It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut
My understanding of Godels Ontological argument is immaterial to its application in this topic thread.
Hardly immaterial, since it was you — and only you — who applied it.
I am not asking you to explain Gödel’s argument to me. I am asking you to state your understanding of it. You are doubtless aware that Gödel’s original proof was written in German. Many different writers have translated it into English, and their formulations of it are not the same. I should like to see your version. That is all.
It would be a great waste of my time to re-state the obvious.
Perhaps you have forgotten what an ad hominem ‘attack’ (I think you mean argument) is. Allow me to remind you: it is a way of casting doubt on a proposition by casting doubt on the character or competence of the person who brought it forward. I am not doing anything like that.
The implication that I would present something without an understanding of it, is clearly an ad-hominem attack
I am merely asking what it is about Gödel’s Ontological Proof that makes you believe it counts as evidence for the existence of God. Because it is not ‘evidence’ of anything; it is a logical argument.
All ontological ‘proofs’, including Gödel’s, are attempts to prove the necessary existence of God, not from physical evidence, but from reason alone. In other words, they attempt to prove that God exists because He must exist — not in order to make the world or any part of it exist, not in order that there might be a distinction between good and evil, not in order to to secure for mortal humans the promise of an afterlife, but simply because a being of the type we call God has to exist, in and of itself.
Your invocation of the proof on this thread appears to gloss over this vital distinction. You confuse proof with evidence, stating that Godel ‘proves’ God through ‘rigorous mathematics’. So I should like to see how, in your view, a set of axioms and theorems counts as evidence for anything.
When I was in secondary school I studied the geometry of Euclid, in which I learned to prove that the area of a triangle was half the product of its base and height, that the relationship between a circle and its radius was given by a constant irrational number, and so on. None of this, however, gave evidence for the objective existence of triangles, circles and straight lines in, and in fact none of these objects exists in nature.
Thence my scepticism regarding mathematical ‘proofs’ of all kinds.
Indeed. But what I asked of you does take some. I shall leave other readers of this post to draw the appropriate conclusions.
But, if you give me some time, I'm sure I could put together a simplification of Godels Ontological argument that even you might understand (see, I can do this too, it takes no mental effort).
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
I believe it was pointed out earlier that the ontological argument is essentially a case made for why it must be assumed that X is true. Why are we defending the employment of assumptions in scientific inquiry that double as both hypothesis and conclusion? There seems to be a few steps missing. For instance the theory only addresses the existence of X and only so far as to explain why it's okay to put the conclusion before the evidence, because that's totally how the scientific method works. This mathematical proof does nothing to address exactly what such a being is or where they come from or what they can do or how they feel about us specifically. It's conjecture and speculation all the way down.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Barcs
Because these people never actually DO science, they think it, from armchairs, and congratulate themselves on being scientifically literate.
Speaking as someone who day in day out (even on weekends if a project is due) does science. This is both ammusing AND insulting at the same time
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut
Has and does are different things. Someone who had a first aid certificate fifty years ago, is going to be woefully misinformed on recent changes in thinking, and might cause harm.
I have secondary education in wood working. Yet I'm not qualified to use a lathe either.
Your logic is flawed.
An actual scientist knows what work goes INTO science and as such will not fluff around. You want to play in another sandbox inside science, you either work with someone in that area OR you gain a qualification in it.
As for "religious beleif"? Nah Thats a nice attempt at casting shade neighbor, however I believe in the right tools for the right job. Thus my tools are Chemistry, Biochemistry, Genetics, and bioinformatics. I don't play in the sand box of Physics or Microbiology, as I've no training in them. Scientific method is all well and good, but gone are the days you can educate yourself in an area of science, the amount of specialized knowledge is too much to do that, and be competent. Similarly as a Process Development Chemist, I'd boot a Microbiologist out of my Kilolab if they thought they were going to scale something up for plant, its not safe, or sane.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
I believe it was pointed out earlier that the ontological argument is essentially a case made for why it must be assumed that X is true. Why are we defending the employment of assumptions in scientific inquiry that double as both hypothesis and conclusion? There seems to be a few steps missing. For instance the theory only addresses the existence of X and only so far as to explain why it's okay to put the conclusion before the evidence, because that's totally how the scientific method works. This mathematical proof does nothing to address exactly what such a being is or where they come from or what they can do or how they feel about us specifically. It's conjecture and speculation all the way down.
The OP was a fairly philosophical piece. A reasoned response is valid in that case.
We cannot apply scientific method to ANY absolute knowledge. This is because we cannot raise a valid antithesis against which to test theory. This is a fundamental and accepted limitation on science, explored fully by the philosopher Carl Popper.
Take, for example the laws of thermodynamics. There has been much affirmative and no contrary observation that throws doubt on these "scientific laws" (not my words) but no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization. A case could still exist that there is an unobserved exception and one single exception is enough to "break the rule". According to Popper's rationale, the laws of thermodynamics are pseudoscience (shock, horror!).
Once that is realised, it becomes clear that the entire edifice of science, which is built up upon such fundamentals, is, as you said of the ontological argument, "conjecture all the way down".
Differentiation between 'scientific conjecture' or 'philosophical conjecture' or 'mathematical conjecture' is irrelevant. They all have equal weight in human knowledge. You cannot say that a philosophical or mathematical conjecture is immaterial because it does not fit a 'scientific' view. They are of equal 'weight'.
It is true that the ontological argument does not say many things. It is very specific in what it says. It says that a single being such as God neccesarily exists in all possible worlds (no exceptions) and has has only positive value attributes and no negative value attributes. This, of course, rules out atheism and polytheism (in each world) as being valid alternatives.
Suggesting that we abandon the conclusions of the argument because it is limited is an unreasonable denial of what it does say.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut
Well to begin with you have posted hypotheses (vs theories). Show me the quantifiable data to proove god.
Would it help you to know I work in the physical sciences (Chemsitry, Biochemistry etc) where you can measure things?
Sorry neighnour all you have posted are things verging on Hitchen's Razor.
Faith only requires belief.
Science only requires evidence.
Neither require the other. To try, is to miss the poing.
Again I opened with "speaking as a theistic person" in my reply. I believe in gods, many of them. I don't need to have evidence, my faith is strong. Mind you my deities also don't require me to show faith in public
One could argue that everything in existence, which has high-order complexity and interdependence is proof of a creator with intelligence, as Hoyle famously pointed out.
The idea that such an improbably complex and and varied system could arise from randomness is fairly hard to justify.
The very order of nature, which seems to seek towards the lowest energy state in all things, shows that something is directing things against what we know of the principles of physics (a singular result rather than a variety). Even a many worlds interpretation does not adequately answer the questions raised by the current state of this one.
Energy, matter, time and space ARE order. If an alternate world exists with those properties, then what are the ordering force/s? If a world does not have those attributes, or any others, does it even exist? If it cannot exist, surely it cannot then be one of the possibilities from which our one is a unique example. So all the infinte alternate worlds that do exist must all have to have an ordering principle of some type, already. The logic of the many worlds argument circularly opposes itself, in that regard.
It would seem that there are various 'proofs' of God but that the alternate view hangs its case upon a supposed absence of proof, which is itself absent in the face those proofs (as nebulous as they may be, depending upon worldview).
One even 'slightly possible' proof is stronger than nothing, which is all the atheist case has to offer.
The idea that such an improbably complex and and varied system could arise from randomness is fairly hard to justify. The very order of nature, which seems to seek towards the lowest energy state in all things, shows that something is directing things against what we know of the principles of physics (a singular result rather than a variety). Even a many worlds interpretation does not adequately answer the questions raised by the current state of this one.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
I believe it was pointed out earlier that the ontological argument is essentially a case made for why it must be assumed that X is true. Why are we defending the employment of assumptions in scientific inquiry that double as both hypothesis and conclusion? There seems to be a few steps missing. For instance the theory only addresses the existence of X and only so far as to explain why it's okay to put the conclusion before the evidence, because that's totally how the scientific method works. This mathematical proof does nothing to address exactly what such a being is or where they come from or what they can do or how they feel about us specifically. It's conjecture and speculation all the way down.
The OP was a fairly philosophical piece. A reasoned response is valid in that case.
We cannot apply scientific method to ANY absolute knowledge. This is because we cannot raise a valid antithesis against which to test theory. This is a fundamental and accepted limitation on science, explored fully by the philosopher Carl Popper.
Take, for example the laws of thermodynamics. There has been much affirmative and no contrary observation that throws doubt on these "scientific laws" (not my words) but no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization. A case could still exist that there is an unobserved exception and one single exception is enough to "break the rule". According to Popper's rationale, the laws of thermodynamics are pseudoscience (shock, horror!).
Once that is realised, it becomes clear that the entire edifice of science, which is built up upon such fundamentals, is, as you said of the ontological argument, "conjecture all the way down".
Differentiation between 'scientific conjecture' or 'philosophical conjecture' or 'mathematical conjecture' is irrelevant. They all have equal weight in human knowledge. You cannot say that a philosophical or mathematical conjecture is immaterial because it does not fit a 'scientific' view. They are of equal 'weight'.
It is true that the ontological argument does not say many things. It is very specific in what it says. It says that a single being such as God neccesarily exists in all possible worlds (no exceptions) and has has only positive value attributes and no negative value attributes. This, of course, rules out atheism and polytheism (in each world) as being valid alternatives.
Suggesting that we abandon the conclusions of the argument because it is limited is an unreasonable denial of what it does say.
So science can't make Universal generalizations about the laws of thermodynamics but you can make Universal generalizations about a cosmic entity? Just a detail I noticed. Additionally the ontological argument fails to satisfactorily Define positive and negative attributes. Are these attributes also Universal generalizations? I will admit the rhetoric is cute but again the ontological argument furnishes its own rebuttal, which I have already posted for you. I can post it again if you like. Not to mention that the ontological argument still does not address where X comes from or how X happens or how X feels about our little blue pearl. Or even if X feels or thinks or does anything at all except be. At that point X is pretty much useless as a hypothetical. Until you invent another thought exercise to convince yourself that you don't really need any substantial data to confirm the properties and dimensions of X.
Gödel delayed the publication of the evidence because he feared that his request would be misunderstood as an independent attempt to establish a valid proof (of God). His real intention was to show the strengths and weaknesses of the axiomatic method: with a free choice of axioms (assumptions), one can prove any assertion.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
I believe it was pointed out earlier that the ontological argument is essentially a case made for why it must be assumed that X is true. Why are we defending the employment of assumptions in scientific inquiry that double as both hypothesis and conclusion? There seems to be a few steps missing. For instance the theory only addresses the existence of X and only so far as to explain why it's okay to put the conclusion before the evidence, because that's totally how the scientific method works. This mathematical proof does nothing to address exactly what such a being is or where they come from or what they can do or how they feel about us specifically. It's conjecture and speculation all the way down.
The OP was a fairly philosophical piece. A reasoned response is valid in that case.
We cannot apply scientific method to ANY absolute knowledge. This is because we cannot raise a valid antithesis against which to test theory. This is a fundamental and accepted limitation on science, explored fully by the philosopher Carl Popper.
Take, for example the laws of thermodynamics. There has been much affirmative and no contrary observation that throws doubt on these "scientific laws" (not my words) but no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization. A case could still exist that there is an unobserved exception and one single exception is enough to "break the rule". According to Popper's rationale, the laws of thermodynamics are pseudoscience (shock, horror!).
Once that is realised, it becomes clear that the entire edifice of science, which is built up upon such fundamentals, is, as you said of the ontological argument, "conjecture all the way down".
Differentiation between 'scientific conjecture' or 'philosophical conjecture' or 'mathematical conjecture' is irrelevant. They all have equal weight in human knowledge. You cannot say that a philosophical or mathematical conjecture is immaterial because it does not fit a 'scientific' view. They are of equal 'weight'.
It is true that the ontological argument does not say many things. It is very specific in what it says. It says that a single being such as God neccesarily exists in all possible worlds (no exceptions) and has has only positive value attributes and no negative value attributes. This, of course, rules out atheism and polytheism (in each world) as being valid alternatives.
Suggesting that we abandon the conclusions of the argument because it is limited is an unreasonable denial of what it does say.
So science can't make Universal generalizations about the laws of thermodynamics but you can make Universal generalizations about a cosmic entity? Just a detail I noticed. Additionally the ontological argument fails to satisfactorily Define positive and negative attributes. Are these attributes also Universal generalizations? I will admit the rhetoric is cute but again the ontological argument furnishes its own rebuttal, which I have already posted for you. I can post it again if you like. Not to mention that the ontological argument still does not address where X comes from or how X happens or how X feels about our little blue pearl. Or even if X feels or thinks or does anything at all except be. At that point X is pretty much useless as a hypothetical. Until you invent another thought exercise to convince yourself that you don't really need any substantial data to confirm the properties and dimensions of X.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut
You will find Godel's original German proof here. As you will see, it is written not in mathematical symbols but in words. Gödel did in fact write down a version in modal notation about thirty years later, which uses outdated symbology (and some words of explanation in English). So I am not sure where you found this 'original version of Godel's ontological proof in the symbols of formal logic.' Care to show it to us?
Incidentally, this is what the paragraph above the quoted proof at the link says (translated from German):
Gödel delayed the publication of the evidence because he feared that his request would be misunderstood as an independent attempt to establish a valid proof (of God). His real intention was to show the strengths and weaknesses of the axiomatic method: with a free choice of axioms (assumptions), one can prove any assertion.
As long as a person tries to make sense of their religious beliefs, their brains will continue to malfunction. There are two cures: abandon religion or abandon the presumption of rationality. Good luck.
biology.kenyon.edu...The structures of DNA and RNA
DNA Is Usually a Right-Handed Double Helix Applying the handedness rule from physics, we can see that each of the polynucleotide chains in the double helix is right-handed. In your mind’s eye, hold your right hand up to the DNA molecule in Figure 6-9 with your thumb pointing up and along the long axis of the helix and your fingers following the grooves in the helix. Trace along one strand of the helix in the direction in which your thumb is pointing. Notice that you go around the helix in the same direction as your fingers are pointing. This does not work if you use your left hand. Try it! A consequence of the helical nature of DNA is its periodicity. Each base pair is displaced (twisted) from the previous one by about 36°. Thus, in the X-ray crystal structure of DNA it takes a stack of about 10 base pairs to go completely around the helix (360°) (see Figure 6-1a). That is, the helical periodicity is generally 10 base pairs per turn of the helix. For further discussion, see Box 6-1: DNA Has 10.5 Base Pairs per Turn of the Helix in Solution: The Mica Experiment.