Topic: Health and Religion - page 56. (Read 210987 times)

Ok let's break this down step by step. For now lets assume that we can apply Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (GIT) to the universe. We can circle back and challenge that assumption later if you wish.

What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.

If the universe is incomplete it means that logic and science cannot tell us what lies outside of the system aka outside of the universe. We can only extrapolate general proprieties. For example we know it's not more universe meaning it is not time, space, energy, or matter.

We can deduce as Perry Marshall does that whatever is outside of the universe is boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God but this is not the only possibility. Nihilist believe that there is nothing outside the universe. Infinite nothingness could perhaps be argued to also fulfill these criteria.

GIT does not prove God it simply shows that the concept of God is logical. It also suggests that it may never be possible to prove God with logic. Logic may only be able to show us that God is possible, logical, and consistent.
 
Why is this important?

1) GIT is useful as it provides an counter to those who argue that God is illogical. It shows that God as described by monotheism is consistent with what we can logically conclude may exist outside of the universe. GIT does not prove God.

2) GIT also highlights the limitations of science and logic. It suggests that God is a logical first axiom. It also suggests that nihilism is a logical first axiom.

3) GIT suggests that science may never be able to resolve this question. No matter how sophisticated intelligent or advanced we become this fundamental tension between theism and nihilism may never go away as the answer to this question lies outside of the system. Faith therefore will probably always remain necessary and refusal to take a position in the hopes of some scientific breakthrough is unlikely to be fruitful.

4) Finally GIT highlights the symmetry between religious and nihilist thinking at the level of first principles. Both the nihilist and the theist must ultimately relay on faith.

Ha ha you sound a little nervous there Astargath. Most people confident in the merits of their position do not need to tell people not to listen to competing arguments.

I would not worry about aesma. He appears to understand logic quite well. He honed in immediately on the limitations of Perry Marshall's argument pages and pages ago. I am confident he will also understand the implications and limitations of my argument above.

Regarding my personal motivations I have been honest in my beliefs and how I arrived at them. I find it odd that you feel compelled to attack my character.

I will respond in depth to your latest commentary on Perry Marshall's logic tomorrow or perhaps the day after. However,  the very nature of your recent statements indicate a lack of understanding.



With logical arguments there is no trust or belief there are simply axioms and conditional statements that result from those axioms.

Either you can see the validity of a logical argument, or you cannot. If I say if p, then q, p, therefore q and you say ‘no it’s not,’ all I can do is stare at you.

That said your critique deserves a response. I have already highlighted the limitations of Perry Marshall's argument upthread but I will detail how those limitations relate to your latest comment above shortly.

As usual, you intentionally misunderstand.In the picture of Jesus, above, the words are not quotes of Jesus found in the Bible.The things in the referenced atheism site are the dogma of the atheism religion.

Don't listen to him. He probably started believing in god because his family told to not because of the reasons mentioned above. He searched for those reasons because he had doubts about his beliefs and now claims that belief in god is the best choice. I already showed him it's not but you can't reason with these people.

Aesma I respect your position here as it was very similar to my own beliefs not all that long ago.

Here is some food for thought:

Regarding the lake of fire:

Not everyone who believes in God believes in eternal punishment and damnation. Many Jews for example believe that hell is a very painful but temporary process. A purification process to remove falsehood and evil.

See: Do Jews Believe in Hell?
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm

Since you are an empiricist here is my empirical argument in favour of religion.

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.

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 in all 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.

You might follow his logic but how do you know what he is saying is right when literally everyone else says the incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to the universe? You are trusting perry marshall which is a random guy on the internet because you think his logic is right.

I already gave you arguments on why his logic is wrong.

''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):
•   There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove

As discussed, GIT doesn't imply the existence of things outside of a system - simply that the system can ask questions about itself that it can't answer.''

I mean we can already stop here because he is already wrong, do you not agree?

''nteresting angle. But, even allowing the step where he claims that GIT implies the existence of something physically outside the universe (of which more below), it breaks down quite trivially where Perry Marshall then inserts a religious position into that, and claims that that is the logical thing to do. No, the logical thing to do at that point would be to recognise that one had reached a point where a consequence of incompleteness had become crucial, and then explore further axioms that one might assume in order to complete the particular gap that one had arrived at. One could use a religious position as an axiom - but what would be the point, scientifically? Axioms should be as simple as possible, and the assumption that there is a complex set of interacting and anthropomorphic forces out there acting on us (as described by most religions in their god concept) would be both way more complex and less specific than would be sensible.
It is worth remembering that the devisings of religions are always in response to a sense of incompleteness (though not the mathematical sense used by Godel) - and so GIT will naturally make people think of religious comparisons, whatever they personally may think of religiousness. But existing religions are all a throwing up of the hands that occurred in response to problems that we as a people have now long since solved... Sun gods and creation stories? We know a bit more about cosmology, geology and biology now. Maybe one day we will demonstrate that we have reached the limit of knowledge in some direction - but we don't seem to be anywhere near that limit in any direction yet!

However, to return to an earlier point as promised, there is a second big philosophical hole in this... GIT asserts that, in any sufficiently interesting system (and "interesting" has quite a low threshold here), there exist statements about that system that you cannot prove - not that things physically exist outside of that system. It says that a system cannot physically describe itself in total completeness, not that things are required to exist outside that system in order to make it look more complete. Using GIT to assert that things must exist outside of the universe is not logical.''

If you like logic so much. Aren't the points mentioned above logical?

Again all the logical flaws and wrong assumptions are stated here:
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php?topic=55839.0;imode

You just chose to believe perry marshall for some reason.

Ok let's review some logic 101:

If you want to try and prove that an argument is internally inconsistent you first have to state it in formal language.

In the case of Perry Marshall's argument the talk of circles is non-formal language that he used to simplify and conceptualise his argument for lay readers. Below is his argument in formal language.

The Christian religion talks about Man having free will. I think nihilism is exactly that : life has no purpose, be free to do whatever you want with it. Seems much more healthy than following all kinds of ridiculous religious rules, but that's just me.

I think even religious people should hope they're wrong, because none of them really manages to follow the rules, so if there is an heaven and a hell, the first one must be empty and the second one overcrowded.


That's a retelling of the much more famous (and 2 centuries older) wager from Pascal : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

Spirituality os important for our emotional and mental health. Studies prove that those who meditate or pray in a regular basis are less prone to be stressed out. We are all made not just as physical beings but also spiritual beings with a sense of identity and conciousness of a Creator.

So you didn't really mention almost anything, you also didn't explain why you believe in anything perry marshall says or why we should trust him or why do you think what he said is true, are you a scientist expert in the incompleteness theory?

http://tromboneforum.org/index.php?topic=55839.0;imode

''We jump from the explanation of what the theorems ACTUALLY say, to the way the religious misuse it. They start by saying, if we dishonestly extrapolate from number theory to the entire universe, and then draw a circle around the universe, then by Godel's theorem there must be something outside that circle upon which our system is dependent. They then non-sequitur their god into that place. Even if we allow for the extrapolation from pure number theory (which is where Godel's theorem actually applies) to the whole universe, what the religious folks don't realize is that this approach suffers from an infinite regression problem in the same way as the prime-mover argument. Draw a circle around god and the universe both, and by their own logic, there must be something external to both that they are dependent on.
So, not only do they misuse the theorem, but their logic in doing so is flawed.''

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#MysExiGod

It seems to me that you are the one who needs to read more about the incompleteness theorem and what it means. The argument of perry marshall is the same god of gaps, as always.

You are starting to sound like badecker.

These various comments reminded me of a blog I read a few months back. It's a bit too long to post here in its entirety so I will provide a link for those interested in reading more.

Atheism Causes Brain Damage
http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/11/being-a-bright-darkens-the-intellect/#more-14843

Astargath upthread you challenged Perry Marshals argument on the applicability of applying "Godel's incompleteness theorem to systems beyond mathematics.

His essay can be found here:
The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

Specifically you asked.

"And how do you know Perry Marshal is right? "
and
"How did you determine that what he said is right?"

You then go on to challenge his use of the word coherence and quoted a couple of half hearted challenges to Perry Marshal's logic.

Clearly you could use your a little help here so I will give you a hand. It is indeed possible to challenge the logic behind Perry Marshal's essay but you have to use actual logic to do so.

Sometimes you can still find a rational and logical atheist. John Gould over at Quora appears to be such an atheist and he appears to understand logic. If you truly want to understand how to challenge Perry Marshal's argument consider taking the time to understand his challenge.

https://www.quora.com/Can-Gödels-incompleteness-theorem-applied-to-the-universe-prove-the-existence-of-God

What John Gould shows is that Godel's incompleteness theorem can also lead to a second possibility that deity is an undisprovable falsehood.

This juxtaposition of necessary truth versus undisprovable falsehood may be as far as logic can ever take us if the universe is indeed incomplete. It is possible that logic can only show us that it is coherent and logical to believe in God. To actually internalize and live by that logic requires faith.

My own opinion is that this fundamental bifurcation this necessity for faith persists as we climb towards perfection. Perhaps there will always be a need for faith and this fundamental spiritual struggle scales in difficulty matching future growth in intellect and ability.

This persistent need for faith as we grow closer to perfection may also be the answer to your question above.  Why might a being approaching perfection throw that perfection away? Said being may simply have lost faith.

In regards to your questioning the word coherence and how to ultimately determine right or truth. These are very deep topics.

There are several philosophical theories of truth. The most known are the correspondence theory of truth, the pragmatic theories of truth, and the coherence theory of truth since you are interested in coherence I recommend reading up on this third theory.

A brief summary of these theories can be found here.

Truth, Theories of
http://www.encyclopedia.com/education/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/truth-theories

At the time of the Judgment, God just might answer that question for us clearly... before he sends us to the place we have asked for... Heaven or Hell.

I'm not talking about the ability to throw away your perfection, you can have that but why would a perfect being use it?

If you are perfect, and don't have the ability to throw perfection away, you are a robot without a will. You are missing out on part of perfection.

If you are perfect you can't lose perfection otherwise you are not perfect to begin with, again just give me your definition of perfect, this is pointless. Someone perfect wouldn't shoot himself.

Let's say you have a gun. Nothing wrong with having a gun. Can use it for target practice, hunting, and protection.

Can also shoot yourself in the foot. Foot wounds never really heal up correctly, especially if they are bad ones. Wouldn't want to do it. But can do it. Freedom. Choice. Perfection of ability, and of foot

Foot is in perfect shape until you shoot it. Not so perfect after you do. You learn your lesson after you do. But foot never perfect again.

If a friend warns you not to do it ahead of time, you don't need to gain the experience. But if you shoot, perfection lost.

The Journal of Religion and Health is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed academic journal published by Springer Science+Business media.

Can't argee. What abot Stephen Hokking?