would be their point in discussing the subject? It can't be that they're interested in furthering their own knowledge, since they've already declared that in essence they have nothing more to learn in that area. Therefore, they must be talking to me solely to further my knowledge, and apparently won't quit until I think exactly like they do. But since I have yet to find any two people who ever believe exactly the same thing, you would then have to expect that we'd be in a for a very long, and very pointless, bit of work...

Regarding Science and 1, Evolution or 2, the beginning of the Universe, I think the forever deepening, and widening, and "explaining" of the theory of evolution: as we discover more and more concerning the complexity of a SIMPLE cell: similarly the "progress", in the theory of the Big Bang and the vastness of the Universe: the increasing complexity generated by each new discovery, casts doubt on both these theories just as Godel PROVED? Does this glove fit his therom?

No, I don't see how any of this follows or is at all related. Could you perhaps explain further?

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Psycho Dave

I maintain that we need to use the proper terminology, as dictated by Godel, which is that theorems are either valid or invalid", since all scientific knowledge is incomplete, and subject to change.

So for the rednecks out there, Godel's theorem was proven true.
For the scientists out there, Godel's theorem was validated.


No more word games, people, okay?

Yes, but we'd better start by getting straight the difference between "theorem" and "theory". They're NOT the same or in any way interchangeable, and they belong to two different branches of investigation.


A theorem is a proposition, usually in the context of mathematics, which can or has been shown to be logically required to be true given the axioms (or basic assumptions) of the system in which it applies. In other words, it is a construct which is capable of, or the result of, logical proof. It is something that has been proven mathematically.

A theory, on the other hand, is simply an explanation or a model, often in the form of a mathematical formula, which attempts to describe observations of the "real world" and which can then be used to make predictions as to how that real world will behave under a given set of conditions. It cannot be proven, only disproven; in other words, it can never be shown with absolute certainty that the model will explain everything that might be observed, or that its predictions will be perfectly accurate. It can, however, be "validated" (good word, by the way!) by sufficiently repeated agreement with observation that we feel reasonably justified in using it basically without question.

Mathematics is not, contrary to popular misconception, a science; it is a field of study the exists on its own. The primary distinction is that mathematics is in no way constrained to be based on observations of reality. It does not attempt to explain observed data. It is much more akin to a "language", one that can be used
by science to express it ideas, but which is not "science" itself.

Science uses mathematics as a tool to model reality, or from another perspective as a sort of "shorthand" in which to express and manipulate its ideas concerning the behavior of reality. But confusing the two and their terminology can lead to considerable problems, especially in discussions such as this.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by bmyers
Mathematics is not, contrary to popular misconception, a science; it is a field of study the exists on its own. The primary distinction is that mathematics is in no way constrained to be based on observations of reality. It does not attempt to explain observed data. It is much more akin to a "language", one that can be used
by science to express it ideas, but which is not "science" itself.

Science uses mathematics as a tool to model reality, or from another perspective as a sort of "shorthand" in which to express and manipulate its ideas concerning the behavior of reality. But confusing the two and their terminology can lead to considerable problems, especially in discussions such as this.

I tend to scrutinize your posts bmyers, as you often have a balanced perspective.

I am intrigued by your perspective on "science". For this topic, you seem to have settled on a particular usage of "science" and are proffering your view as "the" view.

I do not have a problem with your usage and view of "science" per se, but it occurs to me that such a usage needs to be understood as conventional, whereas you seem to be presenting it as dogmatic.

My random house defines "science"

sci·ence , n.
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
[1300–50; ME < MF < L scientia knowledge, equiv. to scient- (s. of sci?ns), prp. of sc?re to know + -ia -IA]

—Syn. 7. art, technique, method, discipline.

In strict etymology terms, "science" means "to know".
Your depiction limits "science" to defintion #2, or that which is drawn from the "scientific method".

Again, I have no problem with that, as long as we recognize that others may use the term "science" in a less strict sense. In a number of other usages, mathematics could easily be construed as a science.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by jeremiah
2. The oft repeated statement, "that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in God."

Wrong understanding. We know a great deal about evolution, we know the mechanism, and we see on a time line how one species after the other evolved, and we find commo descend.
The body of evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

But for 'creation' (the intervention of a personal God) there are no facts that could back up such a thing to happen, there is not even a conceptual frame for it, there is no model for it, it is not even a theory, it is only an idea based on faith, and in reality is just a mythological story.

It would be an as fruitless hypothese as the simple idea that matter itself developed all life forms. Even if that hypothese is true, it is not acceptable as a scientific theory, since it reveals no details about it's mechanism, it makes no verifiable predictions.
A theory must not only be true, but also tell something meaningfull.

3. That it would seem to be impossible to be a "hard" Atheist, if that means that you can say with certainty that there is no God.

Wrong conclusion. It is not necessary to have absolute knowledge for allowing the conclusion that God how it is defined does not exist. God is both the eternal infinite material reality (the Primal cause of it) and is a consciouss being.
The definition of consciousness is however in such a situation quite problematic. Consciousness requires there the ability for distinction between self and something outside of self. But if God is the totality of being, there is by definition nothing outside of it, and therefore by definition no consciousness. Consciousness is a subjective form of consciousness. This requires there to be an objective material reality in the first place. Neither is that the case for God.

These arguments can be applied, despite any other knowledge we have or may miss about reality in total.

As has also been said many times, to reach that ultimate conclusion, you would have to say that you have all knowledge, of all reality, or that you stand outside and above all the rest of humanity. For the Atheists who may pride themselves on their reasoning and rationality, it is a most unreasonable and irrational position, according to Godel's theroem.

This is realy no argument at all. Neither Godel, for instance, could have known all formal axiomatic systems to which his theorema applies, and all statements that can be expressed in such theoremas. From your argument this would imply then, that also Godels theorema is wrong.

A more reasonable position, would be that of an agnostic or a "soft" atheist. From the "limited" knowledge that they have, they do not know, or believe that there is a God. That is the most one should be able to honestly or reasonably say.
Thanks for providing the sites to Godel's work. It was interesting, and certainly bolster's the idea of God, from an ontonological standpoint.

Reasonable for who? Because it better fits YOUR particular worldview?

The 'proof of God' from an ontological argument, does only reveal a formal, or abstract truth, but says nothing about reality itself.

 

[attention]

Godel theorema and truth

Godel theorema and truth

Godel theorema and truth

The question raised by pastor Bob Enyard was wether or not the argument of the theorema is true.

Some have replied here that this question should be answered with a clear yes.

It is however arguable that this is not the correct answer, as I have already listed in my previous post.

"The concepts of consistency and completeness are purely syntactical concepts, meaning that they are all about formal rules and formulas, and don't involve any notion of truth or falsity. "

see link here.

Greetings,

Rob

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by jeremiah
....... Upon reading and understanding the philosophical arguments of Godel's work, but not the logic and mathmatical symbols, three things are clearer to me in relation to this debate.
1. Bob Enyart originally warned Zakath not to try to "rationalize complexity with more complexity."

Yes, but someone should similarly warn Bob not to confuse "complexity" with merely large numbers.

That life, for instance, involves a very large number of atoms making a very large number of molecules interacting in a (fairly) large number of ways is undeniable, but it's not really the issue here. The basic rules that govern HOW those atoms and molecules and such can possibly interact are actually fairly few in number, and capable of being expressed fairly simply. (This doesn't mean that everyone here has a good grasp on them, but incredibly complex, they're not.)

2. The oft repeated statement, "that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in God."

Oft repeated, perhaps, but no more true for the repeating. In fact, the latter must always require more "faith." It should be evident that everything that has to happen in a non-theistic model of origins still has to happen in a theistic model - i.e., the level of "complexity" is at least the same - PLUS you have to bring in an additional unproven entity to run it all. This says nothing about which is actually "true", but the "how much faith does X require?" approach is just silly.

3. That it would seem to be impossible to be a "hard" Atheist, if that means that you can say with certainty that there is no God.
As has also been said many times, to reach that ultimate conclusion, you would have to say that you have all knowledge, of all reality, or that you stand outside and above all the rest of humanity. For the Atheists who may pride themselves on their reasoning and rationality, it is a most unreasonable and irrational position, according to Godel's theroem.

First, as was noted by another poster earlier, you're strecthing Godel beyond those systems that the theorem was intended to cover. The Incompleteness Theorem is concerned with axiomatic systems of logic only, not questions of "ultimate truth" - although similar lines of reasoning have certainly been advanced regarding those areas as well.

But a more serious problem here is that if the above reasoning IS to be considered sound, it applies equally to all beliefs. It is also "an unreasonable and irrational position" to claim with certainty that there IS a God, unless you're going to qualify that belief as one of faith (i.e., NOT based solely on evidence and reason).

Bringing logical tools into a theological debate is always a risky proposition, since these tools are very sharp and they really don't care WHICH way they cut...

A more reasonable position, would be that of an agnostic or a "soft" atheist. From the "limited" knowledge that they have, they do not know, or believe that there is a God. That is the most one should be able to honestly or reasonably say.

Then this would be the more reasonable position (i.e., ignoring for the moment belief based in faith) as compared to BOTH extremes of the theistic/atheistic spectrum. Is this really what you're arguing here?

 

[Bob Enyart]

As posted also in the BR7 Specific Discussion thread:

Note to all BR7 readers: I am still hoping that Zakath completes the last two rounds of the debate and I would agree to whatever time flexibility he needs. Of course, as always, I hope he is well. If the debate does resume, I'll be traveling in the Rocky Mountains with family and staff for a few days next week on a dinosaur fossil dig led by a Christian paleontologist (yes, such a species is not extinct as was once thought). So I'll be out of touch from this Sunday (preaching/teaching) at Denver Bible Church through Thursday August 7th. Sincerely, -Bob