Topic: Health and Religion - page 59. (Read 210871 times)

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.

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