Topic: Health and Religion - page 55. (Read 210987 times)

Given the length of this exchange a summary of what we have discussed so far is warranted.

Upthread I highlighted how we can mathematically deduce The Incompleteness of the universe and logically conclude that whatever is outside the universe must be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.23796852

I next highlighted how religious thought specifically monotheism conceptualises God and how this conceptualisation is consistent with what we can mathematically deduce.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24187846

I also demonstrated how traditional Biblical writings on the timeline of creation and origins of mankind can in fact be reconciled with modern scientific thought.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24374030

I reviewed the limitations of reason in understanding infinity and the fact that our understanding of God must necessarily be a massive oversimplification. God can never truly be grasped through our mind as our mind is time-bound.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24330562

Finally I noted the importance of truly drilling down to the foundations of ones metaphysical assumptions and how failure to do so was ceding control of ones actions, beliefs and thoughts to external forces.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24418501

At this point you asked to start the conversation over again.


We returned to the logic that allows us to mathematically deduce the incompleteness of the universe and reviewed it in greater depth reducing that logic down to its three primary assumptions. These assumptions are reasonable and currently not disprovable. I invited you try.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24665515
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24791749

Finally I outlined how one could make the case for God using an entirely empirical argument. You have chosen to ignore this argument.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24814642

Now it appears you are returning to attempts to challenge the existence of God by challenging the consistency of traditional holy texts. I have already demonstrated how traditional biblical writings on the timeline of creation and origins of mankind can in fact be reconciled with modern scientific thought and in response you appear have shifted your focus of criticism of the story of Adam and Eve.

Please clarify what exactly in biblical account of Adam and Eve are you objecting and why you feel this objection disproves God.

Why do you feel that humanity's flaws are evidence against an omniscient and omnipotent creator?

     HAHAHAHAAHA

Oh man I don't even know what to say. Have you read anything in your link? The link itself is named ''arguments to avoid'' The first thing the article says is ''Many Christians mistakenly claim that NASA scientists have confirmed the Bible by finding Joshua's missing day. ''

I'm starting to believe you are trolling me now.

Because Christianity is a religion of faith, many Bible scholars say we should avoid proving any of it.

By entering the movements of the stars and planets into a computer, NASA has found that the lost day of Joshua in Joshua 10:13, and the shorter period of time in 2 Kings 20:9–11 that were supposed to be discrepancies in the movements of the stars and planets.

One site is https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/nasa-found-joshuas-missing-day/.

Science is starting to prove that the Bible is accurate.

All right. So you understand that something that falls into the classification of a real God exists.

Since cause and effect show that He is so great that He set everything in place by completely and perfectly controlling His roll of the dice, so to speak, it follows that He wanted humans to exist and even recognize Him. Religion is a way that we recognize Him in greater detail than science has been able to give us. Which religion would He show Himself through? Or would it be all religions?

Tough question to figure out the answer to. Perhaps we should look for the religion that has power in it.

Oh no I can say that because I'm referring to religious gods which are all very easy to disprove by exposing the stupidity in their books, systems, etc etc. As I pointed out earlier with the god from the bible:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24835142

I don't deny the possibility of some sort of being that created the universe and I can't disprove that. Religious gods on the other hand are always garbage.

Well, almost exactly as you say. The difference in your case is that you are proclaiming yourself to be God by having the authoritative stupidity to say that there isn't any God, when you don't really know it to be true.

Don't you think you should be a little more humble just in case there is a True Great God? I mean, He knows He has the last laugh against you... easily. He knows what a weakling you are. You can't even create a grain of sand, but He made the whole universe. He's playing you, son... but maybe playing with you.

And every religious person claims their god is the real one. In a way every religious person is an atheist on the other religions, I find it quite funny when they insult atheists, although they are doing the same thing for all the other religions but theirs. There is no real reason to believe on religion is real and the others aren't. None of them have proof. Some folks claim their book has predictions that are true but does that make god real? Is the book with most predictions the real one?

The thing about religion is, there is too many of them, this might be the reason why until now, peace is a very difficult thing to attain in our world. So many beliefs, so many faith that it results to war and terrorism. Which results to building of weapons like nuclear power, that affects the human health.

''If God was truly made up by primitive people thousands of years ago then it should be a trivial matter to disprove him'' It is, the bible is extremely easy to prove wrong, I already showed you many examples of it's big big flaws. For instance, humans, God made humans purposely imperfect and then they failed by eating the fruit he told them not to, this already makes no sense if your god is omniscient and omnipotent. From there we have the same problems trough the whole bible, God always knows things in advance yet he still gets mad? He then proceeds to kill everyone but a few people with the flood, why? If he was going to kill people anyways, why not just save all the time and start by making them perfect?

Argument for God

1) Belief in God is logical in that the belief is internally consistent and cannot be falsified. This conclusion can be derived in numerous ways one of which is via the application of incompleteness theorem.
See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

2) All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms. Without knowledge, scientific enquiry including empiric enquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyse the world around us we cannot identify truth.
See: The Coherence Theory of Truth

3) Our fundamental metaphysical first axioms are therefore a critical step in the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it.
See: Metaphysical Attitudes

4) Human progress and civilization requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support.
See: Superrationality and the Infinite

5) Competing first axioms such as nihilism may grant "freedom" to do whatever you want but for humanity as a whole this is an illusion and such axioms reduce overall freedom.
See: Freedom and God

6) Thus the first axiom of God is not only largely responsible for the progress we have made so far it is likely necessary for continued progress.
See: Religion and Progress
and
See: Faith and Future

7) Finally and least important accepting the first axiom of God appears to be correlated with good health.  
See: Health and Religion

8 ) For these reasons accepting the first axiom of God is a superior choice for the empiricist then accepting the first axiom of nihilism or refusing to define ones metaphysics.

See: Music that Illuminates for more.

Sigh you were doing so well Astargath.

Yes you can posit anything and in isolation and this may be a logical belief. However, beliefs do not exist in isolation. They are tested against other beliefs and the world itself.

If for example I was blind and had never seen the color of the sky and no one had told me what color it was. I could say that I believe the sky is green because when I had inquired in the past that was the most common color of things outside.

Now this belief is false but at this stage it is logical. The belief will fail, however, when it is tested because the color of the sky can be known and defined within our system of knowledge. If I ask someone who is not blind what color the sky is or build a machine to measure the wavelengths of light in the sky both will return the answer blue. Belief that the sky is green while initially logical fails and is disproven as we grow in knowledge.

What Perry Marshall shows is that there are some beliefs that cannot fail in this way.

This does not "prove" or "disprove" these beliefs it simply shows us that for some questions we must infer knowledge rather then prove it. Such knowledge must be accepted apriori. This is a logical necessity of an incomplete universe.

Perry Marshall's conclusion follows from his primary assumptions but most people with a background in philosophy or epistemology will acknowledge this and there are other ways of arriving at the same conclusion.

For example we had that guy nihilnegativum here a while back who was a hardcore nihilist with a clear background in philosophy.



What both nihilnegativum and Perry Marshall are telling us is that both theism and nihilism are logical positions. It is only the atheist who keeps asking for proof and refusing to define his own basis in knowledge who is behaving illogically because he is repeatedly asking the wrong questions.

This makes traditional atheism easy to dismiss as a credible position. Nihilism on the other hand is a much tougher nut to crack for nihilism is a logical system. To reject nihilism The best course of action is probably to build out a theist world view alongside the worldview of the nihilist and honestly ask yourself which of these constitutes your reality. Thus Perry Marshall's argument or nihilnegativum's if you prefer to start from a position of nihilism is only the first step in an argument for religion.

P.S.
If God was truly made up by primitive people thousands of years ago then it should be a trivial matter to disprove him just like the blind man can disprove that the sky is green. The fact that we not only cannot disprove God but in all probability will never disprove God hints that this is something much deeper and more fundamental.

P.P.S
You have not disproven Perry Marshall's three assumptions but if you think you can have at it. They are:

1) That the universe is finite
2) That the universe is rational
3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system.

So really this isn't proof of anything. This doesn't mean belief in god is logical either since I could switch god with literally anything I make up and I can say it's logical to believe in that thing. There is no point in talking about ''IF's'' because we can be stuck there forever, there are many if's possible, there is really no point in any of them and they are not necessarily true either, they might be true or not, just because something might be true doesn't mean it's logical to believe in it. Another big problem with your silly argument is when you say ''These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God'' Big problems with this is:
1. God is made up, religious folks didn't study god and then wrote about his properties, they made them up.
2. These basic properties can also be applied to infinite things including infinite gods.

Bottom line is, this is not proof of anything really, it's just a bunch of if's and assumptions. Not only that but I showed you that many of these assumptions are actually wrong, anyhow, as I said before, I'm pretty sure you started believing in god for other reasons, not these.

Personally I do not believe that religion could somehow affect human health. But people can convince themselves in all sorts of miracles. Therefore, religious people think that it is God who makes them healthy

I think that health it is related to religion only in the aspect of lifestyle, food restriction. Everything resumes to the fact that we should not exaggerate in what we do (work) and eat.

Religion calls for the treatment of prayer to God. This does not make sense! Let them treat those who want it. Who helps prayer? The priests themselves were hospitalized and very expensive.

Logical arguments are a series of conditional IF-THEN statements built upon axioms. This is what logic is. It is also how we "know" an argument is "right".

That fact that famous atheist have not challenged Perry Marshall argument is not relevant.

Upthread you said Perry Marshall was an electrical engineer I did not actually know that but that's also irrelevant. Logical arguments stand or fail on their merits.

Without meaning to be insulting your posts sometimes give the impression that you rely on others sources you consider to be authoritative to tell you what to believe. You do not need to do this as you are intelligent and capable of breaking an argument down to its basic assumptions as you demonstrate below.


Good job you have found the third and final major assumption in Perry Marshall's argument. I was not going to tell you this one unless you figured it out for yourself.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem tell's us that any logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer. Is God one of those questions that cannot be answered from within the system?

Perry Marshall assumes that it is but he does not prove this. As you said the property of being an uncaused cause alone could potentially be characterized.

With this we have identified all of the primary assumptions in Perry Marshall's argument. These are:

1) That the universe is finite
2) That the universe is rational
3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system.

If all three of these assumptions are true THEN Perry Marshall's conclusions logically follow. All of the assumptions Perry Marshall makes are reasonable I do not believe any of them can be proven false but that does not mean they are true.

We can as asema did argue that the universe is not finite. A strong nihilist might argue that the universe may not be rational. Finally a theist may argue that God can be proven directly so assumption three is false and Perry Marshall's argument is unnecessary.

IF all three of Perry Marshall's assumptions are true THEN his conclusions follow.

Do we agree?

''Instead it tells us that the existence of something outside the universe is logical and possible.'' Where does it tell us that? You already said ''What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.'' That doesn't imply that the existence of something outside the universe is logical or possible, does it?

So many IF's in your argument.

And IF there is something outside the universe, why does it have to be something different from our universe? ''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.

Well, let's play along for now, then - let's assume that GIT does imply that something exists outside of the universal system. Then:

GIT doesn't imply that that's "indivisible" or unencirclable at all. Godel's 2nd theorem again.''

''Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

There's no reason why you should be unable to draw a circle around an "uncaused cause" (I suppose you might call that a source term, mathematically). If you can characterise it, you can put it in a system. This is the same point as the previous one again - so it also falls against Godel's 2nd theorem.''

You keep quoting perry, obviously since no one else said anything about what he says because no one cares since he is wrong, why don't you just admit that he is wrong? He used the same typical theist argument and added the incompleteness theorems, nothing really special, the same ''logic'' bullshit arguments.

How always such aggravating posts try to undermine human rights.In a pseudo scientific way, with some surveys and statistic, they try to stigmatize certain individuals.Or, it's more like they brandmark them.Atheists are not condemned persons or individuals, waiting for their time in hell.They just dont believe that a god-like being has created the universe.May it be temporary, or on what assumptions, they have the right to do so.Maybe it is just because of this, and they are obsessional neurotic about telling other people explicitly NOT to believe in any god.Not long ago people have been persecuted for that, and killed. ferociously. And still this could happen today.I believe it is more improtant to accept otherpeople's opinion and talk about that, as long as this doesnt instantly cause doom on earth.Fears and constraints are some of the most powerful motivations. and do not always lead to positive results.

Correct GIT does not tell us that there is something outside the universe. Instead it tells us that the existence of something outside the universe is logical and possible. It also suggests that if there is something outside the universe we not only cannot but will likely never be able to confirm or deny its existence with logic and science alone.

It tells us that this question will forever be beyond science. It will always be a question of metaphysical axioms or faith.



We can deduce some basic properties of what may lie outside of the universe by what it is not. It is not more universe. I will repeat Perry Marshal's circle analogy here because although this is an oversimplification it is probably the simplist way of conceptualizing this point.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century
https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

Note the circle here is not a literal circle but a metaphor for the part of the system in this case the universe that is defined and proven.

Also note that there are two assumptions in the argument 1) that the universe is finite and 2) that the universe is mathematical aka rational. Both of these assumptions are reasonable ones given our current understanding but neither has been proven to apply across the entire universe.