Atheists, Fundimentalists: Two sides of the same coin.

This is a record of my first debate with an atheist after basically coming to the conclusion that there must be something outside reality that “breathes fire into equations and makes a universe for them to describe”.



This all came about as a result of a post I made (contained below) that was critical of the emerging trend for atheists to be just as annoying, dismissive, closed minded, and dare I say it even bigoted as the frothing fundamentalists they claim to despise.



Over time I have come to the conclusion that atheists of the modern American variety at least and possibly all from the modern era, and similarly modern fundamentalists, are two sides of the same coin and have come to define each other in a sort of self referencing polarizing recursion loop.



Or put more simply they merely look across the street and do the opposite of whatever the other guy is doing at the time. As an outsider I find this seriously amusing and can't help but hate the banal futility of it. And so with that concept in mind here was my response to a blog about some atheist being hassled by a door-to-door, and talking shit about him, quite inarticulately I might add.



I grow weary of the smugness of neo-atheists thinking they are clever for reposting ancient points of logic and evidence against a crowd that simply doesn't care. Coming up with these points may be clever, but really, with the nature of the Internet its not so clever to point this shit out anymore. The whole thing unless you're speaking from behind a press conference table or are doing it in your spare time between real acts of contribution smack of intellectual masturbation since you cant talk someone out of faith, and that only leaves people who already agree with you.



So without further delay here it is.

My post.

Atheists are just as much dickheads, just in a completely different way.



There is room for faith. What force enforces the physical law?



There may not be a catholic god or a personal god, and Jesus is obviously total bunk, but there is definitely something, and since whatever that something is keeps the universe and my brain running, it has my respect.



All this atheism shit is intellectual masturbation. Either people will figure it out on their own or they won't, other wise you're talking to a wall, or preaching to the choir. (pun intended)



A 5 year old knows there's no omnipotent all knowing all loving god, and a 12 year old can formulate the logical traps to prove it.

The ancient Greeks covered this back before god was a single entity.

You're not clever anymore. Get over yourselves and go do AI research or something if you wanna use your brain to help humanity.



Odds are the lot of you are as banal and worthless as the typical church goer.



Edit:

Parallaxblue made a good comment, which I hope he wont mind me reposting publicly.

"Some atheists may be as "banal and worthless as the typical church

goer", but at least they're not totally deluded... unlike most church

goers. =)"



To which I Reply.



Actually that's my point, they are. In that they think they have reality all figured out.



Sure they admit to ignorance of the details, which they secretly consider minor, but generally, they think they have a "good bead on things".



Theists are no different, they admit to ignorance of god's day to day activities but generally they think they too have a good picture of how reality works.



This confidence that internal limits equal external limits, and that perception equals reality, could just as easily be a delusion, that realization is pretty much what gave birth to Buddhism's fetish for emptiness.

Parallaxblue



I think you have to look at the underlying evidence supporting those beliefs, don't you? On one hand, we have atheists, who generally point to countless scientific theories supported by the available evidence. On the other hand, we have theists.. who usually point to an extremely old book written by men.. or they don't cite any evidence at all.



I think this sums it up quite nicely: http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png



Let me rephrase my initial comment: Some atheists may be as "banal and worthless as the typical church goer", but at least they don't rely on blind faith to support their beliefs... unlike most church goers.



And before you fall back on your belief that SOMETHING must have created the universe etc etc, whether it be God or Allah or whichever divine being you care to name, I should point out that that argument itself



1. cannot be proven or disproven,

2. there is no evidence to support it in any case,

3.to borrow from a book of mine, "it is a philosophical error enunciated by Shelley: 'We can only infer from effects causes exactly adequate to those effects.' The notion that God [or in your case, SOMEBODY/SOMETHING] produced evolution or the big bang (an unwitting reversion to the "clockmaker" analogy of eighteenth-century Deism) is supernumerary: since evolution and the big bang are themselves sufficient to explain the phenomena at hand, the addition of God becomes, logically, otiose."

You misunderstand completely and you've hidden that misunderstanding quite well.



I of course grant that atheists are more likely to have it right because of their reliance on evidence, but I only grant that because of past experience, and a level of faith in the fact that said experience is both real and a good indicator of the future. My point is that they reject exterior options as non existent merely because acceptance of them would invalidate their life's position, which is exactly the same as a theist reaction to scientific conclusions.



You misunderstand science in this context. It depends on the physical constants both being enforced and remaining constant. But what force does this? What ever it is, it cannot be described by science, by definition what else could it be then but supernatural or put another way outside nature?



Science is a description for what is, it can only answer 'how'.



Religion and philosophy answer 'why' and evidence does not come into play, as why is a purely subjective assessment. You can't prove a why, you can merely infer it strongly.



Our existence is proof that we exist, even if we are a causal, you may safely proceed to the second point. Physical law itself is proof.



No technology can alter the laws of physics themselves because they are based upon those laws. And since the laws don't change there can never be both an experimental and control group. Because even if you find a way to suspend the laws in a given area that technique would merely be included into our understanding or description of physical law. You cannot change the rules, you can merely work with and or around them.

From http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/34UnconvincingArgumentsforGod.pdf



"Any physical 'law' is merely an observed regularity. It's not something handed down by a celestial tribunal. According to physics and astronomy professor Victor Stenger: 'It is commonly believed that the laws of physics lie outside physics. They are thought to be either imposed from outside the universe or built into its logical structure. Recent physics disputes this. The basic laws of physics are mathematical statements that have the form they do in an attempt to describe reality in an objective way. The laws of physics are just what they would be expected to be if they came from nothing.'"

Recent physics disputes this.

BS. I keep up with contemporary physics.

Any physical 'law' is merely an observed regularity

Yes a regularity that we have never seen a single variance of EVER. Regularity is defined by occasional irregularity to provide contrast, the laws of physics to our knowledge have never changed, if one did even slightly it would invalidate the entire concept of experimentation. Physical law is absolute.



That refutation of the point is sophist meandering crap and is just as silly and self serving as aged creation.



You draw a false dilemma fallacy from me, you keep trying to imply what I believe. Don't link me to atheist crap I've read it all probably before you did. I've been on the net since I was 16 and I've been an theist since I was about 12 and I grew up in the bible belt. Attacking faith was my chief activity as a teen.



But I got past it because there are questions no experimentation can answer. Godel has shown us that modeling the universe completely is not possible without including states that are both true and unprovable.



You need to read GEB, and something other than the oh so catchy atheist pages, which amount to choir preaching and as I said before intellectual masturbation.



The laws of physics cannot be changed or studied form inside them, that's basic logic.

The laws of physics are just what they would be expected to be if they came from nothing."

There is no basis to make that statement other than vested interest, and twisting facts to fit theory. One cannot have "nothing" in the lab and then inject new physical law into it. There is no experimental set for that sort of claim, it boils down to opinion and faith.



But it's ok, you'll get it eventually.



I'm done, if you want to continue challenge me on debate.com, you alone are not worth my time and I don't feel like turning our conversation up to this point into a public post.



At which point he responded. So rather than waste my time arguing with one person, I decided to make it a blog post since I don't think I've had cause to write about this topic yet. And hey PB, disproven isn't a word, It should be I agree, but it isn't.

"Yes a regularity that we have never seen a single variance of EVER. Regularity is defined by occasional irregularity to provide contrast, the laws of physics to our knowledge have never changed, if one did even slightly it would invalidate the entire concept of experimentation. Physical law is absolute."



As I just got through pointing out to you, physical laws are mathematical statements that humans have created, based on all human observations thus far. In essence, they are THEORIES about how the universe operates. If new evidence surfaces that contradicts them, it does not invalidate experimentation at all. Quite to the contrary... Did you even look at the flowchart I sent you?



http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png



Start from "Discover new evidence". Thus, the laws of physics are definitely NOT absolute, inasmuch as they are theories that fit the observed evidence so far. They can and in all probability will be revised in the future.



Thus, the laws of physics are definitely NOT absolute, inasmuch as they are theories that fit the observed evidence so far.

God does not play dice. I'm not talking about our written interpretation of those laws, I'm talking about the physical realities we model them after. Like atheists are so found of pointing out reality is that which when you stop believing in it remains. Electron is just a word and a concept I grasp that but it's also a descriptor that matches a physical reality. That physical reality doesn't change, something prevents that change, something forces it to exist.



You say an object moves because you've applied force to it but what is force? Force is just a word for a reality. Do you understand? Here's how I thought about it as a child. I would squeeze my thumb and finger together. What keeps my finger from passing through my thumb? So I looked it up in the library before there were search engines. I know the classical answer, electrostatic repulsion or the like. But what enforces that behavior? What makes electrons and such behave as they do?



What ever that is, effectively cannot be anything but a god. Even if you go the route of claiming that the laws support themselves in some sort of bootstrap paradox, that merely avoids the question and brings up a better one, why does existence exist? Or again as hawking stated, “Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” And I don't mean in the 'first place', since I grasp the concept of acausality, I'm saying at all, at any point. And again whatever that answer is, must be godlike by inescapable logic. Regardless of its nature, even if I'm a simulation in a jar, or a dream, whatever is in a position to tap on the glass, or wake up from me, compared to me, is godlike.



It's really quite simple. So simple in fact that I missed it for a couple of decades.

Which brings me to your other point. Just because we have never seen a single variance of these physical laws, does not mean that there is no variance. Sadly, the absence of evidence does not equal proof.

Actually absence of evidence is evidence of absence that's actually a key requirement of the atheist position.

Indeed, it is very likely that there is a variance somewhere in the universe, as Earth is only a tiny speck in the universe. Our sphere of experimentation and observation is thus quite limited.

But you tried to use physics as a refutation of my point, which is it? Are physics reliable or not? Is our understanding reliable or not? If so, then as above. If not, then argument is futile and everything boils down to faith. You've painted yourself into a corner somewhat on that one.

"'The laws of physics are just what they would be expected to be if they came from nothing.'

There is no basis to make that statement other than vested interest, and twisting facts to fit theory. One cannot have 'nothing' in the lab and then inject new physical law into it. There is no experimental set for that sort of claim, it boils down to opinion and faith."

What that statement means is that it does not matter if you assume that there is a God or assume that there isn't, it is irrelevant in regards to the laws of physics. As I pointed out earlier:



"The notion that God produced evolution or the big bang [or, say, the laws of physics?] is supernumerary: since evolution and the big bang [and the laws of physics] are themselves sufficient to explain the phenomena at hand, the addition of God becomes, logically, otiose."

The big bang is not sufficient, the big bang is a predictive singularity, there is no physical reason for it or way to explain why it occurred or explain what existed before, if anything. As I said before I understand acausality, but my position stands as a matter of logic. Even if the big bang is merely a part of cyclic eternal loop, why does the loop bother existing? That is a question science, experimentation, and all forms of observation cannot answer.



And that's why we need (non institutional) religion (and science). Not to tell us what to eat or who to kill, but to help us answer for ourselves the greatest question of all, the mother of science.



Why?



And to share our answers with each other. Hopefully with our eyes open and in peace. The trouble begins when science pretends to know why or religion pretends to know how.



This is the real meaning of Einstein's statement. “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” - Albert Einstein

So we are indeed down to opinion and faith here. A divine being's hand in evolution, the big bang, etc etc. can be neither proven nor disproven, but so far there is no evidence to support it. And as lack of evidence does not equal proof, there is only probability.

I covered that above, lack of evidence is evidence of absence. The existence of existence is proof of my position. Like a person standing in front of you is proof they didn't explode last week.

Even if scientific truth is not quite as definitive as it was thought to be in the nineteenth century, some things are still far more likely to be true than others; religion is not one of them.

I'm not saying that because I can observe reality that one must therefor not eat pork, and Jesus was a white guy rather than a parable anthropomorphizing the procession of the equinoxes. I'm saying that there are questions beyond the scope of science to answer. And to reject that fact derived form evidence, is faith. I've just demonstrated the contrary. As did Godel and a thousand others in various ways.



And that's pretty much where Cryptarianism (the name I've given to my world view) comes from. :)

"Actually absence of evidence is evidence of absence that's actually a key requirement of the atheist position."



Ironically, the Wikipedia article you linked in your post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) says the argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. So no, it can't be used. Believers aren't the only ones to use common logical fallacies to back up their arguments.

Clearly you've not been paying attention. The fact that it is a logical fallacy was and is preciously my point. Since you totally misunderstood the wiki article, which I admit is a bit esoteric, I'll provide you with pretty much the same point, only explained from a probability theory perspective.



*links below*



The pertinent bits being...



“But in probability theory, absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. “



Since you brought up probability, this is particularly shattering to your main argument.



Further...



“...it is futile to trumpet the absence of a weakly permitted observation when many strong positive observations have already been recorded. But if there are no positive observations at all, it is time to worry; hence the Fermi Paradox.”



Hence you argument, that the laws of physics are probably unstable despite them having been stable for the entire history of science, falls apart as it is a fallacy much like the creationist argument of fossil gaps bring proof of God.

"But you tried to use physics as a refutation of my point, which is it? Are physics reliable or not? Is our understanding reliable or not? If so, then as above. If not, then argument is futile and everything boils down to faith. You've painted yourself into a corner somewhat on that one."



I guess you missed it, but -- I was attempting to point out that the laws of physics as currently formulated are really nothing more than theories describing how the universe works, from the experimentation and observation that we have been able to perform thus far. So far, yes, they are reliable. However, in the future, we may find that there are variances to the laws of physics. In that case, the laws will simply have to be modified to explain the variances, or reformulated altogether. That is the scientific method. In any case, they are definitely not absolute.

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that I'm referring to the actuality of physical law and not our descriptors of it? How many more ways can I state my position? Obviously, our understanding and description of how an electron behaves changes with experimentation and time, but the actuality of that behavior does not. In fact it must not, or else the building of understanding via evidence and observation becomes impossible.

"As I said before I understand acausality, but my position stands as a matter of logic. Even if the big bang is merely a part of cyclic eternal loop, why does the loop bother existing? That is a question science, experimentation, and all forms of observation cannot answer."



Do you see the flaw in your logic there? You say you understand acausality, and I take that to mean you both understand and agree that not everything has to have a cause. That includes the loop itself, does it not? :) Thus, our argument is over: the loop does not have to have a cause to exist if you accept acausality.

No it doesn't because it's outside itself. You're basically arguing set theory. A set may be acausal, but my question is why are we here to observe the set? Why are sets in existence? To say that sets spawn themselves is a loop and boils down to a turtles all the way down argument. Look at the duality of existence and non existence. You act like reality is a blank sheet of paper on which events are drawn, I'm saying there is no answer we can prove to the question of why is there paper and a desk to begin with. It is generally granted that prior to the big bang space and time as we know it (or perhaps at all) did not exist. The question science cannot answer is why did this event occur?



Analogy: A child receives the plans for a time machine from a strange man along with a coded message. He decodes the message and finds that the strange man was himself and he is instructed to build a time machine and take the plans back to himself as a child along with the coded message.



The time machine is acausal, in that it has no definite starting point. However, the question remains, where did the time machine come from? There is no way to answer that from within the loop. Reality is exactly like this.

If you do NOT accept acausality, you must then take the position that some being had to create the universe etc. This is known as the First Cause Argument. An objection to it is simply who created the creator? and so on, and so forth. Creators ad infinitum. Quite a problem!

Now we arrive at the false dilemma again. I'm well aware of the First Cause Argument, and it is fallacious precisely because it is used as a stipulation of unrelated things. I am making no such stipulations. In fact I'll grant that perhaps physics as we know it in some way spawned this thing, but my point is, regardless of it's origin, it is our origin and we cannot understand it from where we are. I am not saying there are turtles all the way down, I'm merely saying we are clearly standing on something other then ourselves, even if what we are standing on is the result of ourselves. You straw man me by claiming that I claim a personal intelligent creator that cares who I sleep with, or what I eat on Sundays. I am not.



I am not saying that because this thing is unknowable, it must be anything other than unknowable.



I understand why you're not seeing this. And explaining it to you will help me explain it to others. What we're dealing with here is the 'living embodiment' if you will, of the incompleteness theorem. Since reality must be a complete set, it must therefor contain statements which are both true and unprovable(via experimentation or otherwise.) Its supports are one example, perhaps the only example, of such a statement(see link below). You must grant the existence of such things or you grant the incompleteness of reality itself which would be a paradox.



That unprovable truth, that physical underpinning to physical law itself, is the only room left for something in my opinion that it worthy of outright worship. In much the same way the ancient people's worshiped the sun, not out of fear, but out of reverence. I marvel at the mystery of it. And speaking as a scientist and a philosopher I am quite pleased that I've found a problem that I know I (nor anyone else bound by physical law) can never solve.

The only way you can get out of the dilemma of infinite creators is to argue that the creator itself is not subject to the rules of cause and effect, or any other rule in the universe. Very convenient for you, no? Unfortunately, that leads us right back to a simple question of faith: is there a creator who is not subject to the rules of the universe? You say yes, I say no. And we are at a stalemate.

Your fetish for it not A then B statements rivals my own. But again, I must cry straw man. I am not putting the choice to you: A. Reality popped (banged?) into existence without cause. Or B. A creator not subject to any laws willed it.



I'm offering up a third option, which is the source of my religion. A synthesis of the two. C. We can never know what enforces the laws and/or spawned our universe. Think of it as a sort of cosmological militant (strong?) agnosticism. I don't know where existence came from and neither do you.



Your claim of understanding from a perspective where it is impossible to gain that understanding, is as arrogant as the one made by creationists. You create a theory to fit the facts, just as fundamentalists do, you claim it to be flawless, just as fundamentalists do. The one and only difference is they lie about changing their theory up from time to time, you boldly admit your change and claim that because you change yours it is therefor correct.



This is not a wash. This simple, (but not easy) deduction.



http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/absence-of-evid.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything#With_reference_to_G.C3.B6del.27s_incompleteness_theorem

**Pastes of previous points removed due to redundancy.**

But you previously claimed that whatever force created and enforces those laws must be godlike, correct? Do you or do you not believe in some supreme being or force that created/enforces these laws and the universe? Are you going back on your own argument? Which I believe was the following:

**Pastes of previous points removed due to redundancy.**

Correct. Yes I do. No I'm not. But I must clarify. By being I meant merely “thing which is” or BE-ing. I do not pretend to have any knowledge of it beyond its existence/presence.

If you claim some godlike force created/enforces these laws and the entire universe, you are arguing for a supreme being based on the fact that we don't know for sure what caused the universe to come into being and what holds the universe together via the laws of nature.

No, but close. I argue based on the fact that we cannot know at all what caused the universe to come into being or what holds the universe together under any circumstances which are real and so long as logic remains constant.

I'll readily admit I don't know and neither does anyone else.

Good then answer me this. Do you have any reason other than faith to assume that we'll ever know?

But to then leap to the conclusion that a supreme being must have created/done it just because we lack any other explanation than "it just happened" is the time immemorial knee-jerk reaction that humans have always fallen prey to.

I've provided another explanation. A dualistic equation. I imagine the universe as a yin yang effectively. Our side is definable, stable, consistent, visible, and all the other traits associated with what we call reality. But it has inherent limits that even we can detect, and we're just microbes effectively. This is not a new cosmology, I don't pretend special knowledge. I'm merely saying that I know there must be something outside, or at least the universe has gone to great lengths to make it appear that way. I grant that it may have “just happened” but the question remains “Why?”. And Why cannot be answered ever via experimentation evidence or observation. It can only be answered via faith. You try to claim stalemate, or offer draw, and I appreciate the gesture, and normally would accept, but you've not even acknowledged my point, much less refuted it, and while that may be a failing that is ultimately my fault due to poor expression, it is a failing non the less.

The answer is out there, but I think we're not sufficiently advanced enough in our understanding of the universe to see or understand it just yet; perhaps we never will, as I also think there are definite limitations to our intelligence: We may not even be able to grasp the answer with our limited intellect.

Which suggests a sort of weak cosmological agnosticism. My position is that there is strong evidence that we can never know it, which in terms of my formal response is basically the incompleteness theorem and a general supposition that existence in and of itself is sufficient to prove some things. Which is of course up for debate thanks to solipsism and cognitive problems such as proof of exterior thought, and what is the nature of proof in the first place.

To conclude, then, your answer to the question of why existence bothers existing is "there must be some sort of force who did it!" (which, by the way, still locks you into the ad infinitum creators problem,) and my answer is that "it just happened" via the big bang. After all, not everything needs a cause.

That smacks mainly to me of the same sort of logical hoops theists jump through. “not everything needs a cause” is an axiom, and I'll point out, an unprovable one. Put another way what I think you are saying is not anything in existence needs a cause. Is that fair? Because my point is precisely that everything taken as a single whole, does need a cause even if that cause is itself. Which again merely catapults us firmly into Why country.

Especially the existence of the universe, because if you think about it there must have been some sort of "base" that depended on nothing but itself.

That's what I meant earlier by blank sheet of paper, it doesn't have to be that way, I don't want us to get stuck in a loop so I'll just say scroll up heheh. Think of it this way, what would an intelligent character in a video game be able to infer about our world? Almost nothing beyond the fact that there was something out there. That's pretty much where we stand. Will you grant that perhaps you are not seeing my point as a result of some sort of cognitive limitation? To make you feel better I'll even frame that limitation in flattering terms. Perhaps you don't understand because you're sane and therefor cannot understand?

I say that was the big bang. Religious people say it was God. In any case, we are back to opinion and faith once more. You have not really proved anything, and neither have I.

Nope, because my position is a positive assertion of a negative reality. You claim A they claim B, I make no claim, save that all claims in this context are unprovable and will remain so as long as our universe in this form exists. Which in and of itself is a strange loop.

I know that you look at faith with disgust because of the radical misuses of it. As well you should. Faith should not be used in place of reason. However, the reverse is also true. Reason in some instances is also inappropriate and applied to the wrong places and turn mathematics into numerology, and astronomy into astrology, and cosmology into a creation myth.

Science answers How, based on evidence. Religion answers Why, based on faith.

Both are integral to understanding. Both are crippled if taken as totalities.

P.S. I'm enjoying this immensely, I would never have been able to clarify my position so completely without someone else to ask the right questions or make the correct counter claims. I need the 'opposition' for lack of a better word, to be complete. Which is why I debate at all. It is an effort to know myself through others.

Thank you for your time and effort. :)

So, you are stating here that some entity does exist.

Yes but 'entity' has misleading connotations. I have no reason to think it takes action, is sentient, or is even connected to our physical system. Think of it as an event outside the universe, a secondary physical system. I know you desperately want me to give it a white beard but as much as you want that to be the case given how easy that position is to destroy, it isn't the case and I wish you'd quit trying.

But here, you are stating that we cannot know at all. Thus implying that you do not know whether or not some entity exists.

So which is it? Are you arguing that some entity does exist, or are you arguing that we cannot know at all? Later on, I think you clarify that "we cannot know at all" by suggesting faith as the only method to answer "why".

By ”know” I sometimes mean definitively and absolutely prove, which is why Godel is relevant. Sorry for the confusion, my vocabulary has limits just like the universe, and I refuse to qualify everything I say. The evidence can only be circumstantial. Much like a black hole and other indirectly observable phenomena.

If you argue that there is some entity that brought the universe into being etc. you are still caught in the ad infinitum creators dilemma.

Only if you demand a linear interpretation and claim to understand the physics and logic of this outside area, which you have no reason to do. As I've said the only thing I can know about it is that it is there. There is nothing else, which is why 99.999...% of organized religion is conjecture or outright lies.

On the other hand, if you argue that we cannot know at all, I respond that yes, there is a possibility that we may never know.. but that there is also a possibility that we will know, through future science.

No there isn't. See Godel. You are expressing faith in the face of reason. Which is my entire point.

Science has answered many unanswerable questions before this, and it will answer many more. Thus there is a possibility at least that it will answer "why" as well.

I'm sure you believe that, but you have no evidence. Why is a personal subjective. What are are claiming is akin to saying that some day science will be able to prove which color is best. Or claiming that there will be a technology one day capable of building square circles.

Here we get to the heart of your argument and the clarification I mentioned earlier:

Let's take apart your argument and examine it, then.

First of all, in your initial assumption that we cannot ever know, you seem to be leaping to conclusions about our future ability to answer "why" based on our present capabilities. At the present time, no.. we cannot answer "why". In the future.. there is a possibility that we will be able to. But you cannot take our present inability to answer "why" and assume that will always be the case. That is rather unrealistic in light of what science has accomplished so far.

See above.

For the sake of argument, let's assume your initial assumption, that we cannot ever know "why". In that case, you are correct: faith offers the only answer because it requires no evidence (and evidence for "why" is what we would not ever have.)

But the problem is, as I've pointed out, your initial assumption: that we will never be able to know by any other method. It is faulty because it seems to be based on extrapolating our current inability to answer "why" to the future as well. That is an unrealistic assumption to make, and furthermore, it is destructive to science and the pursuit of knowledge, which has flourished as a result of asking "why" even if it seems no one can find an answer. As I pointed out before, many such supposedly unanswerable questions have been answered throughout history using science and the scientific method.

Godel, square circles, see above. There are limits. The idea that your science has no limit is as childish as saying your god is all powerful. Which is basically an extension of 'my dad can beat up your dad', and its silly to me.

And so, we are again back to opinion and faith. I have "faith", if it can be called that, in science.. which has answered many supposedly unanswerable questions in human history; and you have faith in some unknowable entity who created the universe. In which case, who was its creator? ad infinitum etc etc etc. and the only solution to that ALSO requires faith.

No, I have reason to believe as I do, you don't. You are making property assumptions about the outside of reality, which is the intellectual equivalent of attempting to predict past a singularity.

By the way, I don't think you can cite Gödel's incompleteness theorem to prove that we can never know, because apparently it does have limitations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem#Limitations_of__G.C3.B6del.27s_theorems

In particular: "The conclusions of Gödel's theorems only hold for the formal systems that satisfy the necessary hypotheses (which have not been fully described in this article)."

That's exactly like saying evolution is just a theory and therefor cannot be cited as evidence. Of course it has limits. Everything does except perhaps the application of limits. :) ...like the statement “There is an exception to every rule except this one.” That's a huge part of my primary point.

You'll notice I didn't answer many of your points in this post. Take that how you will. I'm tried of repeating myself. I am not trying to convince you but merely answer general questions about my view publicly. I've answered your points in previous statements but you refuse to apply those answers, or put another way you're simply not convinced so you merely repeat yourself.

I will not participate in a loop with you. If you fail to present new arguments this will mark the end of our exchange.

“A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” - Max Planck

Thank you for your help in forming this paper. If I am not going to edit the body of this post further I will inform you so that you may comment if you wish, I just wont be responding to old data.

---

I think you forgot to add in:



"One can trivially define a formal system in which it is possible to prove the existence of God, simply by having the existence of God stated as an axiom. (This is unlikely to be viewed by atheists as a convincing proof, however.)

No, I've just covered it before, like I said. The phrase “as an axiom” merely means taking it as a given truth rather than deducing it from evidence which goes right back to faith vs evidence and contributes to the argument, not one whit.

I've read every square centimeter of infidels.org. You keep pasting things at me like I'm some mind wiped door to door propaganda zombie that's just going to foam at the mouth and head asplode at the sight of logic. My entire point was that both groups are zombies as your deaf parroting of other's work amply shows.

It may be possible to succeed in producing a formal system built on axioms that both atheists and theists agree with. It may then be possible to show that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem holds for that system.

That's is as ridiculous as saying it make be able to craft a square circle so long as the laws of geometry can be placated. Institutionalized religion, and misunderstanding in general are caused in part by language's ability to express absurd contradictory concepts and have them appear reasonable at first glance. This is the nature of deception. 'Oh look a square without corners!' Just because you can say it doesn't mean it is so. Look up infidels page on ontological argument for a bit of data about just saying something to make it real.

However, that would still not demonstrate that it is impossible to prove that God exists within the system.

I say this with all possible respect but the previous sentence is literally non-sense to me. Isn't that a double negative? What is being argued here? That one ca prove god exists within the previously stated imposable system? Well, yea. But that's hardly a point since its the third floor on a building with no foundation.

Furthermore, it certainly wouldn't tell us anything about whether it is possible to prove the existence of God generally.

Still building castles in the sky, with the foundation of the argument shattered all subsequent points are meaningless. I don't feel its needed to even comment, but my reasoning for doing so will become clear shortly, Biff.

Note also that all of these hypothetical formal systems tell us nothing about the actual existence of God; the formal systems are just abstractions."

That's, as I said before, like saying evolution is just a theory. Every event in observable reality can be represented by numbers. Godel's work tells us something about the nature of numbers, and thus reality, which again is an argument I already explained. Once again, as small as I can make it.

I claim that math is like reality. Godel shows that math must contain unprovable statements if it is complete. Now, since math can be either complete or incomplete, because we made it, and are still making it, then yes, the argument that 'its just an abstraction' can hold. However, reality is complete, so there's no option, it must contain statements that are unprovable. Therefor the 'its just an abstraction' argument falls apart, since we're not talking about an abstraction. Now you may claim “Godel could be wrong, math might not be like reality.” and you may be right but that boils down again to a matter of faith. Which once again, for the cheap seats... Was My Entire Point From The Very Beginning.

From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#godel



That is part of my argument. Add it in and provide a rebuttal to it or I will most certainly call you out on it in public.

No body calls me chicken, I better hurry up and do as I'm told to prove how manly I am.... *snicker* God forbid (pun intended) I should be 'called out in public' ...on the blog I've taken great pains to spread as far and wide as I possibly can. :P

But semi-seriously, the nation of Brandon does not negotiate with terrorists. I will here after no longer respond like Marty McFly, to what amounts to cries of 'chicken'.

I consider the matter closed, I've crushed your points of logic and presented my faith in opposition to yours. Any further argument would be akin to an “enterprise vs the death star” debate. ...I've clearly stated that the enterprise would win, and that's that. :)

Let history judge us both.

You may comment at your leisure. I will no longer be responding. The last word, is most likely yours.