Wait - nevermind! Somebody mentioned BEER!!! 
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Why would a creator of the physical universe be subject to the methods that can only work within the universe?
Makes no sense really.
However, the atheists define God as necessarily being capable of being measured by limited instrumentation within the universe in order to produce a proof that would satisfy them.
The proof they seek is a posterior and based on empiricism, which of course rests on the instrumentation of the human mind, the human senses, and every thing else physical...as we know physical.
That's fine for them to seek that, and it is fine for them to think that science would or could or should be capable of rendering some test, some criteria upon which to determine a creator...but science lacks a check on itself. It has no way to calibrate the human mind against a standard that is not a product of the human mind. So the argument of those who say God does not exist, is fundamentally a circular argument, as they make up the definitions without evidence of God for what would, should, and could be a proof of God.
That's why ontology is a much better approach to these questions, as it seeks to find criteria for proof that does not depend, nor is it a logical requirement for, finding truth.
Some interesting, and unanswered by science questions exist.
Most people know that our use of math fits the known universe quite nicely.
Did math come first before the universe? The the creation of the universe from nothing produce the universe? Is math just an illusion that works on the illusory and transitory nature of our physical world?
Ontological thinking goes to what must exist logically before the creation of the universe, before perception of the physical universe, something that could precede a physical universe.
Classical thinking of Newton works at its level.
It does not work at the quantum level.
So what does that mean?
That classical thinking of Newton is true at its level, but not true at another level, i.e. the quantum mechanical level.
Truth with a capitol T, according to the ontology based thinkers must necessarily be true at all times, and all places, and before time and before places.
That type of inquiry appeals to some, as it is abstract and probing on a different level than empiricism and basic epistemology/empiricism as a means of gaining knowledge.
Makes no sense really.
However, the atheists define God as necessarily being capable of being measured by limited instrumentation within the universe in order to produce a proof that would satisfy them.
The proof they seek is a posterior and based on empiricism, which of course rests on the instrumentation of the human mind, the human senses, and every thing else physical...as we know physical.
That's fine for them to seek that, and it is fine for them to think that science would or could or should be capable of rendering some test, some criteria upon which to determine a creator...but science lacks a check on itself. It has no way to calibrate the human mind against a standard that is not a product of the human mind. So the argument of those who say God does not exist, is fundamentally a circular argument, as they make up the definitions without evidence of God for what would, should, and could be a proof of God.
That's why ontology is a much better approach to these questions, as it seeks to find criteria for proof that does not depend, nor is it a logical requirement for, finding truth.
Some interesting, and unanswered by science questions exist.
Most people know that our use of math fits the known universe quite nicely.
Did math come first before the universe? The the creation of the universe from nothing produce the universe? Is math just an illusion that works on the illusory and transitory nature of our physical world?
Ontological thinking goes to what must exist logically before the creation of the universe, before perception of the physical universe, something that could precede a physical universe.
Classical thinking of Newton works at its level.
It does not work at the quantum level.
So what does that mean?
That classical thinking of Newton is true at its level, but not true at another level, i.e. the quantum mechanical level.
Truth with a capitol T, according to the ontology based thinkers must necessarily be true at all times, and all places, and before time and before places.
That type of inquiry appeals to some, as it is abstract and probing on a different level than empiricism and basic epistemology/empiricism as a means of gaining knowledge.
Quote from MarketMasher:
I think this is a good overview (and makes my earlier point about requiring the equivalent of omniscience to state as "fact" the existence/non of God) - up until the point of "rationality".
Because, as we know, rationality can be subjective since it is bound within
1) Time
2) Perception through our senses (mechanically enhanced or natural)
At one point in Time, it was irrational to think man could walk on the moon (unless you are like some who believe we never did...)
At one point in Time, it was irrational to think solid objects were mostly empty space and made of unseen things called "atoms", and then "quarks", (super-strings?)...
The belief in a "Higher Being/God/Whatever" is ancient - more ancient than the scientific method. But is that belief to be trivialized BECAUSE of the scientific method? Much of science and art was inspired by such beliefs before such a method existed.
Perhaps the view of a belief in "God" is denigrated because the underlying (often unspoken) belief is that is it founded in fear. But what if it is not? (a scientific query...) What if its origin is inspired by something else?
Einstein believed in God, he just believed in an "impersonal God". Epicuris (in his "Is God unable to stop evil") was referring to a "personal God".
In the scientific method, you cannot prove a theory. There is always a possibility of being proven wrong - unless you stop looking. Which is fine when you reach that "omniscient" point and can hail The Death Of Science.
There is not a single shred of actual evidence that at any time evolution was random and without planning and causation.
Random is like darkness. Darkness does not exist as a power. There are no "dark flashlights" which send out a light absorbing beam.
Random is a measurement of ignorance of design.
Is design more likely than random?
Yes, of course...but the fallback of the atheists is "we don't find a source or see the plans of so and so...so it must be by some non designed happenings. The power of some random force...
Ridiculous. A force of randomness? No such thing. No proof of such thing. No model of such a force that wasn't programmed to begin with.
That's why so many scientists have to admit things look designed. They do. Everyone knows this, and it takes a lot of work and deny it.
That's why the atheists go to such absurd lengths to deny their own belief systems.
Is there proof of randomness? Nope, not a shred of it.
Has science show the ability to predict random events? Nope.
So they are in the darkness about what really happens, but when you are in the dark, you talk about how dark it is...and never think to just turn on the lights...
Random is like darkness. Darkness does not exist as a power. There are no "dark flashlights" which send out a light absorbing beam.
Random is a measurement of ignorance of design.
Is design more likely than random?
Yes, of course...but the fallback of the atheists is "we don't find a source or see the plans of so and so...so it must be by some non designed happenings. The power of some random force...
Ridiculous. A force of randomness? No such thing. No proof of such thing. No model of such a force that wasn't programmed to begin with.
That's why so many scientists have to admit things look designed. They do. Everyone knows this, and it takes a lot of work and deny it.
That's why the atheists go to such absurd lengths to deny their own belief systems.
Is there proof of randomness? Nope, not a shred of it.
Has science show the ability to predict random events? Nope.
So they are in the darkness about what really happens, but when you are in the dark, you talk about how dark it is...and never think to just turn on the lights...
Quote from jem:
I do not understand.
If given the state of our science, you have scientists stating.... the unverse looks designed.
and I have just given you quotes from some top scientists talking about how incredible the tuning is...
how is that not some evidence for a Creation... as opposed to random formation?
"The question then, given our limited knowledge, is what it is rational to believe."
Starting out with a full admission of our limited knowledge, there would be no rational path but to seek out full knowledge before believing as absolutely true on a purely rational level. A true rationalist would know that there is something missing from the equation, and they would seek out something different to find a lasting and non changing source of information that would reveal non changing Truth. A true rationalist could not say "God exists" or "God does not exist" but would admit that the concept of God exceeds his reach to verify as true or false.
Does this mean one should not seek to answer the question of God's existence?
A true rationalist would know this, and would gravitate away from pragmatic epistemology in their personal philosophy...knowing their limited knowledge produces a limited and relative truth, and they would move towards ontological a prior reasoning to find a transcendental truth that would not change every single time our limited knowledge becomes a little less limited.
An absolute truth would not change the moment some new scientific comes along...which is the history of science. One "Eureka" followed by the next, and then the next, an the next ad infinitum...
Starting out with a full admission of our limited knowledge, there would be no rational path but to seek out full knowledge before believing as absolutely true on a purely rational level. A true rationalist would know that there is something missing from the equation, and they would seek out something different to find a lasting and non changing source of information that would reveal non changing Truth. A true rationalist could not say "God exists" or "God does not exist" but would admit that the concept of God exceeds his reach to verify as true or false.
Does this mean one should not seek to answer the question of God's existence?
A true rationalist would know this, and would gravitate away from pragmatic epistemology in their personal philosophy...knowing their limited knowledge produces a limited and relative truth, and they would move towards ontological a prior reasoning to find a transcendental truth that would not change every single time our limited knowledge becomes a little less limited.
An absolute truth would not change the moment some new scientific comes along...which is the history of science. One "Eureka" followed by the next, and then the next, an the next ad infinitum...
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
It's pretty basic scientific method. Pragmatic epistemology that is logically consistent, rests on reasonable axioms, and has a proven track record of results. Surely in 2011, centuries after the Enlightenment, this doesn't need explaining.
What's your proposed alternative method for belief-formation? If you have a superior epistemology, the whole world is waiting to hear it, and you'll get various accolades and be judged one of history's most innovative thinkers.
Any epistemology can be entirely false - that is just as true for assuming that, jelly beans or the Yeti have to conform to your epistemology, as assuming that a concept of god does. So that argument applies equally to all attempts at belief formation - it's a limitation of all knowledge-seeking, and applies to the entire universe, not just god.
The concept of god can be whatever the believer in question is proposing. Whatever conception someone puts forward, we can apply the same tests for reasonability of belief in its existence.
I never said god requires any criteria of evidence to exist, that would be silly. A being either exists or it doesn't, regardless of our beliefs about him/her/it. It is quite possible for there to be no evidence at all that god exists, and yet for him - or indeed for thousands of gods - to exist.
That is not the question at hand, because we are not omniscient, we don't have all the evidence - and in the absence of omniscience, it is difficult or impossible to prove that a being does not exist. The question then, given our limited knowledge, is what it is rational to believe. A cursory survey of various ludicrous beliefs throughout history, resting on lack of any supporting evidence, should be enough to show that it is irrational, and very unreliable, to believe in the existence of things, when there is no supporting evidence that they in fact exist.
That is all that matters. "Is there a god" is a silly question, because in the absence of evidence, we have no way of knowing. A better question is "Is it rational to believe in god, when there is no evidence that he exists". The track record of beliefs, and different approaches to epistemology, show that believing in something when there is no evidence, is pretty darn irrational and unreliable. Therefore, it makes little if any sense to believe in god if there is no credible evidence to show he exists.
If you want to overturn several millenia of proven results from the epistemology of sceptical empiricism (which developed into the scientific method), then you need to provide some pretty compelling reasons to abandon it in favour of your proposed alternative. Let's hear those reasons, and the alleged superior method you are proposing!
You mentioned Newton, which reminded me...
1) At one point in Time, transmutation (Alchemy in old-world terms) was a perfectly rational belief (Newton tried it in his lifetime).
2) Then, of course, we became enlightened and realized it was irrational....
3) And then we became more enlightened and bombarded nuclei to change their atomic structure and then transmutation was rational again...
Of course, we coulda just stopped at 2 and called it a day...
1) At one point in Time, transmutation (Alchemy in old-world terms) was a perfectly rational belief (Newton tried it in his lifetime).
2) Then, of course, we became enlightened and realized it was irrational....
3) And then we became more enlightened and bombarded nuclei to change their atomic structure and then transmutation was rational again...
Of course, we coulda just stopped at 2 and called it a day...
"There are many directions form which people have tried to prove the existence of God. There have been arguments based on design: a complex universe must have a designer. There have been attempts to show that the existence of an ethical sense implies the existence of God. There have been arguments based on causality: trace chain of effect and cause backward and one must reach a fist cause.
Ontological arguments seek to establish the existence of God based on pure logic: the principles of reasoning require that God be part of ones ontology." (p. 133)
Melvin Fitting - Types, tableaus and Gödel's God - Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2002.
Ontological arguments seek to establish the existence of God based on pure logic: the principles of reasoning require that God be part of ones ontology." (p. 133)
Melvin Fitting - Types, tableaus and Gödel's God - Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2002.
Immediate Implications
What do Godel's theorems mean for those who believe there is a God? First, Godel shattered naive expectations that human thinking could be reduced to algorithms. An algorithm is a step-by-step mathematical procedure for solving a problem. Usually it is repetitive. Computers use algorithms. What it means is that our thought cannot be a strictly mechanical process. Roger Penrose makes much of this, arguing in Shadows of the Mind that computers will never be able to emulate the full depth of human thought. But whereas Penrose seeks solutions in quantum theory, Christians see man as a spiritual being with understanding that springs not just from the physical organ of the mind but also from soul and spirit.
Second, had Godel been able to affirm that a complex system is able to prove itself self-consistent, then we could argue that the universe is self-sufficient. His proof points us toward a different understanding, one in which we must either declare the universe to be infinite--as some do(5)--or else look for infinity outside the universe as theists do.
The first possibility, that the universe is infinite, is most unlikely. Everything that we have learned about the universe tells us that it is finite. Astronomers have found details that set absolute limits to its age and dimensions. Physicists have estimated the number of protons in all of creation. And even if there were an infinite amount of natural matter, each particle would still suffer the limitations of matter, for no particle is infinite in itself. The Christian therefore is reasonable when he points to a spiritual creator outside the physical universe as an explanation for what goes on within it. Godel recognized these implications and struggled to produce an ontological proof for the existence of God (a proof based on the definition of "God"). Godel was wasting his time in trying to establish this proof. His own theorems strongly suggest that while the finite can infer something bigger than itself, it cannot prove the infinite. As in this article, reason can only show that it is reasonable to believe in a spiritual God who transcends the limits of the universe.
Godel's theorem means that the universe cannot be a vast self-contained computer. One modern scientist, Fredekin, suggests that it is.(6) The fundamental particles of nature (in his view) are information bits in that huge machine. Were he right that the universe is effectively a computer, then Godel's theorems would require that nature, as a whole be understood only outside nature because no finite system is sufficient for itself. This conclusion flows by analogy from what Godel proved. "...if arithmetic is consistent, its consistency cannot be established by any meta-mathematical reasoning that can be represented within the formalism of arithmetic."(7)
As a third implication of Godel's theorem , faith is shown to be (ultimately) the only possible response to reality. Michael Guillen has spelled out this implication: "the only possible way of avowing an unprovable truth, mathematical or otherwise, is to accept it as an article of faith."(8) In other words, scientists are as subject to belief as non-scientists. And scientific faith can let a man down as hard as any other. Guillen writes: "In 1959 a disillusioned Russell lamented: ÃI wanted certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious faith. I thought that certainty is more likely to be found in mathematics than anywhere...But after some twenty years of arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing more that I could do in the way of making mathematical knowledge indubitable.'"(9)
A or Non-A?
Godel showed that "it is impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems--elementary arithmetic, for example--unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the sytems themselves."(10) In short, we can have no certitude that our most cherished systems of math are free from internal contradiction.
Take note! He did not prove a contradictory statement, that A = non-A, (the kind of thinking that occurs in many Eastern religions). Instead, he showed that no system can decide between a certain A and non-A, even where A is known to be true. Any finite system with sufficient power to support a full number theory cannot be self-contained.
Judeo-Christianity has long held that truth is above mere reason. Spiritual truth, we are taught, can be apprehended only by the spirit. This, too, is as it should be. The Godelian picture fits what Christians believe about the universe. Had he been able to show that self-proof was possible, we would be in deep trouble. As noted above, the universe could then be self-explanatory.
As it stands, the very real infinities and paradoxes of nature demand something higher, different in kind, more powerful, to explain them just as every logic set needs a higher logic set to prove and explain elements within it.
This lesson from Godel's proof is one reason I believe that no finite system, even one as vast as the universe, can ultimately satisfy the questions it raises.
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/GODEL.html
What do Godel's theorems mean for those who believe there is a God? First, Godel shattered naive expectations that human thinking could be reduced to algorithms. An algorithm is a step-by-step mathematical procedure for solving a problem. Usually it is repetitive. Computers use algorithms. What it means is that our thought cannot be a strictly mechanical process. Roger Penrose makes much of this, arguing in Shadows of the Mind that computers will never be able to emulate the full depth of human thought. But whereas Penrose seeks solutions in quantum theory, Christians see man as a spiritual being with understanding that springs not just from the physical organ of the mind but also from soul and spirit.
Second, had Godel been able to affirm that a complex system is able to prove itself self-consistent, then we could argue that the universe is self-sufficient. His proof points us toward a different understanding, one in which we must either declare the universe to be infinite--as some do(5)--or else look for infinity outside the universe as theists do.
The first possibility, that the universe is infinite, is most unlikely. Everything that we have learned about the universe tells us that it is finite. Astronomers have found details that set absolute limits to its age and dimensions. Physicists have estimated the number of protons in all of creation. And even if there were an infinite amount of natural matter, each particle would still suffer the limitations of matter, for no particle is infinite in itself. The Christian therefore is reasonable when he points to a spiritual creator outside the physical universe as an explanation for what goes on within it. Godel recognized these implications and struggled to produce an ontological proof for the existence of God (a proof based on the definition of "God"). Godel was wasting his time in trying to establish this proof. His own theorems strongly suggest that while the finite can infer something bigger than itself, it cannot prove the infinite. As in this article, reason can only show that it is reasonable to believe in a spiritual God who transcends the limits of the universe.
Godel's theorem means that the universe cannot be a vast self-contained computer. One modern scientist, Fredekin, suggests that it is.(6) The fundamental particles of nature (in his view) are information bits in that huge machine. Were he right that the universe is effectively a computer, then Godel's theorems would require that nature, as a whole be understood only outside nature because no finite system is sufficient for itself. This conclusion flows by analogy from what Godel proved. "...if arithmetic is consistent, its consistency cannot be established by any meta-mathematical reasoning that can be represented within the formalism of arithmetic."(7)
As a third implication of Godel's theorem , faith is shown to be (ultimately) the only possible response to reality. Michael Guillen has spelled out this implication: "the only possible way of avowing an unprovable truth, mathematical or otherwise, is to accept it as an article of faith."(8) In other words, scientists are as subject to belief as non-scientists. And scientific faith can let a man down as hard as any other. Guillen writes: "In 1959 a disillusioned Russell lamented: ÃI wanted certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious faith. I thought that certainty is more likely to be found in mathematics than anywhere...But after some twenty years of arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing more that I could do in the way of making mathematical knowledge indubitable.'"(9)
A or Non-A?
Godel showed that "it is impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems--elementary arithmetic, for example--unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the sytems themselves."(10) In short, we can have no certitude that our most cherished systems of math are free from internal contradiction.
Take note! He did not prove a contradictory statement, that A = non-A, (the kind of thinking that occurs in many Eastern religions). Instead, he showed that no system can decide between a certain A and non-A, even where A is known to be true. Any finite system with sufficient power to support a full number theory cannot be self-contained.
Judeo-Christianity has long held that truth is above mere reason. Spiritual truth, we are taught, can be apprehended only by the spirit. This, too, is as it should be. The Godelian picture fits what Christians believe about the universe. Had he been able to show that self-proof was possible, we would be in deep trouble. As noted above, the universe could then be self-explanatory.
As it stands, the very real infinities and paradoxes of nature demand something higher, different in kind, more powerful, to explain them just as every logic set needs a higher logic set to prove and explain elements within it.
This lesson from Godel's proof is one reason I believe that no finite system, even one as vast as the universe, can ultimately satisfy the questions it raises.
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/GODEL.html
You might study Russell's Paradox, that might help you with the general concept of totalities, and how your "The Totality" or God as you call it, is.... well.....just silly.Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Totality is the sum of all totalities.
The universe is a totality. Is the universe the Totality? Opinions vary on that one. Most people think the universe had a beginning, so prior to the universe beginning what was there?
Some say "nothing" but I say, the potential was there for the universe to exist. And potential is something, not nothing.
Totality includes everything...it includes the universe, it includes what if anything preceded the universe, it will contain what happens if the universe ends, it would contain all other universes if they exist.
That Totality=God.
You might study Universal set theory, that might help you with the general concept of totalities, and The Totality.
Somehow I doubt it will.
Your history is that you misquote people. You've blatantly misquoted Susskind in the past and more recently done the same with Christian de Duve, oblivious to any refutation of the crude misinformation you like so much.Quote from jem:
and for Stu who keeps lying and saying I mis quote people.
Quoting even more from the same religious apologists website is just infantile and adds nothing to the already hopelessly sad argument for intelligent design.
That conversation was not with you, so why are you changing the subject of these exchanges?Quote from MarketMasher:
You're trying to change the subject.
You said you knew God does not exist. I said I am uncertain.
The question of God is a biggie, if nothing else because it has occupied so much of mankind's attention for so long.
In that context, your claim of knowing is pretty big.
So you are not only stating what you believe to be as fact to anyone who reads your assertion - it is contrary to most of human history.
I would think that claim would require something more than "Because I say so." You made the claim. Repeat - I am uncertain.
So prove your claim. Of we'll just call it your belief (faith).
You said you are not all knowledgeable but would have to be all knowledgeable to know about God's non existence or existence.
Just in case you havenât grasped what a self-contradicting and self-defeating claim that isâ¦.
â¦..how come you know that about God's non existence or existence, if youâre not all knowledgeable.?
I've made no claim about God's existence or non existence. I directly answered a question with only three words.
Should I have answered that question with an "I don't know", would I be claiming "I don't know" or would I just be answering the question? I suspect had I done so, there would be no false assertions I was making a claim.
But because I answered "Sure I know", it seems that is supposed to be making a claim , rubbish of course, but does confirm how desperate any argument for God needs to get.
But thatâs a different issue. Why don't you deal with your own contradictory claim?