Religion
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... Tequila with science.
It's a common mistake.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)tequila?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)what do you drink?
SamKnause
(13,091 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)
Jim__
(14,075 posts)Godel's ontological proof as stated in SEP:
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
SEP also has a brief discussion of the proof.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)more interested in the implications for axiomatic structures
thought some might enjoy
this is also interesting
Holy Logic: Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/computer-scientists-prove-god-exists/story?id=20678984
ORjohn
(36 posts)if God can only do good, why do all living things die, did they all eat the fruit?
1 - An illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
2 - Time is time and eternal time at the same time - do all caterpillars die?
3 - fight the bible much?
ORjohn
(36 posts)If we measure time by revolutions of the Earth and Earth around the Sun then was there no time before the Earth formed?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)care to elaborate?
Jim__
(14,075 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)In fact no question has been answered by the OP, just links and a condescending"Must be over your head" on repeat.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)post 31
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and maybe do it without editorializing, you know, take it seriously.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I gave Einstein's definition (not mine) of God.
the others were silly
got something better?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Not someone else's, even "Einstein's" cause that really didn't answer the question.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)It is not a question that my minds structure has a place for.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That we can't even comprehend god with the brains he gave us. So that would make this whole thread a farce because it would make it impossible for science to prove his (it's? ) existance. However looking at the history of god will show us that he (yea, he) has not always had that quality. He used to show up all the time and have a hand in day to day affairs. He even has limits, loke iron chariots.
No, science has done more to prove that god is made up, and his supporters have gone into a full on route and claim that the only definable quality of god is that he can't be defined, and then throw on an insult by saying something like how it's a concept our primitive (usual word used) brains can't understand.
No, the size of the universe is something outside the scope of most humans brains, god is a cheap trick used to bilk millions in an elaborate game of three card monty.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)seems like a strange thing to do.
Lots of words with no relevance - The proof is about mathematics not God - sorry your agenda got between you and the topic.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)If this isn't about god, then why are you in the religion room?
I thought maybe someone had come here to honestly talk about it, but instead it's the usual backpeddaling and ad homs when cornered. Turns out you're not even in the right group, the host should lock this as off topic in that case.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Certainly you see the tension in those two positions, right?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I just opened the door to a cool topic in mathematics - your agenda clouded your judgement.
Right?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Your position seems to be pretty clear to those reading. If it's not clear to you, I can't really help you.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)i have no need for your help
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)for what you seem to think is a clever Socratic dialogue (which is just actually you not getting what people are saying or just completely ignoring what they are saying and then replying with vague sophomoric bullshit that you think is clever and deep and which is, actually, neither) in this thread. I get much deeper insights from my high school Juniors in Honors American Lit.
In the event this is juried: just read through this thread if you have the fortitude and tell me the responses aren't sophomoric bullshit. Posting sophomoric bullshit makes DU suck, not pointing it out.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)In all of the descriptions of "heaven" and "paradise" I have never found a single one that makes me wish to die.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)thanks
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)The two aint the same.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)you know what they say
would it make you happy if I said that scientist have proved that God exist?
Holy Logic: Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/computer-scientists-prove-god-exists/story?id=20678984
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)move on
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)But perhaps, not surprising... move on yourself, chuckles.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)in such a small box.
You might want to explore the subject a little - just might surprise you!
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)A simulation is only as good as the model it is based on. You get nice and handy information that looks like experimental data, but it's simply not an independent experiment: You get out what you put in.
Gödel made up a model and then made a simulation (well, a proof is some sort of simulation). The result is only as reliable as the model he came up with.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)this is where the discussion should point
I find that my interest seek the boundaries of understand. Do we have access to reality?
The idea that reality is not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we CAN imagine is one that I consider.
Any thoughts?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)If you are awake, is that reality?
If you are dreaming, is that reality?
When one person believes that something is real and the other person doesn't believe it, is it then real or not?
When both believe that it is real, is it then real?
When everybody except one person believes that it is real, is it then real or not?
I do not believe that we are capable of experiencing a true reality: Our consciousness is just a program running inside the hardware that is our brain. (Speculations whether there are supernatural souls and how many souls exactly one human has aside.) Our consciousness only receives information received by our limited sensoric organs, which is then filled with extrapolations and assumptions, and then used to build an image of the world inside the program.
Did you know that your eyes can only see colors at the center of the field-of-view? They see the edges in black&white. But that's no problem because your brain has filters that fill in the missing information based on memory and guess-work.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)consciousness is the true unexplored place
thank you for the good post
now want to talk about the limits?
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)I can only give you a materialistic point-of-view here.
I think, our consciousness is limited by the computational powers of our hardware (the brain) and by the biases we derive from the experiences that happen while our program is self-programming. (Which stops in the Mid-Twenties. From there on, character-traits are permanent.)
Google has invented the algorithm "DeepDream" (based on a neural-network architecture) that turns normal images into surreal paintings. Multiple commenters have said that this is what the world looks like if you take LSD.
From this I draw the conclusion that drugs to not enhance our consciousness but only distort what is already in there.
There are methods to go to the limits of our mind though. Right now, only one method comes to my mind, the "ars memorativa" ("the art of remembering"
. The method is at least 2500 years old, said to have been invented by Simonides of Keos in ancient Greece, though he is just the most famous among those early users.
The ars memorativa is basically a hack that allows you to exploit the fact that our brain is exceptionally good at some tasks, so you rearrange your way of thinking to use the same processes for other tasks.
Our brain is really good at remembering locations and the our brain receives the strongest emotional stimulation from optical images.
The ars memorativa exploits this by intentionally rearranging memories as images carefully arranged in locations.
There are dozens of variations and off-shots of this technique, and it's important to pick a particular technique that fits your personality. The "Memory Palace" is the most famous of these techniques, though practitioners of the ars memorativa like Quintillian and Metrodurus of Skepsis suggested more abstract frameworks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci
A warning: The ubiquitous availability of information via printed books (and even more so by smartphone and internet) has altered the human way of thinking. A contemporary human has a harder time getting used to this technique than a human from ancient times who didn't have the luxury of taking notes and looking things up and had to rely on his memory alone.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)and it's constituents. It is not "Science".
"Science" is a means of observing the properties of the Universe and it's constituents, making a hypothesis and testing it.
Models such as those provided by mathematics are useful during that process. However mathematics is limited in that is a human construct and can only be an approximation of what exits.
KNOW...YOUR...LIMITS!
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I do like your thoughts on LIMITS
That is exactly were I want to go.
What are the limits?
What does it mean to know something?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...if you actually think that or are just playing stupid games, but just in case:
http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2010/05/03/the-danger-when-you-dont-know-what-you-dont-know/
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)CLUE... science is woo?
Just a cool piece of mathematics - that has been developed over a thousand years and has recently been reduce to a computable form.
Enjoy mathematics - it opens many doors!
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)just exploring peoples reactions
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You're posting deliberately vague provocatory claims then backing them up with dense mathematical formulas that don't mean what you're implying they mean to "explore people's reactions".
Sounds like playing games to me.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)What can we know - how can we know it - and what does that mean?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)uriel1972
(4,261 posts)"Epistemology"
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)that i why i am asking the question
There are some smart people here a often i get pointed in a nice direction
have anything else?
tecelote
(5,122 posts)
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Even though Mr. Pig tries to hide, he will be found. Usually under the table, or next to Dad's shoes.
It's hard to hide when you're pink.
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)ball disappear like socks in the dryer around here
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Thanks.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)vanity - just a guess
elleng
(130,865 posts)
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)the electromagnetic spectrum - but what is it really?
elleng
(130,865 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)and the electromagnetic spectrum
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's a great big beautiful spectrum out there and we can only see a tiny slice of it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Science is unable to prove or disprove the existence of God, since God is defined as being beyond our understanding and unable to be tested.
Science is limited to that which we can observe and test.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Science is the application of the scientific method.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)this is what you got?
Trajan
(19,089 posts)look ... there ... in the bottom ....
CLICK!
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)butt your reaction is the bottom
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Including this one.
Butt your reaction is the sideways.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)do you have anything to say about mathematics?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Never met the guy.
But I've got an "importand" question: What, exactly, is a "responce"?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)looks like
any other questions?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You used the non-word "responce" twice, which makes it difficult to explain as a simple typing error. Could it be you fail at spelling?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)sometimes I just do not care
and I can not spell worth a damn
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You just don't care.
Fascinating response.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It is a set of internally consistent logical rules.
By proving God exists mathematically, you are engaged in circular reasoning: while proving mathematically, one is defining mathematically.
And one can't define God mathematically, without making God lesser.
To invoke Giordano Bruno: your God is too small.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)any other obsevations
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Bye!
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)be well
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)there is general consensus that the alleged "proof" has problems.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)this is what you got to say about Godel's exploration of axiomatic structures?
your fight against God has clouded your judgement
This is not about God - must have gone right over your head
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)On Gödel's theoretical assumptions, we can show that any set which conforms to (1)–(6) is such that the property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in that set is exemplified. Gödel wants us to conclude that there is just one intuitive, theologically interesting set of properties which is such that the property of having as essential properties just the properties in that set is exemplified. But, on the one hand, what reason do we have to think that there is any theologically interesting set of properties which conforms to the Gödelian specification? And, on the other hand, what reason do we have to deny that, if there is one set of theologically interesting set of properties which conforms to the Gödelian specification, then there are many theologically threatening sets of properties which also conform to that specification?
In particular, there is some reason to think that the Gödelian ontological argument goes through just as well—or just as badly—with respect to other sets of properties (and in ways which are damaging to the original argument). Suppose that there is some set of independent properties {I, G1, G2, …} which can be used to generate the set of positive properties by closure under entailment and “necessitation”. (“Independence” means: no one of the properties in the set is entailed by all the rest. “Necessitation” means: if P is in the set, then so is necessarily having P. I is the property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in the set. G1, G2, … are further properties, of which we require at least two.) Consider any proper subset of the set {G1, G2, …}—{H1, H2, …}, say—and define a new generating set {I*, H1, H2, …}, where I* is the property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in the newly generated set. A “proof” parallel to that offered by Gödel “establishes” that there is a being which has as essential properties just those properties in this new set. If there are as few as 7 independent properties in the original generating set, then we shall be able to establish the existence of 720 distinct“God-like” creatures by the kind of argument which Gödel offers. (The creatures are distinct because each has a different set of essential properties.)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#GodOntArg
But you aren't or you would admit that philosophy and science are not identical and that whatever the merits of godels argument it does not provide a scientificly valid testable theory establishing the existence of 'god'.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)The fact that many many people have worked on this idea shows that it is a serious subject - one that you not only do not understand but want to carry into the void of your confusion.
This is a question about mathematics not about God.
Look at this in terms of mathematics and enjoy.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Take it to the Creative Speculation or something.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)to spark a discussion on the limits of thinking and understand.
seems I only got the bouncing atheist
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)do you not find that strange?
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)that you don't understand what the Religion group was set up for. This is the one place on DU where all people who are interested in discussing religion, whether they are believers or non-believers, come for that discussion. You could also say it is strange that the Atheist and Agnostic group is listed under the topic "religion" as well.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)just curious?
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)I have no problem with religion, as long as it does not interfere with my life in any way. That includes keeping it out of schools, meetings, etc.
I was going to say that if people would just live their lives the way that their religion tells them to, it would be a better world. Then I started thinking about ISIS and the Crusades and Orthodox Jews, and I realize that it would not be much of a better world.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)thanks
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)not science. not considered proven. other than that you make a fine point.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Holy Logic: Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/computer-scientists-prove-god-exists/story?id=20678984
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)Auto correct changed the name I originally chose. This is good as it protects me from a hide for calling out.
The theorem is: Something can be proven to exist when the number of believers exceeds a certain threshold.
Your post is a variation of the theorem, thereby rendering all your posts null and void.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)He could have called it "Satan". Or "Steve". (But I guess, only mathematicians would care about this proof if Gödel had called the entity "Steve".)
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)What does it mean to know something?
Jim__
(14,075 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 18, 2015, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)
The conclusion in post #12:
Necessary existence is a property that belongs to a god-like being. Certainly the name is not crucial, but establishing the necessary existence of x is.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)if it means anything - i thank you very much
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The question is: Can this mathematical conclusion be translated to our reality? And when you look at the beginning of the proof, the answer is No.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)The argument is abstract; but there is nothing specified in it that is not possible in our universe.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)See replies #64 and #136
Axiom 1: Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both.
But: Killing someone can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the circumstances. Letting somebody live can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the circumstances. (Plus many, many more examples.)
=> Axiom 1 is unrealistic.
Axiom 2: A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive.
But: Too much of a good thing and the good thing suddenly turns into a bad thing, e.g. water, medication, the presence of oxygen, the presence of ignorance/tolerance...
=> Axiom 2 is unrealistic.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)But: Killing someone can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the circumstances. Letting somebody live can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the circumstances. (Plus many, many more examples.)
=> Axiom 1 is unrealistic.
Axiom 1 is about properties. Killing is not a property. Killing is a behavior, an action. Neither in the above statement, post #64, nor post #136 do you actually address Axiom 1.
But: Too much of a good thing and the good thing suddenly turns into a bad thing, e.g. water, medication, the presence of oxygen, the presence of ignorance/tolerance...
=> Axiom 2 is unrealistic.
Axiom 2 is about the entailment of a positive property. Your remarks about too much of a good thing have nothing to do with entailment. Neither in the above statement, post #64, nor post #136 do you actually address Axiom 2.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)to Axiom 1:
"He works a lot." That property is good for the company but bad for the family because he doesn't spend enough time with the kids.
to Axiom 2:
"She takes care of abandoned kittens." That property is all nice... until she turns into a crazy cat-lady.
Gödel's proof operates in a world that is simple, clear-cut and black&white. If our world were like that, God would have been proven or disproven ages ago.
I once constructed a proof that disproved the existence of God and I asked mathematicians what they thought about it. Their main complaints were that I only disproved the existence of one specific kind of God and that my definition of "reality" (as mutually shared perception) was up to debate.
But I found a nice proof here on DU that God's existence can never be experimentally proven or disproven (read: told apart from an impostor), because he's infinite and our instruments of measurement are finite.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)"A tensor is a mathematical object that transforms like a tensor." (Insert some ugly math here...) You can construct all kinds of pseudo-tensors that look like a tensor when you write them down, but if they don't behave like a tensor then they aren't a tensor.
For example, the Levi-civita-symbol. You can use it in multiplications just like a real tensor, but if you transform it to a new base, then it no longer works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi-Civita_symbol
Behaviour during transformation is a property.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)As stated in post #188, Godel has said that the positive properties were moral aesthetic properties. Inherent behavior is not in their purview. Also, positive properties are independent of the accidental structure of the world. Inherent behavior is not independent of the accidental structure of the world.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Property is property. If your proof only uses a subset of properties, not all of them, then your proof isn't valid in general.
Now, Gödel's proof just means that in a universe with absolute morals, there is at least one(!) being that happens to contain good morals only.
(The upside-down "E" in the last line of the proof means "there exists at least one".)
Jim__
(14,075 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 24, 2015, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)
Given that the proof puts some constraints on the property set, but doesn't specifically define it, and that Gödel has verbally qualified what he meant, there is little point in ignoring what he said. The proof can easily be modified by formally adding to the set definition the restrictions Gödel put there verbally. Denying Gödel's stated intent, does not accomplish anything. Also, if we accept that the set include anything that can be labelled a property, there are obvious errors. Gödel was trying come up with an ontological proof for the existence of a god-like entity, a revision of Anselm's proof. A god-like entity doesn't need to have any accidental properties of the world. We can imagine lots of sets of properties where the constraints don't hold. Defining a set where the constraints don't hold is a strong indication that such a set is not what Gödel intended.
If you want to argue against his proof, you need to argue against the strongest version of the proof. To try to water it down, to ignore restrictionss that he verbally put on his set so that you can then attack the set as not instantiable in this world, is to concede the game. Arguments against weaker versions of the proof are an admission of lack of argument against the strong version of the proof, the version supported by Gödel's verbal statements.
Edited to remove the argument about color as that adds nothing to the over-all point.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The proof as it is written makes no constraints on what kinds of properties are meant.
If you assume the proof to operate with the full set of properties reality offers, then the proof is incorrect, because the axioms are faulty. (As I laid out above.)
If you consider the proof plus the annotation that out of all properties reality offers only the subset of moral properties is considered as properties, then the proof is no longer general, because reality contains more properties than just the moral ones. The proof works within the fictional universe Gödel has defined, but not within our reality.
The proof is nice and all, but I see no way how it could possibly be translated from the abstract to the instance that is our reality.
Plus, including the annotation, the proof only proves the existence of a morally supreme entity and it is debatable whether this can count as "God". The "God" of this proof contains no superior knowledge or superior abilities or superior past deeds, as those aren't moral properties.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)If you assume the proof to operate with the full set of properties reality offers, then the proof is incorrect, because the axioms are faulty.
(As I laid out above.)
From post #203:
[hr]
Again, from post #203:
[hr]
From post #175:
[hr]
From post #188
So, the god-like entity has moral aesthetic properties, although not any that are accidents of the world.
From post #203:
The constraints on Gödel's god are the same as the constraint's on the god Anselm described.
Light: is it a particle or a wave?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)My understanding of Kant would push me to mention that it might be true that the structure of our cognition frames these problems in a way that does not allow us the proper incite to explore.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The old theologians and prophets testify that the soul has been yoked to the body as a punishment and that it is imprisoned in it as though in a tomb. When the danger is so great that death has become the hope, then despair is the hopelessness of not being able to die.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)An omnipotent being can hardly be omnipotent if it can't make itself known to us in a verifiable fashion, if it wanted to.
It's only impossible if it exists, it is actually omnipotent, and it does not wish to be perceived.
demwing
(16,916 posts)keeps the common rabble from perceiving.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)fight on crusader
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I have other reasons for disliking the biblical character of the abrahamic God, but I think yours is actually MORE uncharitable.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)shows that you are a bit zealous
and wrong about the proof
Holy Logic: Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/computer-scientists-prove-god-exists/story?id=20678984
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Next time put the link in your op.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)funny boy
how does it feel to live in a simple universe?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Please tell me three profound thoughts.
If you can...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Time is absolute and relative and never universal.
At the right time of year, at the right time of day, on certain parts of the planet, you can see the plane of our solar system and you're more likely to see it if you're a fisherman.
Database indexes become just another copy of the database if you include too many data elements. In this manner, the universe is indeterminate, short of making a completely perfect duplicate, down to the last atom. If you could perfectly duplicate all material, energy, every force and every factor, then the universe could be determinate. So the answer to whether the universe is determinate or indeterminate, is limited only by our ability to perfectly model it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Notice the lack of response. You scared them off.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)and am not satisfied - just still looking at what the poster feels is "profound"
Did you find the posters thought "profound"?
Put up or ....
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)profound to me, may be meaningless or uninteresting to you.
I don't expect any particular interesting thought or question to be universally appealing.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)do you just want to wrestle with the bible?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)do you feel that the Russel paradox is useful?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Either we can prove the paradox does not exist, or if the paradox exists, it cannot be proven.
It does speak to whether the universe can actually be deterministically modeled (Signs point to 'no').
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)do you know even know what the Russel paradox is?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)In testing whether the universe is deterministic or indeterminate one would have to create a duplicate universe. But to do that you'd have to be outside the universe, otherwise your duplicate SET of the universe would exist within the universe and would have to be duplicated again as a content of the set and again and again and again and it's turtles all the way down.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)some say no
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)and it must be you - endless
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Amuse yourself on someone else's time.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)just one more thing
fight on crusader
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I want to share with you a few of the tentative conclusions I've reached regarding SoLeft IAmRight 's stratagems. And I stress the word “tentative,” because the subject of what motivates SoLeft is tricky and complex. Let's get down to business: It remains to be seen whether SoLeft's guild is capable of self-critique. Will its members acknowledge their own insularity and excesses, or will they continue down the path of smug self-congratulation and vanity, never passing up an opportunity to hammer away at the characters of all those who will not help SoLeft promote intolerance and paranoia? In either case, SoLeft uses the word “hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian” to justify encumbering the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bringing religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science. In doing so, he is reversing the meaning of that word as a means of disguising the fact that he insisted he'd never let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of querimonious talebearers. Unfortunately, it wasn't long before he did exactly that. He promised he'd never force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior, but then he did just that—and worse. At least SoLeft is consistent, but if he wants to convince others that mexhupalngewkes are the “chosen people” of scriptural prophecy, let him wear the opprobrium of that decision.
True to form, he ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that I don't just want to make a point. I don't just want to fight on the battleground of ideas for our inalienable individual rights. I'm here to give an alternate solution, a better one. I don't just ask rhetorical questions; I have answers. That's why I'm telling you that SoLeft's legatees seem to be caught up in their need for enemies. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. It's best to ignore most of the quotes that SoLeft so frequently cites. He takes quotes out of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, I want to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Is SoLeft's incessant burbling about the wonders of recidivism supposed to convince us that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history but to all human culture.
Is anyone else out there as struck as I am by SoLeft's utter disregard for morality and humanity? The reason I ask is that SoLeft presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. He is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors disrespectful propagandists. And here we have the ultimate irony because with him so forcefully suppressing those who would seek to learn the truth about his slaphappy campaigns of terror, things are starting to come to a head. This is completely indicative of the unprofessional, ungracious, and unacceptable behavior that is so endemic to SoLeft's club. The point is that most people aren't willing to swallow what SoLeft is serving up: a triple scoop of unrealistic sprinkled with unrealistic and topped off with warm unrealistic sauce. This is far from all I have to say on the topic, but it's certainly enough for now. Just remember one thing:
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)No - the answer is not so silly
So left is just someone who wanders and wonders - most often with a strong feeling that he (and we) are living in a mystery - a mystery that deepens faster as we find answers.
Often, So left is greatly disturbed by questions that are explored and more disturbed by the questions that are not explored.
So Left is afraid. He sees that beautiful people have presented solutions to many problems and that the inertia of the systems of influence hinder the expansion of viable alternative ways of being.
So Left loves science and thinks that science has brought forth the power to destroy us - Another one of those many situations that need attention.
So Left is religious. His religion is Utopian and therefor by definition out of reach.
So Left is simple - Can't we all just get along...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)lighten up
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)a big question.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You are clearly so far beyond the rest of us schlubs.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I find many great thoughts are expressed here and love to see the thoughtful post.
in this case yours was not
I would be interested in knowing what motivated you to engage - want to talk?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Just let me know when you will be accepting your prize, so I can watch with admiration.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)His axioms and definitions for "God" are also arbitrary.
A1: Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both.
Gödel claims there is no morally grey zone. Instead everything is supposed to be black and white.
A2: A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive.
Counter-point: The dose makes the poison.
D1: A God-like being possesses all positive properties.
Counter-point: Why shouldn't God be able to be evil if he desires so?
A5: Necessary existence is a positive property.
Meh, I think it's better for some things to not exist. (Like friggin' sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads.)
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)just saying
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Please have a look at the original paper in my link above.
A1: Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both.
That means, in the universe where this proof is true, a thing is either good or evil, but it cannot be both. But our universe has examples where a thing can be good and evil at the same time.
=> Gödel's proof cannot be applied to our reality/universe.
A2: A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive.
That means, in the universe where this proof is true, a good thing only has good outcomes. But our universe has examples where good things also lead to bad outcomes.
=> Gödel's proof cannot be applied to our reality/universe.
D1: A God-like being possesses all positive properties.
Here Gödel invents some entity, postulates that it is purely good and then he slaps the label "God" on it for good measure. There is nothing in reality that forces him to do so. There is no reason why Gödel should pick exactly that definition. Gödel invents an entity that makes his proof work and calls it "God".
A3: The property of being God-like is positive.
Well, based on D1 that's true.
C: Possibly, God exists.
A4: Positive properties are necessarily positive.
D2: An essence of an individual is a property possessed by it and necessarily implying any of its properties.
Translation: It is what it is.
T2: Being God-like is an essence of any God-like being.
D3: Necessary existence of an individual is the necessary exemplification of all its essences.
A5: Necessary existence is a positive property.
T3: Necessarily, God exists.
That's 2 axioms that are false in our reality and 1 convenient definition that is unconnected to our reality.
AND NOW, please explain to me how this proof has relevance to our reality.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)i am very sorry that it is lost on you - maybe you should move on
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)This proof is important because it shows that logic-problems can be solved by computational means by designing an appropriate algebra.
This proof means that Gödel's version of God exists in Gödel's version of a universe. You cannot make the same proof within our universe, because it would take a totally different direction. And that means, this proof has no cosmological or religious implications for our universe.
To come back to my question: Please explain to me how this proof has implications for reality when it starts out on unrealistic premises.
Maybe you should move on, like the people who moved on when they found out that the existence of the "God-particle" has nothing to do with God.
edhopper
(33,570 posts)It seems to me the whole thing presupposes a God or God-like being fits into the Universe we have.
A supposition without evidence.
The rest is mathematical wanking.
Axioms without foundation.
This has nothing to do with science.
This math is woo.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Do you explore the limits of what ours minds can do?
There are many smart people that explore this topic - are you one?
Iggo
(47,549 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Godel's work has much to do with the idea of proof.
That is the point.
He explored the problems of the foundations of mathematics. Take a look!
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)It would seem so.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)The self assured responses I see here seem smug to me.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)The headline should read, "Science Proves Dog Exists!"
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...down the street. And it is Good...very Good.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)do you have anything real to share with me?
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...the variables were my own lack of understanding. I admit I let my atheist-side trying to guide me to nowhere...which is crawling through reality.
...Or it might be that I'm-just-not-that-smart.
I have enjoyed your posts on the subject so far though.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)seems that you are even more harsh on your struggles than am I
fun looking for new stuff - right?
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)..or whatever. Geez...I don't know, maybe it's just fun trying. I've turned more of my science skills to astronomy and building an observatory. At least that way I really can say "Oh Look, Something shiny!" 
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)thanks for a smile
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)perfect than one that was, therefore consider it proven.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)smile
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)yes.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)dog with bone
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)That's exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)so very sad
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And those 8 words are including the title... and are deliberately lacking in all supporting content for the vague and silly claim they're making....
I'd say any reply was an adequate reply.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)seems to much more than you care to explore
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...where you keep feeling compelled to tell people your vague content-less 8 words "went over their head" whenever they call you on your silliness?
Yeaaaaah... read it.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Answering gibberish with gibberish seemed appropriate to me.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)you miss much i can see
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)please tell me more of your understand of the works of the great mathematician Godel
I shiver with anticipation
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)It starts with ... Oh, wait. There's someone at the door. I'll get back to you on that.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)send it to the american mathematical society
i am sure that they will see your wisdom
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)I'm a retired engineer with a BS in math and a masters in computer science and I taught freshmen logic at a college for a few semesters.
That said, Gödel's Ontological Proof gives as strong an argument for the existence of Ganesh, the Hindu elephant god as it does for The Flying Spaghetti Monster (my favorite choice of deity).
Second, just repeating something you found somewhere does not make you an expert on what you are repeating. If you wish to actually discuss the merits of this proof", then may I suggest you familiarize yourself with modal logic. You might start with Zalta's paper. or if you're more ambitious, Modal Logic (Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science) at Amazon.com. If you want a short intro, search "modal logic" on Youtube for an intro video by you-tuber Carneades.org.
Third, Kant showed that the ontological argument allows us to prove that anything at all exists, which makes it a pretty weak form of argument:
many people consider it to have effectively demolished Anselm’s argument. However, it
must be said that Kant’s criticism is more appropriate for Descartes’ version of the
ontological argument than Hartshorne’s version. Kant’s argument was that
existence is not a predicate. That is, existence is not an attribute of individuals in the same way that
being short or red is. It is certainly true that we have to be careful here. If we can
arbitrarily add existence as a defining attribute for an individual, there seems to be no limit
to what we can prove to exist. Suppose we allow existence to be one of the defining
attributes of some being, such as a unicorn, for example. So a unicorn, by definition, is a
beast resembling a horse, with a horn on its head, which exists. While many of us will not
mind defining a unicorn as a horse-like animal with a horn on its head, we will hesitate to
allow existence to be a defining attribute in the same sense. It would seem that allowing
existence to be a predicate ensures that unicorns exist. Kant proposed that the ontological
argument slips existence in the back door, so to speak, by ensuring that it is a consequence
of the perfection of God.
quoted from:
Reflections on Gödel’s Ontological Argument by Christopher G. Small; University of Waterloo
Unless you really understand the material covered in that video (at least) then there is no point in my arguing the case with you, because you won't be able to follow what I'm talking about. And that is why I answered with a nonsensical non-sequitur non-answer. Because as far as I'm concerned the matter is as settled now as it was in the 1970s when I first studied it.
Therefore, 14 is exactly the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, and I can use Gödel's own Ontological Proof to prove that that is true.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)why fling shit when you do not know what is going on???
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)But I gotta admit it is somewhat curious that you had no issue addressing all of the "small responces" to your very "importand" question, only to scurry off to the æther of private conversation the very moment someone patient enough to take your bait posted a comprehensive rebuttal.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I assumed he knew what it is when he posted about it, and then assumed he was either misinterpreting the response, or deliberately misinterpreting the response.
Now, I understand; the problem is he doesn't.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)"I hadn't thought of that." said God and vanished in a puff of Logic.
With that I cease my involvement in the train-wreck of soleft's mind
edhopper
(33,570 posts)by science is woo?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)did not work
edhopper
(33,570 posts)thanx
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)the "Theory of Everything" too.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)might catch it on the tv at bed time someday
Turbineguy
(37,319 posts)Pat Robertson being struck by lightning and turned into a smoking piece of pork rind as proof. But then again, my threshold may be lower.
edhopper
(33,570 posts)This is the Seinfeld of threads.
It's a thread about nothing.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)you call it nothing that wild eyed atheist scramble to show their tilted judgement when the word god is used
It makes an igtheist laugh and cry
they do more damage than good when show a lack of reason
do not think they will learn - so sad
nothing you say - I say you are wrong --
religion is too important to leave it to the religious - must be fought without wild un-reasoned reactionary garbage -
want to add more to the pile
bvf
(6,604 posts)edhopper
(33,570 posts)gave me my morning laugh. 
[img]
[/img]
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Odd. You were able to produce them upthread.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Are the ones that have accurately called you out.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)call me out - wtf
only stupid people call out a post about mathematics
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)that believe in God because they believe God has been proven, not by the scientific method, but by math or philosophy.
Which really makes me wonder, if God has been proven, you'd think it would be big news. Maybe the philosophy or the math aren't convincing? Or maybe most people are too stupid to understand the math and philosophy required? Or if they just took some advanced math and philosophy courses it would click? Which makes me wonder why God would make it so that some people could be smart enough to have proof of his existence but then make it so the vast majority rely on faith. And of course, those smart enough to "get" the philosophy that proves God can't seem to settle on one "proof".
Strange indeed.
libodem
(19,288 posts)That Google is God. You can probably Google it. 
