01 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd rightfully so since all your bible stories are just that, stories made up by dudes with the agenda to control people and build up a political religious empire which they have done well. That is NOT to their credit.
You only accept what your hard heart is willing to accept, like evilution.
You are offered the pearl of eternal life and trample upon it like a pig would do.
The Instructor
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseIt has been nearly 2000 years since the last story was written in the Holy Bible. Those last Christian writers did not enjoy any so-called political religious empire. History records that the early Christians were being persecuted and killed and even fed to the lions as sport entertainment for the Romans. What you say was their motivation does not seem logical to me.
And rightfully so since all your bible stories are just that, stories made up by dudes with the agenda to control people and build up a political religious empire which they have done well. That is NOT to their credit.
The Instructor
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is strange that you atheists have referred to our Holy Bible being 2000 years old when it fits with your criticisms. But when I use appoximately the same fiqure, it somehow becomes not accurate enough. However, it is ridiculous to claim that your evolution science has always dated things so they were off only 2% for that is clearly a lie. I am being generous to say that some of your dates are off by only 2000%.
So when you are off by 20% in your dating of the bible, that is ok.
But when science is off by 2% in dating, that is cause for derision.
That fits your MO perfectly.
The Instructor
02 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsOk, lets run with that 2000% figure. You do know what 2000% is don't you? That is 20 times 100. 200% is twice what 100% is. 1000% is 10 times what 100% is. So 2000% means you think the Earth is, instead of 4 billion years old, you are putting it at 200 million years old. Well that is a good start.
It is strange that you atheists have referred to our Holy Bible being 2000 years old when it fits with your criticisms. But when I use appoximately the same fiqure, it somehow becomes not accurate enough. However, it is ridiculous to claim that your evolution science has always dated things so they were off only 2% for that is clearly a lie. I am being generous to say that some of your dates are off by only 2000%.
The Instructor
Even if you meant we think the Earth is 2000 times older than it is, makes it 2 million years old.
Originally posted by RJHinds from page 1Sorry this is totally wrong (except the bit about no mathematical formula that could explain everything, why should it?). For one thing Godel's theorem does not apply to Peano arithmetic - where the only allowed operations are addition and subtraction. But principally Godel's Theorems just don't do what you want them to. They apply to systems of axioms capable of generating arithmetic more complex than Peano arithmetic. A simple statement of it is that either there are questions that can be posed within the language of the theory whose veracity cannot be determined from the axioms or the axioms generate contradictions.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved that every system that could be enclosed within a circle depended on something different outside the circle that you have to assume but you can not prove. This means that there are always more things that are true than you can prove and any system of belief, reasoning, and logic requires faith in something u assumed, but can not be proven.
Just look at the last summary video then.
The Instructor
So first, this applies to problems in mathematics, a philosophical system would be exempt as they don't, in general, generate an arithmetic.
Second it's not a problem - the Standard Model of Particle Physics cannot predict its own parameters. They are not fixed by the axioms that apply to Quantum Field Theory and the structure of the model. This isn't a great problem for us - if we want to know the fine structure constant we measure it.
If, in a system of logic to which Godel's Theorem applies, you add an axiom to try to allow proof of otherwise unprovable veracities - then, eventually, you will break the theory and it will start to generate contradictions. Adding God into a human constructed theory will only break it.
What this all means is that it may well be true that God exists, but you can't prove it.
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhat it means is that you have to assume God exists to prove anything. Without an intelligent being to design a logical world that has laws capable of being understood and being in place for a reason, then there is no reason that we should be expected to understand why anything is the way we believe it is today.
Sorry this is totally wrong (except the bit about no mathematical formula that could explain everything, why should it?). For one thing Godel's theorem does not apply to Peano arithmetic - where the only allowed operations are addition and subtraction. But principally Godel's Theorems just don't do what you want them to. They apply to systems of axiom ...[text shortened]... What this all means is that it may well be true that God exists, but you can't prove it.
Science is used to explain both how and why things are the way we think they are today. We are left to assume "the what" or "the who" as the ultimate cause, unless we are given special revelation from the source or cause. In that case, the cause must be a who, an intelligent being, like the God of the Holy Bible. This is were faith comes in. We either have faith in the truth of this special revelation or we do not.
If the universe brought itself into existence without a cause and that cause was not intelligent and had no life in it, we have no reason to believe we should have any intelligence or life within us or that there should be any logic or reason for things to be the way we think they are today.
The Instructor
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou've missed the point. Godel's theorem has it's own limitations, it is concerned with axiom based theories. Postulating God will not improve mathematical theories, as an axiom God is unhelpful for such questions. For questions such as "How should I live my life?" then God's existence is important, but for questions such as "In our human invented theory of numbers is the continuum aleph 1 or aleph 2" postulating God will not help.
What it means is that you have to assume God exists to prove anything. Without an intelligent being to design a logical world that has laws capable of being understood and being in place for a reason, then there is no reason that we should be expected to understand why anything is the way we believe it is today.
Science is used to explain both how and wh ...[text shortened]... be any logic or reason for things to be the way we think they are today.
The Instructor
03 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYet if Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved the existence of God, then it would prove that statement false, ie it would prove that God cannot be boundless etc etc.
Not really, because not only is God eternal, God is also boundless. That is, God can not be enclosed in a circle or put in a box.
The Instructor
Originally posted by twhiteheadGodel's Incompleteness Theorem says there is always something outside the circle of enclosure that has to be assumed. I think you missed that part somehow. Of course, ultimately that something outside turns out to be GOD, because GOD alone fits the requirements. But we still have not proved the existence of GOD, we are assuming it must be GOD because of our current knowledge.
Yet if Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved the existence of God, then it would prove that statement false, ie it would prove that God cannot be boundless etc etc.
The Instructor