seebs

No, and in fact, it's been proven for some time that there are statements whose truth or falsehood cannot be determined from the axioms - and we know that some of them are necessarily true, or necessarily false, but they still can't be shown from the axioms.

Indeed.

I didn't mean to imply that you were, just to observe that, at some point, it's often more useful to have a provisional answer than to wait for a proof to come along which meets a standard which turns out to be too high.

This argument seems to be about on a par with most arguments for and against the existence of God; it has no logical force, but it's convincing to at least some people.

wdog

it's been a while since I have seen any math, but might not those be ill posed statements then? i am aware of Godel, is this an outcome of that?


well I know I gave my position rather flippantly, but I just wasn't interested in a long discussion. I have good reasons for that sort of attitude, it holds logical force for me for the following reason. It is consistent with everything else I know about the universe. You were having a discussion with someone else and said that you cannot determine rationality except with DSM IV (delusional and hallucinagenic?), well I don't agree exactly, which may just be my own pattern here. You see i would add my own little corralary above.

for example, i may not be mentally ill but then I could posit gravitons exist and that all gravitons are really tiny living bugs. you would say that is not a proveable irrational belief since I am not ill. My claim is that it is irrational since it is not consistent with what I know about the rest of the world.

in the same vein to posit the existence of an all loving personal god who never makes his existence known to us is irrational, it is not consistent with what we know about how personal loving relationships work. the closest human realationship of that type would be parent-child, but a typical parent displays far more love for the child than god does. humans are social creatures, we need contact, not a book. what would your child have to do for you to send them to hell? If you simply left them a book about yourself and told them to pray to you, then they found that illogical and denied you for 80 years, what would you do? send them to hell? I would not. This xtain god is not consistent with my understanding of love and the fact that he requires worship and prayer as a form of contact is a damned strange way to conduct a relationship. respect is earned, even by parents who must earn it by first of all being there.


as another real life example, when I was a christian we would all pray for someone who was dying with some illness. Now since god is omnipotent, he either caused the illness or let it happen (or allowed satan to do it). either way he is responsible as he must be responsible for ultimately all that happens in his universe. that is just christian doctrine, god is the end all and be all. also then he could presumably cure the disease so hence the prayer. But this prayer is illogical since by praying for the cure, you are questioning god's wisdom in letting it happen in the first place, people should be THANKING god for applying his infinite wisdom and mercy. secondly the idea that mere mortals could change the mind of an almighty is strange, he would already know whether or not he wanted the person cured as his wisdom is infinite. the whole ritual is illogical and inconsistent with how logic itself works, therefore I think it is irrational.

Amlodhi

Hello seebs & Eric H.

I think that this working definition of terms does an adequate job of clarifying the point of my examples.

Abraham, etal, (to whom God spoke directly) "trusted" God, but even then that trust was not necessarily always 100%.

Those who claim that they have "experienced" God, or that God has "spoken" to them in some way (and that they "believed" his words) are then, by definition, simply expressing the above concept that they "trust" God. This same concept applies to Paul and the gospel authors.

Thus, when I am told that I should have "faith", I am really being asked to "trust" the people who are making the above claims. If then, even the trust of those to whom God spoke directly was not 100%, to what extent should I be expected to trust those whose credibility has been shown to be questionable?

So the reality of the situation is, while I would certainly give extraordinary consideration to anything God might have to say to me, so far I have had only to consider the words of men.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Soul Invictus

What kind of faith was being exhibited? That God would test man to either obey Him or sin?

wade-w

The first part of seebs' statement is a summary of Godel's first Incompleteness Theorem, and the second part is well known. So yes, this is an outcome of Godel's work. The statements seebs refers to are not ill formed statements.

Two examples of well posed statements whose truth value seem obvious but are unprovable in the ZF axioms of set theory are the Axiom of Choice and the Well Ordering Principle. The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, and has been proven to be independent of the ZF axioms. The Well Ordering Principle is obviously false. However, it also turns out that the Axiom of Choice and the Well Ordering Principle are logically equivalent, i.e. The Axiom of Choice is true if and only if the Well Ordering Principle is true.

Note: There are two distinct propositions that are called "The Well Ordering Principle". Here, I am refering to the one that states: "Every set can be well ordered".

seebs

Pretty much. It's not ill-posed statements, it's perfectly reasonable ones which just happen to be undecidable.


In what way is it inconsistent?

Seriously, I think you're mostly arguing for Ockham's Razor here.

But to argue one who makes His existance known only in ways that are not subject to empirical testing is a little different, especially if possible explanations for why this would be desirable exist.

That said, I do tend to agree with your dismissal of the naive "hold these words to be literal truth or be punished eternally" model. I don't think it fits at all.

This is an interesting sideline which I've toyed with occasionally. I have found that many religious people have never really considered the implications of prayer. However, many *have*, and there are a number of reasonably consistent interpretations of it.

Starboy

That's an easy one. Just remember Christianity is the ethos of a slave society. If massa showed any kindness it was a good massa.

Starboy