Ok, let's start again.
''First 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''
No, no and no. Simply wrong.
First of all you cannot even apply kurt godel theorem to the universe:
https://www.quora.com/Can-G%C3%B6dels-incompleteness-theorem-applied-to-the-universe-prove-the-existence-of-God''Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language or philosophy.
And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.''
This statement is simply wrong.
Appeals to the incompleteness theorems in other fields[edit]
Appeals and analogies are sometimes made to the incompleteness theorems in support of arguments that go beyond mathematics and logic. Several authors have commented negatively on such extensions and interpretations, including Torkel Franzén (2004); Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont (1999); and Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom (2006). Bricmont and Stangroom (2006, p. 10), for example, quote from Rebecca Goldstein's comments on the disparity between Gödel's avowed Platonism and the anti-realist uses to which his ideas are sometimes put. Sokal and Bricmont (1999, p. 187) criticize Régis Debray's invocation of the theorem in the context of sociology; Debray has defended this use as metaphorical (ibid.).
Everything said in your article is plain wrong.
Sigh... ok if you insist.
Astargath you are both repeating yourself and making assertions that do not follow from your actual arguments.
Although I have not read the work of Torkel Franzén, or Ophelia Benson from your quote it seems like they are simply disagreeing with the extension of incompleteness theorems beyond mathematics and logic. The fact that these authorities your appeal to have "commented negatively on such extensions" is not an actual argument. Commenting negatively on an argument does not prove it false any more then my commenting positively proves it true.
Upthread I already noted that if you do not accept the fundamental premises of the Incompleteness argument (that the universe is rational, logical, and finite) then yes you can challenge Perry Marshal's conclusion.
https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/You demonstrate your lack of a background in either logic or philosophy when you claim "Everything said in your article is plain wrong.", "This statement is simply wrong", and "No, no and no."
Repeating yourself three times does not turn an unsupported assertion into a logical argument.
To review:
The Incompleteness theory of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that when constructing a rational,
scientific model of the universe, belief in God is 100% logical
You seem to desperately want to feel that believing is God is entirely irrational. This seems to be an article of faith for you a "sacred truth" you insist on believing regardless of how torturous and unsubstantiated your arguments must become to defend it.
Your problem is that belief in God is entirely logical and rational so your arguments are growing increasingly inconclusive and incoherent.
Perhaps this link may be of use to you?
How to Make a Logical Argumenthttps://www.google.com/amp/s/m.wikihow.com/Make-a-Logical-Argument%3Famp%3D1And how do you know Perry Marshal is right? He is a business consultant and has a degree in electrical engineering. How did you determine that what he said is right? You people are amazing, you read 1 article on the internet from some random dude and you fully believe it just because it makes your belief correct.
Quote
The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.
Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.
doesn't make sense if he really thinks about what he just said referenceing Godel. What does he mean by "coherent?" In the conventional useage, it means "understandable by most people," and in logical usage, it might mean exactly what Godel's theorum says is impossible: a closed logical loop, including all assumptions. Furthermore, not all descriptions of the universe that even postulate a "First Cause" find it necessary to invoke God, therefore that invokation is NOT 100% necessary. It may be for his particular version, and if that's the case, he's confusing himself between his favorite universal theory and all possible universal theories.
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.
Quote from: ddickerson on Mar 26, 2011, 09:30PM
• The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time
Bit of a dodgy (series of) assumption(s):
1) Even if you can't see any matter beyond a certain distance away, it doesn't mean that there isn't an infinite amount of empty space beyond that. Does the "groundsheet" of the universe extend outwards forever, just waiting for things to move onto it, or does it stop at some point? We don't know.
2) 13.7 billion years is the current age of the universe. The author has made the mistake of only considering past time, not future time. It is entirely possible that the universe will expand forever, resulting in so-called "heat death".
Quote from: ddickerson on Mar 26, 2011, 09:30PM
• The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)
• The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
Cannot do so completely. We've come a long way and will go a long way yet before we even have to think about consequences of GIT.
Quote from: ddickerson on Mar 26, 2011, 09:30PM
• Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
Nope. You just draw an infinitely big circle. Trivial logical error induced by carrying the metaphor of drawing a circle too far. See Godel's second theorem, which implies that any system that can prove its own completeness is by definition incomplete.
You can read more problems here:
http://tromboneforum.org/index.php?topic=55839.0;imodehttps://hozzaszolok.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/godels-incompleteness-theorem-or-what-perry-marshall-got-wrong/You can also read the comments pointing out where his assumptions were simply wrong in his website and other websites where he published his garbage ''argument''.
He is simply wrong and just another religious guy attempting to prove god.
