Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[KFunk]

Just a couple of thoughts, and these haven't been fully thought through yet, so feel free to criticise them any way you want.

1) Science and reason has no greater validity to describe the world than any other form of belief system. It just so happens that science is very adept at describing and predicting the behaviour of physical things in controlled conditions. This is science's primary and only aim. Newton himself said "I make no hypotheses." He did not claim to be able to explain why things happened, only the ways in which they would happen.

Aye, causation is still a strangely vexed issue in the philosophy of science (in particular Hume argued for a skeptical position with regards to causation). Though I should ask, what do you mean by 'validity'?

2) Logic itself is founded on axioms which are asserted, much like religion. If Christianity begins with the premise "God exists and He is good", logic is based on things like "If all As are Bs, and all Bs are Cs, then all As are Cs" (not quite, but my technical knowledge of logical axioms is shaky). In fact, 20th century logicians have proven, among other things, that from the axioms of set theory and logic, it is possible to come to a conclusion that is independent of those axioms. That is, the axiom system is incomplete.

3) Another proven theorem is that "there are an infinite number of statements that are true but unprovable" - Kurt Gödel.

[By the way, none of this is my material; it comes from my Maths teacher Dr. Bill Pender, whom you may know from his 3U Cambridge Maths textbook]

What (3) means is that mathematical proof is an insufficient method for reaching mathematical truth.

What I tried to get at by (2) and (3) is to show that logic is not a perfect and complete system in and of itself; let alone one to describe reality.

I think you may potentially undermine your claims in (2) and (3) with your ensuing argument. Think about the claim that a sentence S (e.g. "I am not proveable in axiomatic system A") is unproveable in a system A but is nonetheless true, or that 'there is an infinite set of unproveable but true sentences'. In what sense can such claims be said to be true? Arguably we need some method of judging mathematical truth independent of the axiomatic system in order to make such a pronouncement. But once you start falling back on mathematical intuition and judgement (on the part of the mathematician, say) you start to invoke notions of platonic categories or objectively, obviously true logical axioms - i.e. the very things you start to deny later in your argument. Thus your argument suggests that it may not even be fully meaningful to say that a sentence is not proveable but is nonetheless 'true'.

Another issue worth considering relating to intuitive approaches to verifying mathematical statements (basic logical claims in particular) is that our intuitions can lead us to contradiction (some have argued that we should tolerate some contradictions, notably Australian philosopher Graham Priest). A beautiful example of this is Naive Set Theory which falls prey (much to Frege's dismay) to Russell's Paradox whereby one can construct the set of all sets which are not members of themselves... contradiction ensues. The paradox is not too disimilar to that of the liar, i.e. "this sentence is false". In any case, Naive Set Theory is based on axioms which all have that objective logical ring to them but which nonetheless, taken collectively, allow for the emergence of contradiction. 'So much for intuitive mathematical judgement', one might say.

True. But notice that he has shifted the criterion of value from "objective truth" to "usefulness in specific situations". This, I believe, is a better criterion to use for systems of belief. Objective truth, in my opinion, does not exist. Science is useful for engineering and sending rockets to the moon and making a model of how sub-atomic particles interact and healing people.

What if there are objectively true facts but we just can't prove it?

 

[Kwayera]

GOD IS REAL.. and no i can not prove it oh well at least not what you consider proof only what he has done in my life and in the life of friends... it is all a matter of faith

THE MYSTICAL BLUE TEAPOT ORBITING THE SUN AND DICTATING OUR LIVES IS REAL, and there is nothing you can do to dissuade me even though there is no proof because it is all a matter of FAITH

 

[Sastrawan]

[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]omg i cant take reading this shit anymore. this post made me want to cry[/SIZE]

Fair enough.

Also, I cant see how you can have any meaningful concept of God after rejecting the notion of objective truth. God must be the absolute source of truth according to your scattered post

You're assuming I'm religious. I'm not.

doubt anybody can be bothered arguing with a 2008 extension maths student who thinks he's an expert at platonic philosophy and relativistic logic (I mean the fact that he tried to tie the incompleteness theorems into his argument says a lot to me).

Most I can be bothered is to recommend him some good books and to live a few more years so he gets those absolutist thoughts out of his head.

I don't see how "Just a couple of thoughts, and these haven't been fully thought through yet, so feel free to criticise them any way you want." means the same thing as "I'm an expert at Platonic philosophy and relativistic logic". Of course I'm not, and of course I'm horribly mangling Gödel's theory as it is. What hope do most people (I defer to you if you study maths or philosophy at uni, or something) of getting its full implications? I did put a caveat in saying these weren't my ideas, but my teacher's.

Oh, and what books were you thinking of? I'd be happy to hear.

Quote:
1) Science and reason has no greater validity to describe the world than any other form of belief system. It just so happens that science is very adept at describing and predicting the behaviour of physical things in controlled conditions. This is science's primary and only aim. Newton himself said "I make no hypotheses." He did not claim to be able to explain why things happened, only the ways in which they would happen.

What? Science can explain why sometimes the earth quakes... Science can explain why some animals are green and others are brown... As for the bolded part, True but if you're willing to accept science in every other circumstance to lead to factually true results other than some exceptions, I think you need a pretty good argument for your exceptions.

I owned myself here, with your help; because "validity" itself means true (at least, that's what the HSC Physics course says. Please don't kill me for being wrong.)

I think you'll find all atheists in this thread accept that is true, we have a constructed reality which may or may not be true, but is based off the best knowledge we can have. We can't separate our minds (imo, without becoming unconscious or something) from the other basic logical axioms, so they will always form a part of our 'constructed reality', the same definately can't be said of any 'god' axiom.

Are you saying that "the best knowledge" is knowledge reached by rational deduction? If so, then sure, there is no 'god axiom'. But our minds don't always work along rational guidelines, and many people find that religion is necessary for them to cope with life/appreciate life/have a place, etc. This is what I was getting at with the "usefulness" thing.

Oh yeah, and I really lost the plot by the time I got to the end of the post (as you can see by the slightly raving Burmese junta non sequitur. Sorry.), John Edwards is a douchebag.

THE MYSTICAL BLUE TEAPOT ORBITING THE SUN AND DICTATING OUR LIVES IS REAL, and there is nothing you can do to dissuade me even though there is no proof because it is all a matter of FAITH

Cool anger. What do you want to gain by proving people wrong? What benefit does it entail for anybody?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Cool anger. What do you want to gain by proving people wrong? What benefit does it entail for anybody?

In my reality (which doesn't really exist anyway, but neither is yours, they're just two of infinitely many realities which are both absolutely true and non-existent simultaneously) proving people wrong and getting angry gives you orgasms, so there's plenty to be gained from it

and you can't prove it doesn't

 

[Sastrawan]

In my reality (which doesn't really exist anyway, but neither is yours, they're just two of infinitely many realities which are both absolutely true and non-existent simultaneously) proving people wrong and getting angry gives you orgasms, so there's plenty to be gained from it

and you can't prove it doesn't

Wow! But there are so many people on the Internet, and since everybody on the Internet is wrong, I've been missing a massive opportunity! I'd spend my life doing this. (Particularly during exam periods)

 

[Kwayera]

i consider what God has done in my life and creation and what how i have seen him work in the lives of others enough proof... but no human can give you convictions it is in Gods power

Okay. What HAS he done in your life/lives of others/creation? That is quantifiable?

 

[chicky_pie]

Okay. What HAS he done in your life/lives of others/creation? That is quantifiable?

Well he actually means his father is god.

The dude who gave him life, sperminated his mum, gave him life and etc.

 

[Riffy Raffy]

i consider what God has done in my life and creation and what how i have seen him work in the lives of others enough proof... but no human can give you convictions it is in Gods power

So first you say you need only faith, then you say you have evidence of his power?

Also, what movie are you talking about Iron?

 

[Iron]

...Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
To say on topic, I think mother forbade it because of the overt satanism and undercurrent of jewery
But my god, it had everything

 

[HalcyonSky]

i consider what God has done in my life and creation and what how i have seen him work in the lives of others enough proof... but no human can give you convictions it is in Gods power

yeah, when gods not helping self absorbed middle classed overweight white girls, he's cycloning the burmese, quaking asians and depriving ethiopians of food (but blessing them with energy legs)

 

[Slidey]

haaaha fucking god i love him warm and fuzzingh feelings why do you hasve to ruin ti for me with logic? n

 

[Slidey]

Fair enough.



You're assuming I'm religious. I'm not.



I don't see how "Just a couple of thoughts, and these haven't been fully thought through yet, so feel free to criticise them any way you want." means the same thing as "I'm an expert at Platonic philosophy and relativistic logic". Of course I'm not, and of course I'm horribly mangling Gödel's theory as it is. What hope do most people (I defer to you if you study maths or philosophy at uni, or something) of getting its full implications? I did put a caveat in saying these weren't my ideas, but my teacher's.

Oh, and what books were you thinking of? I'd be happy to hear.



I owned myself here, with your help; because "validity" itself means true (at least, that's what the HSC Physics course says. Please don't kill me for being wrong.)



Are you saying that "the best knowledge" is knowledge reached by rational deduction? If so, then sure, there is no 'god axiom'. But our minds don't always work along rational guidelines, and many people find that religion is necessary for them to cope with life/appreciate life/have a place, etc. This is what I was getting at with the "usefulness" thing.

Oh yeah, and I really lost the plot by the time I got to the end of the post (as you can see by the slightly raving Burmese junta non sequitur. Sorry.), John Edwards is a douchebag.


Cool anger. What do you want to gain by proving people wrong? What benefit does it entail for anybody?

My bad. Sometimes I get arrogant through assumption of experience.

I only ask that you be less certain. Applying thoroughly simple human conception of some logic system to universe be like trying to enforce Euclidean geometry on curvature of space. Great approximation but on big enough level the deviations become embarassingly apparent.

Let's do rational intuition. Don't particularly believe simple GUT exists either.

See I can type straight.

 

[Sastrawan]

My bad. Sometimes I get arrogant through assumption of experience.

I only ask that you be less certain. Applying thoroughly simple human conception of some logic system to universe be like trying to enforce Euclidean geometry on curvature of space. Great approximation but on big enough level the deviations become embarassingly apparent.

Let's do rational intuition. Don't particularly believe simple GUT exists either.

See I can type straight.

Hey, thanks man. Actually, I thought I was being very uncertain, but I guess the sheer length of my post made it seem as though I was being dogmatic and assertive when I actually wasn't. I was just throwing those ideas out there to see what people thought, and whether there were any holes in them that I hadn't thought of. Turns out there were heaps

(Oh, and 3Unitz, I'm taking your advice and am trying to make this as not painful as possible. Sorry about that.)

 

[Enteebee]

Are you saying that "the best knowledge" is knowledge reached by rational deduction? If so, then sure, there is no 'god axiom'. But our minds don't always work along rational guidelines, and many people find that religion is necessary for them to cope with life/appreciate life/have a place, etc. This is what I was getting at with the "usefulness" thing.

If your thoughts don't work along some sort of "rational guideline" then it's almost pointless arguing. I will usually argue against people based on their own lines of thinking... if someone has exhibited the capability to dismiss belief in other gods then I'd submit they definately have the rational capacity to dismiss one more. For the most part though I don't think most people who believe in God are necessarily irrational or are even engaging in 'double think', I think they don't really believe, but they just hope and desire it to be true so badly that they make postulations as if it really were the case.

Take funerals for example, theists and non-theists alike seem to struggle to cope with the death of a loved one... Surely the knowledge that they've really just passed over into eternal happiness and you'll get to meet them soon should more than make up for whatever unhappiness you have regarding the circumstances of their death, but it never really seems that is the case.

 

[pinkyforce7]

Some string theorists believe there are an infinite amount of alternate universes, each with an infinite amount of variation and/or similarity between them. So, applying this idea in a basic sense - In one (or infinite amount) of the infinite universes, God exists, because there are infinite variables. In theory, in another universe there is a race of super intelligent monkeys who have enslaved the human race and plan to wipe out ever form of living organism.

if your taking this seriously, get a life. its a joke

 

[miegoreng]

If God exists why would he create us? I mean create something just to save them? But if God doesn't exist, then this universe and any others out there just came from nothing? All we know around us has come, ultimately, from nothing if God doesn't exist. God can have always existed because he has that power, unlike this universe I think.

But if all the Hitlers of the world had died when they were babies because of an accident, they would'a gone to heaven. So they would have been lucky to die. Therefore everyone has the same fate, whether it be an afterlife or nothing, because a God wouldn't deal with someone's afterlife based on luck. If there was an afterlife, why don't women just keep on making babies because they are stopping the creation of a soul that could get eternal life?

There are too many variables for us to ever know definatifely if God exists or not.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I like some of your questions.

 

[Enteebee]

but if God doesn't exist, then this universe and any others out there just came from nothing? All we know around us has come, ultimately, from nothing if God doesn't exist. God can have always existed because he has that power, unlike this universe I think.

Not necessarily, it's quite easy to postulate a meta-universe with different rules that has always existed and creates smaller universes such as our own.

There are too many variables for us to ever know definatifely if God exists or not.

same is true of... everything, particularly supernatural things :/

 

[Slidey]

This universe needn't have come from nothing; it could have always been.

Which leads to Ockham's razor.

 

[Shoubadoo]

If there was an afterlife, why don't women just keep on making babies because they are stopping the creation of a soul that could get eternal life?

There are too many variables for us to ever know definatifely if God exists or not.

I like what you're saying.

In terms of the women having babies so that more get into eternal life, some believe that there is no such thing as eternal life because our souls are already eternal, and that they simply choose to come and experience life on earth to get to know themselves and their beliefs better.

Siiigh; man's debate over god and spirituality is endless...