Does Faith in the Divine = Stupidity?

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: StormRider
I'

Basically, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. There is a very powerful theorem in Logic Theory by Godel(?) that kind of says that no matter your system of beliefs (the things you accept as true -- axioms) you can always construct a sentence where you cannot prove or disprove the truth of the sentence. I took this to be a mathematical way of saying "math/logic/science can never explain everything".

I wouldn't use any of those statements to hold up a bridge or diagnose a patient.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
athiests don't believe in faith

faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof

and athiests only believe in things that are provable/proven

So atheists can't love (you can't "prove" love)?

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Estrella

The weird thing is that you are attempting to use reason as a possible means to disprove reason. A contradiction, I sense, young Padewan.

I'm using reason to show that reason doesn't extend infinitely, and that whatever exists beyond can be neither proven nor disproven using pure logic. I am further point out that reason can only exist on a core of non-reason.

Oh, but no. You have simply raised only another paradox, the who is god's mommy paradox. And just like circular definitions, one cannot have circular proofs to prove or disprove anything.
If god made anything, he made reason.

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: FoBoT
athiests don't believe in faith

faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof

and athiests only believe in things that are provable/proven

So atheists can't love (you can't "prove" love)?

Most just realize what it is; ask a biochemist and an evolutionary biologist. If you want some non-concrete proof, please go read a whole bunch of philosophy and relgious texts.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Estrella

The weird thing is that you are attempting to use reason as a possible means to disprove reason. A contradiction, I sense, young Padewan.

I'm using reason to show that reason doesn't extend infinitely, and that whatever exists beyond can be neither proven nor disproven using pure logic. I am further point out that reason can only exist on a core of non-reason.

Oh, but no. You have simply raised only another paradox, the who is god's mommy paradox. And just like circular definitions, one cannot have circular proofs to prove or disprove anything.
If god made anything, he made reason.

Jagec is not attempting to disprove reason. He is attempting to show the limits of human knowledge and 'proof' that some are so self-assured is concrete.

There is no circularity in what he did. Any mathematician worth their salt will acknowledge there are mathematical truths that cannot be proven. There is certainly no circularity in what Gödel did. That is why he famously authored proofs, not paradoxes.

 

[everman]

Is it too late to pop a frozen pizza in this thread? Will it be done for dinner? I don't want to burn it either....What should I put on it? Anyone like pineapple on theirs?

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Estrella

The weird thing is that you are attempting to use reason as a possible means to disprove reason. A contradiction, I sense, young Padewan.

I'm using reason to show that reason doesn't extend infinitely, and that whatever exists beyond can be neither proven nor disproven using pure logic. I am further point out that reason can only exist on a core of non-reason.

Oh, but no. You have simply raised only another paradox, the who is god's mommy paradox. And just like circular definitions, one cannot have circular proofs to prove or disprove anything.
If god made anything, he made reason.

Jagec is not attempting to disprove reason. He is attempting to show the limits of human knowledge and 'proof' that some are so self-assured is concrete.

There is no circularity in what he did. Any mathematician worth their salt will acknowledge there are mathematical truths that cannot be proven. There is certainly no circularity in what Gödel did. That is why he famously authored proofs, not paradoxes.

Yes, they are called axioms. Yes, there are limits to human knowledge- why academia exists.

I am reading some stuff on Godel's work since I know not of what you speak. I was only speaking of Jagec's argument, unless his argument is Godel's.

If I go down in a burst of flames looking like an idiot I will not mind, at least I am learning.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Estrella

The weird thing is that you are attempting to use reason as a possible means to disprove reason. A contradiction, I sense, young Padewan.

I'm using reason to show that reason doesn't extend infinitely, and that whatever exists beyond can be neither proven nor disproven using pure logic. I am further point out that reason can only exist on a core of non-reason.

Oh, but no. You have simply raised only another paradox, the who is god's mommy paradox. And just like circular definitions, one cannot have circular proofs to prove or disprove anything.
If god made anything, he made reason.

Jagec is not attempting to disprove reason. He is attempting to show the limits of human knowledge and 'proof' that some are so self-assured is concrete.

There is no circularity in what he did. Any mathematician worth their salt will acknowledge there are mathematical truths that cannot be proven. There is certainly no circularity in what Gödel did. That is why he famously authored proofs, not paradoxes.

Yes, they are called axioms. Yes, there are limits to human knowledge- why academia exists.

I am reading some stuff on Godel's work since I know not of what you speak. I was only speaking of Jagec's argument, unless his argument is Godel's.

If I go down in a burst of flames looking like an idiot I will not mind, at least I am learning.

You will quickly learn, then, that axioms and postulates cannot be 'proven'. They are 'self-evident' (read: faith-based).

In the context of this discussion we were not meaning to say the limits to human knowledge insofar as the expanse of different fields--but the foundations itself (logic and the greater mathematics). David Hilbert's Program and Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica both had wild dreams of reducing all of mathematics (which science relies on) to a foundation (logic and set theory) from which everything could be described. Kurt Gödel cut it off at the knees. I think invoking Gödel was quite relevant to relating what Jagec was posting about with regard to the belief of one's worldview resting solely on things which can be 'proved'.

Of little importance but interesting: Kurt Gödel and Saul Kripke, both wildly important people in the history logic, both were/are deeply religious.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Estrella

The weird thing is that you are attempting to use reason as a possible means to disprove reason. A contradiction, I sense, young Padewan.

I'm using reason to show that reason doesn't extend infinitely, and that whatever exists beyond can be neither proven nor disproven using pure logic. I am further point out that reason can only exist on a core of non-reason.

Oh, but no. You have simply raised only another paradox, the who is god's mommy paradox. And just like circular definitions, one cannot have circular proofs to prove or disprove anything.
If god made anything, he made reason.

Jagec is not attempting to disprove reason. He is attempting to show the limits of human knowledge and 'proof' that some are so self-assured is concrete.

There is no circularity in what he did. Any mathematician worth their salt will acknowledge there are mathematical truths that cannot be proven. There is certainly no circularity in what Gödel did. That is why he famously authored proofs, not paradoxes.

Yes, they are called axioms. Yes, there are limits to human knowledge- why academia exists.

I am reading some stuff on Godel's work since I know not of what you speak. I was only speaking of Jagec's argument, unless his argument is Godel's.

If I go down in a burst of flames looking like an idiot I will not mind, at least I am learning.

It just boils down to that Atheists can be wrong. God could tap me on the shoulder at any time and prove his existence. Religion sets itself up so it can never be wrong. You can't prove the nonexistence of something.

Saying that there is no God is technically incorrect (though the odds favor us, quite frankly). So I don't say it. I just say the word is meaningless. The question "do you believe in God" is a loaded question. It assumes too much.

What we can say is that one thing is more likely than something else. No God is more likely than God by around the same order of magnitude that No Zeus is more likely than Zeus and No Leprechauns is more likely than Leprechauns. Actually no, Leprechauns are slightly more believable.

I'm not even sure I'm being relevant to what I quoted anymore.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Estrella

The weird thing is that you are attempting to use reason as a possible means to disprove reason. A contradiction, I sense, young Padewan.

I'm using reason to show that reason doesn't extend infinitely, and that whatever exists beyond can be neither proven nor disproven using pure logic. I am further point out that reason can only exist on a core of non-reason.

Oh, but no. You have simply raised only another paradox, the who is god's mommy paradox. And just like circular definitions, one cannot have circular proofs to prove or disprove anything.
If god made anything, he made reason.

Jagec is not attempting to disprove reason. He is attempting to show the limits of human knowledge and 'proof' that some are so self-assured is concrete.

There is no circularity in what he did. Any mathematician worth their salt will acknowledge there are mathematical truths that cannot be proven. There is certainly no circularity in what Gödel did. That is why he famously authored proofs, not paradoxes.

Yes, they are called axioms. Yes, there are limits to human knowledge- why academia exists.

I am reading some stuff on Godel's work since I know not of what you speak. I was only speaking of Jagec's argument, unless his argument is Godel's.

If I go down in a burst of flames looking like an idiot I will not mind, at least I am learning.

You will quickly learn, then, that axioms and postulates cannot be 'proven'. They are 'self-evident' (read: faith-based).

In the context of this discussion we were not meaning to say the limits to human knowledge insofar as the expanse of different fields--but the foundations itself (logic and the greater mathematics). David Hilbert's Program and Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica both had wild dreams of reducing all of mathematics (which science relies on) to a foundation (logic and set theory) from which everything could be described. Kurt Gödel cut it off at the knees. I think invoking Gödel was quite relevant to relating what Jagec was posting about with regard to the belief of one's worldview resting solely on things which can be 'proved'.

Of little importance but interesting: Kurt Gödel and Saul Kripke, both wildly important people in the history logic, both were/are deeply religious.

There have been whole books written on the definition of faith. You can't even begin to talk about it until you define it.

 

[RESmonkey]

LOL RELIGION

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There have been whole books written on the definition of faith. You can't even begin to talk about it until you define it.

A "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" sums it up quite nicely, no?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There have been whole books written on the definition of faith. You can't even begin to talk about it until you define it.

A "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" sums it up quite nicely, no?

Except you defined it as something that was self-evident in your last post. So what are you Solipsist or something? We're gonna open that can of worms now?

The definition of faith changes depending on who uses it. It's not something you can just throw away with a one sentence definition.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
athiests don't believe in faith

faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof

and athiests [sic] only believe in things that are provable/proven

WAY too simplistic. Atheists believe there is no God, which in neither provable nor proven.

Also, any one atheist may also carry a bucketload of other beliefs in their noggins.

They may believe in the Federal Reserve System, curing cancer with apricot extract, ufo's, the Democratic Party, vitamin C for colds, assless chaps, or that their Atheism makes them smarter or wiser than religious believers, NONE of which is more than their belief that it is so.

Agnostics are the ones who neither believe nor disbelieve (both unproven/unprovable) in a Deity.

Oh, and I believe you should learn how to spell.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There have been whole books written on the definition of faith. You can't even begin to talk about it until you define it.

A "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" sums it up quite nicely, no?

Except you defined it as something that was self-evident in your last post. So what are you Solipsist or something? We're gonna open that can of worms now?

No, I was basically saying that that axioms and postulates, regarded as self-evident, are ultimately faith-based (we assume them to be true without 'proof'... I see that as faith). Self-evident and faith-based are not one in the same or interchangable. Sorry for the confusion if that was what you read it as.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
The definition of faith changes depending on who uses it. It's not something you can just throw away with a one sentence definition.

I think it is fairly straightforward and most people would agree that 'faith' generically means a belief in something that does not have clearcut 'proof' (proof these days often but not always comes in the empirical form). In my opinion people only pervert it when they want to hold it to different standards for different context (religion vs otherwise). *shrug*

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Estrella

The weird thing is that you are attempting to use reason as a possible means to disprove reason. A contradiction, I sense, young Padewan.

I'm using reason to show that reason doesn't extend infinitely, and that whatever exists beyond can be neither proven nor disproven using pure logic. I am further point out that reason can only exist on a core of non-reason.

Oh, but no. You have simply raised only another paradox, the who is god's mommy paradox. And just like circular definitions, one cannot have circular proofs to prove or disprove anything.
If god made anything, he made reason.

Jagec is not attempting to disprove reason. He is attempting to show the limits of human knowledge and 'proof' that some are so self-assured is concrete.

There is no circularity in what he did. Any mathematician worth their salt will acknowledge there are mathematical truths that cannot be proven. There is certainly no circularity in what Gödel did. That is why he famously authored proofs, not paradoxes.

Yes, they are called axioms. Yes, there are limits to human knowledge- why academia exists.

I am reading some stuff on Godel's work since I know not of what you speak. I was only speaking of Jagec's argument, unless his argument is Godel's.

If I go down in a burst of flames looking like an idiot I will not mind, at least I am learning.

You will quickly learn, then, that axioms and postulates cannot be 'proven'. They are 'self-evident' (read: faith-based).

In the context of this discussion we were not meaning to say the limits to human knowledge insofar as the expanse of different fields--but the foundations itself (logic and the greater mathematics). David Hilbert's Program and Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica both had wild dreams of reducing all of mathematics (which science relies on) to a foundation (logic and set theory) from which everything could be described. Kurt Gödel cut it off at the knees. I think invoking Gödel was quite relevant to relating what Jagec was posting about with regard to the belief of one's worldview resting solely on things which can be 'proved'.

Of little importance but interesting: Kurt Gödel and Saul Kripke, both wildly important people in the history logic, both were/are deeply religious.

Yes, I know.

Ok, I will read what you are referencing links and/or books would be helpful.

Yes, because they realized that Logic only applies to the real world(defined: the world where we can freely manipulate things in it) and says nothing about anything 'beyond'. The real question how can we be afraid of, prepare for, comprehend, even speculate(correctly) on something that does not exist in our world. My answer:you can't(correctly with any sort of verification)

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: StormRider
I'

Basically, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. There is a very powerful theorem in Logic Theory by Godel(?) that kind of says that no matter your system of beliefs (the things you accept as true -- axioms) you can always construct a sentence where you cannot prove or disprove the truth of the sentence. I took this to be a mathematical way of saying "math/logic/science can never explain everything".

I wouldn't use any of those statements to hold up a bridge or diagnose a patient.

Can I ask what level of math courses you have taken? Have you've taken more advance math courses (senior level or graduate level) in set theory, logic and abstract algebra for example?

I was an electrical engineering major so I've taken the basic stuff like Calculus, Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, Complex Variables, Operational Mathematics (Laplace, Fourier Transforms), and Linear Algebra. But I liked math a lot so I also took Real Analysis, Fractals and Chaos Theory, Abstract Algebra, Point Set Topology, Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry, Numerical Analysis, Probability, Statistics, Introductory Combinatorics, Number Theory, Logic, Differential Geometry, and Discrete Math etc. I've also taken graduate level courses in Analysis, Differential Equations, and some others I've forgotten.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I sometimes see people who might have taken a Calculus course or two and think they understand all of mathematics and logic and proclaim that we shouldn't believe anything unless we can prove it and that everything can be explained by science and logic.

But if you just take some more deeper math courses you will encounter a mathematical proof that says there will always be mathematical statements that cannot be proved nor disproved.

Also, you would soon realize that we have something called axioms in math. From these axioms we prove other mathematical statements. But these axioms were never proven to be true -- we just assume them to be true because they are so self-evident. As I mentioned earlier, there is a mathematical statement that says "parallel lines cannot cross". Back in those days, people thought this statement could be proven true from other axioms. But it turned out it couldn't be proven true or false. So, one branch of mathematics assumed it to be true (Euclidean Geometry) and another branch (Non-Euclidean Geometry) assumed it to be false. And both mathematical systems have proven to be very useful in engineering and science (designing bridges etc).

But I digress. Math (and Science which uses math as it's foundation) has something called axioms which are statements we assume to be true. This is basically the same thing as having faith that they are true.

So, people who claim to only believe in science, math, and logic aren't much different from religious people in the sense that the very basic thing we believe in (Axioms or the existence of God) cannot be proven and are assumed to be true in our belief system.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: timosyy

Originally posted by: StormRider
That's why I think it's stupid to take holy books as literal truth.

Just some interesting trivia, I find its actually quite surprising how scientifically correct the Bible actually was, way before science actually caught up. Just some examples-

The fact that the sun is on a circuit through space (Psalm 19:6), which was at odds with scientific and even religious thinking until relatively modern day.

The fact that the earth is a sphere, not flat (Isaiah 40:22), which was written ~740-680 BC, roughly 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be round, and WAY before Christopher Columbus (~1500 AD), during which time people still thought the world might be flat.

The fact that the earth rests on "nothing" (Job 26:7), contrary to the Hindu's who believed it rested on the back of an elephant or the Greeks who believed Atlas held it up.

etc.

Not really trying to make any point here, and you certainly can't use these points as the sole basis for the divinity of the Bible or anything like that, just thought it was intellectually interesting trivia. People are going to debate the stories found in Genesis until the end of time, but the Bible does hold some useful truths. IIRC, its also been a big help to archaeologists as far as locations and things go, but I can't really comment on that because thats way out of my field.

Another example would be the "Let there be light" statement which can be interpreted as describing a "Big Bang". In the beginning there was nothing and poof! Now there's something!

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There have been whole books written on the definition of faith. You can't even begin to talk about it until you define it.

A "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" sums it up quite nicely, no?

Except you defined it as something that was self-evident in your last post. So what are you Solipsist or something? We're gonna open that can of worms now?

No, I was basically saying that that axioms and postulates, regarded as self-evident, are ultimately faith-based (we assume them to be true without 'proof'... I see that as faith). Self-evident and faith-based are not one in the same or interchangable. Sorry for the confusion if that was what you read it as.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
The definition of faith changes depending on who uses it. It's not something you can just throw away with a one sentence definition.

I think it is fairly straightforward and most people would agree that 'faith' generically means a belief in something that does not have clearcut 'proof' (proof these days often but not always comes in the empirical form). In my opinion people only pervert it when they want to hold it to different standards for different context (religion vs otherwise). *shrug*

I just read what you wrote. But what I'm saying is even though it seems like there is a clearcut general definition of faith, when you crack it open there are many layers to it. When I say that the sun will rise tomorrow is that faith? Sure, it's risen every day before this one, but I can't be absolutely sure, can I? When I say a rock is hard, is that faith? Faith in my senses? When I say that I exist, is that faith? Faith in myself? Is every observation faith-based?

And what is proof? Isn't the definition of proof based on faith? Faith in cause and effect?

You want to dismiss faith as belief in something without proof. But what is belief? Is believing in a scientific sense the same as religious belief? Do the religious scientifically believe in God? Do scientists religiously believe that a water molecule is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen? Do scientists even believe at all? Or do they know? Do the religious know there is a God? What's the definition of know?

As you can see, it's a damn slippery slope unless you're careful about terminology. When you start calling the basic assumptions of our perception of reality (like mathematic axioms) faith-based you suddenly find yourself on a slippery slope.

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: StormRider
I'

Basically, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. There is a very powerful theorem in Logic Theory by Godel(?) that kind of says that no matter your system of beliefs (the things you accept as true -- axioms) you can always construct a sentence where you cannot prove or disprove the truth of the sentence. I took this to be a mathematical way of saying "math/logic/science can never explain everything".

I wouldn't use any of those statements to hold up a bridge or diagnose a patient.

Can I ask what level of math courses you have taken? Have you've taken more advance math courses (senior level or graduate level) in set theory, logic and abstract algebra for example?

I was an electrical engineering major so I've taken the basic stuff like Calculus, Differential Equations, Partial Differential Equations, Complex Variables, Operational Mathematics (Laplace, Fourier Transforms), and Linear Algebra. But I liked math a lot so I also took Real Analysis, Fractals and Chaos Theory, Abstract Algebra, Point Set Topology, Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry, Numerical Analysis, Probability, Statistics, Introductory Combinatorics, Number Theory, Logic, Differential Geometry, and Discrete Math etc. I've also taken graduate level courses in Analysis, Differential Equations, and some others I've forgotten.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I sometimes see people who might have taken a Calculus course or two and think they understand all of mathematics and logic and proclaim that we shouldn't believe anything unless we can prove it and that everything can be explained by science and logic.

But if you just take some more deeper math courses you will encounter a mathematical proof that says there will always be mathematical statements that cannot be proved nor disproved.

Also, you would soon realize that we have something called axioms in math. From these axioms we prove other mathematical statements. But these axioms were never proven to be true -- we just assume them to be true because they are so self-evident. As I mentioned earlier, there is a mathematical statement that says "parallel lines cannot cross". Back in those days, people thought this statement could be proven true from other axioms. But it turned out it couldn't be proven true or false. So, one branch of mathematics assumed it to be true (Euclidean Geometry) and another branch (Non-Euclidean Geometry) assumed it to be false. And both mathematical systems have proven to be very useful in engineering and science (designing bridges etc).

But I digress. Math (and Science which uses math as it's foundation) has something called axioms which are statements we assume to be true. This is basically the same thing as having faith that they are true.

So, people who claim to only believe in science, math, and logic aren't much different from religious people in the sense that the very basic thing we believe in (Axioms or the existence of God) cannot be proven and are assumed to be true in our belief system.

Read the rest of the thread; we already went over this. Did you take all your other non-required courses post-bac?(just curious)

P.S. Math Major(Senior)

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Estrella
Ok, I will read what you are referencing links and/or books would be helpful.

This conversation has gone too far off-topic. Unfortunately Gödel gets invoked too much in discussions, and that was not my intent. I firmly believe that faith (a belief in something without proof) is a strong part of every atheist's life in fundamental ways.

I'll humor your interest, though:

Douglas Hofstadter has a popular book that touches on Gödel but I'm not a fan of it. Lots of computer geeks like it.

Decent intro: Godel's Proof by Ernest Nagel

Interesting article: "Gödel and the end of physics" by Stephen Hawking

Online video: Dangerous Knowledge

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Estrella
Ok, I will read what you are referencing links and/or books would be helpful.

This conversation has gone too far off-topic. Unfortunately Gödel gets invoked too much in discussions, and that was not my intent. I firmly believe that faith (a belief in something without proof) is a strong part of every atheist's life in fundamental ways.

I'll humor your interest, though:

Douglas Hofstadter has a popular book that touches on Gödel but I'm not a fan of it. Lots of computer geeks like it.

Decent intro: Godel's Proof by Ernest Nagel

Interesting article: "Gödel and the end of physics" by Stephen Hawking

Online video: Dangerous Knowledge

Lol, we all knew it would go somewhere around here. Isn't this the nature of all religious based threads on ATOT?

 

[1prophet]

What if God doesn't want to be proven and uses foolish and weak things like faith and preaching along with those the world considers fools that believe in them to confound those that think themselves strong, wise, and intelligent?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
What if God doesn't want to be proven and uses foolish and weak things like faith and preaching along with those the world considers fools that believe in them to confound those that think themselves strong, wise, and intelligent?

Then God's a bit of an asshole isn't he?

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: 1prophet
What if God doesn't want to be proven and uses foolish and weak things like faith and preaching along with those the world considers fools that believe in them to confound those that think themselves strong, wise, and intelligent?

Then God's a bit of an asshole isn't he?

I think God is having a good laugh right now.