Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem:
The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century
In 1931, Kurt Gödel delivered a devastating blow to the mathematicians of his time
In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.
Gödel’s discovery not only applied to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has truly earth-shattering implications.
Oddly, few people know anything about it.
Allow me to tell you the story.
Mathematicians love proofs. They were hot and bothered for centuries, because they were unable to PROVE some of the things they knew were true.
So for example if you studied high school Geometry, you’ve done the exercises where you prove all kinds of things about triangles based on a list of theorems.
That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.
Yes, it does seem perfectly reasonable that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions, but no one has been able to PROVE that. We can only demonstrate that they are a reasonable, and in fact necessary, set of 5 assumptions.
Towering mathematical geniuses were frustrated for 2000+ years because they couldn’t prove all their theorems. There were many things that were “obviously” true but nobody could figure out a way to prove them.
In the early 1900′s, however, a tremendous sense of optimism began to grow in mathematical circles. The most brilliant mathematicians in the world (like Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Ludwig Wittgenstein) were convinced that they were rapidly closing in on a final synthesis.
A unifying “Theory of Everything” that would finally nail down all the loose ends. Mathematics would be complete, bulletproof, airtight, triumphant.
In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible.
Gödel’s discovery was called “The Incompleteness Theorem.”
If you’ll give me just a few minutes, I’ll explain what it says, how Gödel discovered it, and what it means – in plain, simple English that anyone can understand.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
| Stated in Formal Language:
Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.” The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness. Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.) Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete. Syllogism: 1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete 2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system 3. Therefore the universe is incomplete |
You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates which are clearly true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.
You can draw a circle around a bicycle but the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.
Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language or philosophy.
And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.
Gödel created his proof by starting with “The Liar’s Paradox” — which is the statement
“I am lying.”
“I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true.
So Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted the Liar’s Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that any statement requires an external observer.
No statement alone can completely prove itself true.
His Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the “positivism” of the time. Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic.
Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.
He wasn’t wrong. It was really true. There are more things than are true than you can prove.
A “theory of everything” – whether in math, or physics, or philosophy – will never be found. Because it is impossible.
OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?
Here’s what it means:
- Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
- All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
- You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
- Reasoning inward from a larger circle to a smaller circle is “deductive reasoning.”
Example of a deductive reasoning:
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal
- Reasoning outward from a smaller circle to a larger circle is “inductive reasoning.”
Examples of inductive reasoning:
1. All the men I know are mortal
2. Therefore all men are mortal
1. When I let go of objects, they fall
2. Therefore there is a law of gravity that governs falling objects
Notice than when you move from the smaller circle to the larger circle, you have to make assumptions that you cannot 100% prove.
For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time. You cannot prove that the universe is rational. You can only observe that mathematical formulas like E=MC^2 do seem to perfectly describe what the universe does.
Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. These laws rest on an assumption that the universe is logical and based on fixed discoverable laws.
You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.
(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws.)
Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):
- There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
- The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time
- The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)
- The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
- Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
- If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
- Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
- Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.
We can apply the same inductive reasoning to the origin of information:
- In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.5 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
- The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time
- All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
- Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.
In other words when we add information to the equation, we conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite and immaterial, it is also conscious.
Isn’t it interesting how all these things sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?
So it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.
The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!
Interesting aside…
If you visit the world’s largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement:
“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”
If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know that all logical systems must rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, the Infidels cannot be correct. If the universe is logical, it has an outside cause.
Thus atheism violates the laws of reason and logic.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem definitively proves that science can never fill its own gaps. We have no choice but to look outside of science for answers.
The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.
Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.
Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. It’s been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved it.
No time in the history of mankind has faith in God been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by science and mathematics.
Perry Marshall
“Without mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy.
Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics.
Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything.”
-Leibniz
“Math is the language God wrote the universe in.”
Further reading:
“Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel” by Rebecca Goldstein – fantastic biography and a great read
A collection of quotes and notes about Gödel’s proof from Miskatonic University Press
Formal description of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem on Wikipedia
Science vs. Faith on CoffeehouseTheology.com
Information Theory: “If you can read this, I can prove God exists”
Perry, it still looks to me as though several assumptions are being made. For instance, this topic is called “Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem”.
It’s not Godel’s Incompleteness LAW. It’s a theorem. So, even though it describes what we might not know about something else….the fact that it’s a theorem says that we can’t 100% know for sure that Godel’s perspective is right.
Take the first line: “Draw a circle around anything and you must go outside that circle to explain it.” That is certainly true with bicycles and gravity…..but just as you mentioned that the sun might NOT come up tomorrow (and that is taken on faith), it’s equally possible that Godel’s theorem doesn’t apply to everything.
For instance, you stated that — if we draw a circle around the Universe (or all the possible Universes) — “there has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove”
That’s not necessarily true. We might not even need to assume it. It’s quite possible that drawing a circle around everything all the known universes would include a perfect explanation and provide a Single Unifying Law.
“The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.8 billion years time
The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself”. — Again, this is assumptive. How do you know that it cannot explain itself? This would only be a true statement if we actually had all the knowledge about the Universe (which we don’t).
“Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless.” There is nothing outside the circle. By any standard definition of “universe” or “universes”, if it exists, you’ve drawn a circle around it. It’s bad math to say “Draw a circle around all the known universes” and then to refer to something outside the universe. If there were something outside the circle, you would have drawn the circle to include it!
We can go on and on…but (with respect) this doesn’t seem to be a logical argument. It seems to be an argument based on certain presuppositions. And I’m not saying that’s good, bad, right or wrong….just that this argument has too many assumptions to conclude that there’s no possibility of a Unifying Theory.
Tony,
If Gödel can be shown to be wrong, then you have something to stand on.
80 years have gone by and no one has demonstrated a flaw in Gödel’s logic.
If Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem is true, then everything in my article directly and logically follows. Specifically, if we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and label it “Universe” then according to Incompleteness, there has to be something outside the universe that caused it.
If Gödel’s argument is logical, then my argument is also logical.
You are invited to demonstrate a flaw in Gödel’s logic if you can. And I will certainly be happy to post that argument here on my blog.
Perry Marshall
“I am lying.” Before I can lie I have to exist, and not only exist but conceive of myself. To conceive of myself I must split “me” as the subject that knows whether I am lying or not, from the “me” as an “object” that is either lying or not lying. That split is an artifice of the mind – reality is not split. It just “is”. That reality is not outside the circle of “me” as the subject, or “me” as the object that may or may not be lying. The perception of intelligence is merely the illusion of “self” as separate from reality. It is a trick of the mind.
All perception is the splitting of reality into a subject and an object.
Maybe you want to define god as the indivisible sum of all that is real? A bit superfluous, but it has it’s uses.
Steve,
A sum is divisible, so we can’t define God that way. We do have to define God as indivisible. God is one.
I like your explanation of perception. If we define God as self-aware, then we automatically invoke a splitting like what you refer to. Which is where the Trinity comes from. Self, expression of self, and self-understanding (Father / Son = WORD / Holy Spirit).
If you like my explanation of perception god cannot be self aware. I prefer god is just reality. This is my justification for my atheism.
Full awareness is to be one with reality, one with god, and the self disappears. As a self we use science to explore objective reality and spiritual practice to explore the subjective reality. Both are lies, but by knowing the lies the truth is revealed. You cannot know it and survive, there is no split. You cannot know reality as there is no knower.
IF there is no knower, then how do you KNOW that “you cannot know reality” and how do you KNOW that “there is no knower?”
I completely agree with Tony Rush that some ridiculous assumptions are being made on this page. I do not for a second doubt that the Incompleteness Theorem, if not necessarily true, is thus far unproven, and I cannot disprove it. The flaw that occurs on this page is not your explanation of the theorem, but the conclusions that are drawn are logically inconsistent. Using a complicated theorem as a premise for your logically flawed conclusions may be the simple result of over ambition.
Second, in your antagonistic response to a logical challenge to your authority, you commit many logical fallacies. First, despite the fact that Godel had nothing to do with the construction of your illogical conclusions, you seem to label him as one of your supporters. And, even if he was a suporter, the fact that you are discussing a distinct theorem means that his association does absolutely nothing to bolster your argument.
Also, you seem to have trouble understanding the concept of Infinity. The human brain has trouble understanding such a concept, and tends to limit Infinity to simply a very large finite number. You state, in your article, that the universe is finite. This is untrue, as it is proven that it is constantly expanding, and that it is already infinite in size. Uni- means one. There is absolutely nothing else. So, a circle cannot be drawn around it. You cannot create a circle that is larger than the largest. A circle is finite, but a universe is not. And even if the scientific understanding of the universe was as you declare it to be, as finite in nature, your conclusions would still be illogical. You say the universe is finite, and if the understanding of the universe is the encompassment of all things, material and immaterial, then there could be nothing outside of it.
Also, in your list of material things that would be inside the biggest possible circle, you include time. Time is not material. Its nature is essentially beyond human understanding. Why could time not be the ultimate controller, the 4th dimension that causes the universe to have orderly structure? Godel was a brilliant mathematician, but his flaw was his theology. Even for a believer in God, he was unusually pious for a mathematician. In an attempt to balance his strict theology with his far reaching mathematics, Godel ended up stretching his theorems to a realm they could not reach, which degraded his arguments. You are amplifying Godel’s mistakes. There will never be a logically sound proof of Divine Existence, because that belief defies logic, especially when Divine Existence is limited by the strict religious sense of the concept. I personally do not believe in God in the religious sense, but have no problem with accepting the fact that people do believe in God. If they manage to get something out of it, then more power to them. But when theologians attempt to bring logic and mathematics into the picture, they are defying the physical extent of the human understanding. Coupling that with your personal logical fallibility makes this page a logical failure.
1. All the mainstream scientific literature I have ever found says the universe is finite. When you said the universe is expanding you contradicted your own statement that it is infinite. Please provide empirical support for your claim that the universe is infinite.
2. I do not define the universe as the encompassment of all things material and immaterial. I define it as all observable matter, energy, space and time.
3. You ask, “Why could time not be the ultimate controller, the 4th dimension that causes the universe to have orderly structure?” It’s not my job to disprove your conjectures. Perhaps you could describe why and how time could be the ultimate controller. I await your explanation.
4. Please elaborate on Gödel’s mistakes.
5. You said, “There is absolutely nothing else.” Prove it.
6. It’s rather telling that almost every atheist who debates me here is anonymous or operates under a pseudonym. What are y’all afraid of?
Perry said: “We do have to define God as indivisible.
I like your explanation of perception. If we define God as self-aware, then we automatically invoke a splitting like what you refer to. Which is where the Trinity comes from. Self, expression of self, and self-understanding (Father / Son = WORD / Holy Spirit).”
God is both indivisible and splittable? This would seem to be a contradiction.
Dictionary definition of split: to divide into distinct parts.
God is Love.
Love is indivisible. This is why God is indivisible, because God is love.
Self, expression of self, and self-understanding in a context of perfect love know no division. Jesus said, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”
Let me build you a universe that proves you don’t need anything “outside” in terms of assumptions.
Imagine a fishbowl. Inside the fishbowl lives a little goldfish. Now, the goldfish can measure it’s lifespan, it can develop a philosophy on life, etc… Furthermore, it can measure the extent of it’s universe, the size of the fishbowl, it can measure the composition of everything inside it’s universe, the oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc…
Now, for our purposes, erase the reality we perceive, outside of the fishbowl. The fish still exists within it’s universe, the outside world doesn’t need to exist for the inside world to exist (yes, you’ll argue the fishbowl and water, etc… had to come from somewhere, but that’s not the point of the argument, the point is that I can measure my universe without requiring anything on the outside of it). And, just like the fish we exist within our fishbowl universe, and there is nothing outside of it.
Now, I can make ‘assumptions’ regarding where my universe came from, but that is my human nature to try and put things in perspective. The universe could care less about my perspective.
This is the whole problem with your argument (and Godel’s), it is based upon perspective, human perspective through mathematics and logic. Worst thing we do as humans is when we validate our logic with mathematics to ‘prove’ our perspectives.
We don’t know if the universe ‘began’ with a big bang, it’s just the best ‘theory’ we have based on observations. Furthermore, even if the current visible universe did begin with a big bang, that does not mean the universe has not existed in other forms before and even without time (since time is theorized to have been created with the big bang). So, in theory, the universe, in some state or other, could be infinite in age and have no beginning or ending. That being the case, if it has no beginning, than a creator become wholly unnecessary.
Thank you.
If reason and logic are not to be used to prove the superiority of one perspective over another, then what are they to be used for?
According to what specific theory can the universe be of infinite age? Any such theory I’m aware of has to disregard the phenomenon of entropy, since an infinitely old series of universes would be cold and dead by now.
I do agree that if you discard reason and logic then a creator does become unnecessary. In fact one of the subtler themes in this thread is, if you posit that the universe is irrational then atheism can be a valid conclusion.
If you prefer that, it’s fine – let’s just be clear that you have chosen to embrace irrationality as the dominant lens for understanding the world.
I choose to believe that the universe is rational, discoverable, measurable, and describable in mathematical terms. I believe that the discoveries and principles of science are real and not an illusion. This necessarily makes the universe incomplete and this is one of the many reasons I believe in God.
Slow down a bit, first, I never said reason and logic are NOT to be used. I only stated that the “worst thing we do as humans is when we validate our logic with mathematics to ‘prove’ our perspectives.” Key to this statement is that we are not using reason and logic to determine what the “evidence” shows us. Instead, we take a perspective we want to believe, than use reason and logic to try and prove that perspective.
Second, there is no theory that currently even tries to explain what existed before the big bang. However, since “time itself” was created with the big bang, than by ‘reason and logic’ whatever form the universe existed in before than (singularity for example) would have existed outside of time, and the only way to even remotely explain that is to use the term ‘infinite’.
So no, I am not disregarding reason and logic, and I hope my further clarifications will make my explanations easier to understand. By reason and logic, a creator is unnecessary. Through faith we embrace a creator. A lack of faith cannot be replaced by reason and logic, it’s like a bandaid over a mortal wound, it simply will not heal.
Greg,
My position is precisely what you said: the only way to even remotely explain that is to use the term ‘infinite’.
That which is outside of space and time is infinite. And indivisible. I believe that everything I stated in my article is entirely logical, and that which logic tells us has to be outside the universe bears a striking resemblance to God.
Yes, faith is necessary. In some ways that’s what inductive reasoning is. I hope I have shown that all conclusions require faith, but that faith in God is a much shorter leap than the alternatives.
Atheists have a belief system. It is not just BASED on “no intelligence” is necessary for the creation of the universe and life.
Atheists have to insist on something further: it is IMPERATIVE that “no intelligent cause” have created the universe and life, now, or ever, whether forward or backward in time.
To be an Atheist you must INSIST that there is NOT an immensely powerful Mind or Being responsible for Creation — this Universe and its life.
So, first of all, to become an Atheist you must adopt and enforce a psychological prejudice that systematically resists from logically following any theorem as to why an intelligent greater being might exist.
So people who say they are Atheists are True Believers. They do not scientifically or philosophically allow any notions or explanations to the contrary.
Some people who say they are Atheists are simply philosophically lazy. It keeps them from having to get up off their mental couch and actually investigate TRUTH wherever the quest may take them.
But atheists, to offer a construction of a universe that does not include God or some supreme creative Being, must first CREATE their thought bubble.
Even the “argument” of an atheist requires a thought to form until it becomes a mind creation that an atheist must then express in a pre-determined code that we will necessarily decode before we can examine the atheist’s construction.
Greg, you propose a fish in a fish bowl. Never mind how the fish got there. Never mind how the water got there. Never mind how the bowl was filled with water. Never mind how the artificially crafted bowl got there.
And then, in the final conceit, say, in essence, let’s pretend WE outside the bowl do not exist. Well, the “WE” outside of the bowl who supplied the water, the fish, and the bowl were absolutely NECESSARY.
Our viewpoint and relative position would have been God’s position. But you say “And, just like the fish we exist within our fishbowl universe, and there is nothing outside of it.”
But your “example” can only exist IF we allow you to PRETEND —- shhhh, don’t tell anybody our secret— that nothing, by necessity, exists outside of that bowl.
And this is where science always must necessarily STOP for an Atheist.
All atheists are the little fishes swimming blindly in this bowl. As soon as science and math provide some LOGICAL reasons to investigate outside of the bowl, the atheist fishes must retreat to their hiding places under plastic castles.
I’m sorry, but you don’t understand Atheism or the purpose of science. I don’t pretend to know if there is or is not an intelligent designer. What I do know is, at this point, I have never seen evidence to support such an idea. Until that evidence arrives, I will continue to focus on learning things that are based in evidence and proof. I have no personal issue against a God or bias for not wanting there to be a God. I do however have a bias against drawing unfounded conclusions and drawing assumptions either for or against such a possibility. I take the default position of pondering all the options and waiting for evidence while focusing on what I can learn and what I can reason with the information available.
To add to my last post… the vast majority of what you posted would be fair criticisms of people that are “certain there is no god”. Equally, it is fair of people that are “certain there is a God”. Both have a fundamental bias towards their pre-existing beliefs, and are suffering from the same confirmation bias rather than looking for objective evidence.
Your criticisms regarding other people being “philosophically lazy” is fairly revealing. Stereotyping others, especially with a comment that could easily apply to people that agree with your ideas, is simply destructive. There are plenty of smart people on both sides of this debate… unfortunately, many are focused on proving ideas that simply cannot be proven at this time.
Rather than start with a result and find ways to prove it… why not start from the default position of uncertainty, and focus on gathering objective information to see where it takes you?
Rick Kettner,
You reply–
“Rather than start with a result and find ways to prove it… why not start from the default position of uncertainty, and focus on gathering objective information to see where it takes you?”
Unfortunately, believers and nonbelievers will always be at an impasse despite all logic. As a non-believer you start and end at the same place, year after year, you don’t know where you have been, you don’t know where you are going, and you lead yourself back into the same circular path in the woods. The footprints you see are always your own.
What God has said, to those that believe and take him at his word, “Start here, travel here, end here. I am the Alpha and the Omega. The Beginning and the End.”
You will waste your life pretending to be objective. Claiming yourself to be objective.
Rick, you sound very reasonable. Many reasonable people see this as one of their chief virtues.
My own experiences, direct miraculous experiences with the spirit of God who came down on me in seconds and spread through me such a gushing overflow of joy and UNDERSTANDING settle the question for me FOREVER.
What happened in that minute, with no drug but a sincere questing prayer directed not to some spirit, but with all respect and humility to the God who has named himself Jehovah, then continued to overwhelm me hour after hour. It was beyond nature and beyond pedantic discussions and forums and comments. I received what are classically called “revelations”.
The mind and spirit of God, not an Allah, not an elephant god, literally came inside me into my very core being and filled me in a split second with such enormous revelations and joy, JOY. He even gave me knowledge and opened my eyes to see so clearly how dense I was, how blind, how clueless my own intellect. So much so that these discussions here are somewhat vexing.
The God who came to me and revealed himself to me was so far, far, inexorably far above mans’ reasoning that it makes this whole forum of “this and that and he said and he did not and yes he did” laughable in a way.
Except that what Perry is trying to say over and over and over is that it is NOT ILLOGICAL to consider the existence of God. And this is important for you to know and believe. Even smart people such as Perry Marshall have no problem stating WHY they believe what they believe in the face of so many clamoring objections.
To people such as Perry and yes, me, the objections we hear are so patently ludicrous when, for instance, you observe the blatantly, STUPENDOUSLY OBVIOUS pre-designed, pre-coded genetic instructions inside any, not just man, but ANY life form.
To Perry and to me it is screamingly outrageously a NO-BRAINER as to how scientifically and mathematically the case states itself. The case STATES ITSELF in no uncertain terms that the processes of life and reproduction just involving DNA alone are scientifically irrefutable.
Why so many otherwise “reasonable” scientists come to a screeching halt and run shrieking from the vast and unmistakable logical, mathematical, scientific EVIDENCE that our whole planet has been encoded internally with an unspeakably sophisticated and ELEGANT (“Godlike”) LANGUAGE.
When you look at the encoding of DNA you are physically looking at a language that was created in the mind of God. Not in the “mind” of his creation, but in his own mind. You are LOOKING at the inside of God’s mind, not fancifully, but in a very direct peephole into just a tiny part of his Genius.
Perry has given you over and over the reasons why you HAVE to believe and accept this. You HAVE TO not because Perry insists, but because science and math and common sense converge when you truly understand all of the pre-conditions for DNA and how it functions.
But, what you “reasonable” people don’t understand is that MORE UNDERSTANDING scientifically will occur when you accept God as the beginning, not the end of your knowledge.
If you are truly “objective” then you would have allowed the “hypothesis” that there is an Intelligent Design long enough, as you say “—to see where it takes you-”
The truly objective person would have said, okay, let me start my investigation WITH the “theorem” that God is responsible for the things I see.
For the next year I will take my examinations down that path with scientific rigor.
Few scientists, apparently, are brave enough to buck the trend of their peers and follow such an enquiry to its honest end (and beginning).
I’m not saying it is illogical to consider the possibility of a “God”. However, there is absolutely no reason to consider it above other possibilities. We simply do not have the evidence to settle on either side of this equation yet. I’ve looked closely at the different possibilities and cannot see how anyone could conclude either way with honest certainty. Pretending to be able to validate such a view is a result of knowingly or unknowingly engaging in confirmation bias through selective inductive reasoning.
“The truly objective person would have said, okay, let me start my investigation WITH the “theorem” that God is responsible for the things I see.”
This statement betrays your overwhelming bias towards one specific option. There is no reason to start with “God” over another possible option other than to want to confirm an existing bias. I grew up religious and have no real issue with religion besides the fact it simply claims to know something it can’t. I’ve also considered the alternatives and see no reason to assume there is no God.
Therefore, our only practical move is to further human understanding within an honest framework of knowledge. Simply flaming the fire of a propaganda war where both sides are pretending to know the unknowable is a destructive waste of time.
Rick,
Thank you for your last reply.
Allow me to focus on two incredible statements you have made :
1) “I’m not saying it is illogical to consider the possibility of a “God”. However, there is absolutely no reason to consider it above other possibilities.”
2) “There is no reason to start with “God” over another possible option other than to want to confirm an existing bias.”
Rick, pretty much from what I have read, seen, and heard over the past few decades, in a “scientific” “discussion” the DEFAULT Starting and Ending point is that there is NO God involved.
That there is no God and no Intelligent Creator seems to be the default mantra when such matters are discussed.
Hundreds of thousands of scientists and physicists and mathematicians and philosophers have been turned out of our leading higher institutions premising their rigorous scientific methods that, of course, as we “all know” a God element does not factor into what we think we see.
This IS the BIAS, Rick. And you know this quite well.
In fact, when scientists nowadays discuss “possibilities”, as you put it, ALL of their “possibilities” necessarily, right out of the gate, before the concept is pursued, specifically, if not outright states, more often accepted as implicit (unspoken) conditions, that God need not apply.
Nowadays much of science and math are “mind models”. Thought experiments. Exactly that. Papers up the ying yang are regularly published and treated as revelations of the universe that are nothing more than some mathematician’s or scientist’s “creative conjecturing”. Most of them do not stand the test of scrutiny as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.
And so science ranges far and wide, mathematics ranges far and wide, looking for explanations.
But, studiously ignoring that right here on earth the clues are smacking us in the face if a true scientist will accept them (without this anti-God BIAS) that some one very like a God left his fingerprints and even his thoughts and his designs imprinted indelibly into this creation.
And you supposedly have followed this whole forum and yet you make this preposterous claim — “There is no reason to start with “God” over another possible option other than to want to confirm an existing bias.”
You have successfully framed your OWN BIAS, Rick.
“NO REASON … other than to want to confirm an existing bias”.
Stunning.
So that is what scientific inquiry is to you, Rick. Just as I suspected. Then you can not truly believe in science, Rick. Since to you it is inextricably and automatically, to begin and end with, simply an exercise “..to confirm an existing bias.”
Yes, and you are right.
This is EXACTLY how science is being practiced today.
That is Perry Marshall’s point.
@DavidH
I’m sorry, but you seem to have completely misquoted and misunderstood my point. You make the assumption that me stating “there is absolutely no reason to consider it above other possibilities” and “There is no reason to start with “God” over another possible option other than to want to confirm an existing bias” as asserting that I think other possibilities should be considered first. That is not what I said. I feel both should be considered, but neither should be asserted or assumed over the other.
“Rick, pretty much from what I have read, seen, and heard over the past few decades, in a “scientific” “discussion” the DEFAULT Starting and Ending point is that there is NO God involved.”
While I’m beginning to reach the conclusion that most people in this debate can’t imagine not fighting for one side over the other – my position is neutral. I do not have a bias against God or a bias for God. I have yet to come across an argument that makes the case for a God stronger than the case for no God – or vice versa. Furthermore, I see no practical advantage in forming a “belief” around either view, and even if I did – such whims do not advance understanding or knowledge.
Rick,
It is a facile game to “debate” with the standard insistence that you have been continually “misunderstood”. And by your doing so you also glide right past your own statements which you make so clearly and in English.
First of all, to contend that your position is “neutral” is sophistry–superficially plausible, but a generally fallacious method of reasoning. A neutral position is neutral. A neutral position does not state, and I quote you, “Rather than start with a result and find ways to prove it… why not start from the default position of uncertainty, and focus on gathering objective information to see where it takes you?”
That all sounds reasonable but you say this as if the vast majority of science done today is not already quite CERTAIN. The “uncertainty” you speak of is only used today to describe theoretical posturings that have already negated, from the outset, any quest to see the face of God, as it were.
Calling a dog a cat never creates the vocal mechanics for the dog to Meow. Rick, I did not even make the claim that a person should START with accepting God as the reason for his or her scientific inquiry. I assume that this is what people are routinely DOING anyway.
I am simply saying, why NOT consider the alternative? How about a few precious moments considering how science would progress if you started looking at the Intelligent Design as having some important answers to your riddles.
You say, Rick, “Rather than start with a result and find ways to prove it..” But that ignores the present reality in science, does it not?
Scientists have had hundreds of years now, Rick, to start with the results we all have readily at hand. And they have spent hundreds of years relentlessly, feverishly, trying to prove their suppositions. And, as you must know, Rick, not a single scientist has PROVEN his or her supposition that life and the universe simply started on its own with no intelligent causation.
In fact, it has been accepted as “no longer under discussion” in major scientific circles that science already has the basic and immutable “facts”. That SIMPLY BECAUSE WE ARE ALL HERE IS IN ITSELF PROOF THAT A GOD IS NOT NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN OUR POSITION.
My position is not neutral. Perry’s position is not neutral. It is you who have wandered in here and professed neutrality on “solving” the questions at hand.
But this is all sophistry with nothing accomplished. Perry has stated that there are scientific reasons to investigate further. Every atheistic and agnostic and “neutral” argument to the contrary cannot counter the evidence that science still has many things to learn and to discover.
Who are the scientists so bold, so brave, and so open, so scientific, truly scientific, that they will step into the fray and say, Send me. I will go and explore and not exclude the scientific possibility that an intelligent designer, a God, if you will, has written his clues into the Universe and that they are still open to be read. In my open inquiries of these mysteries I will not exclude their possible source, no matter the outrage and scorn my discoveries may provoke.
I don’t suggest I’ve been continually misunderstood. I suggested you are intentionally misinterpreting my points as a method to distract from what I am actually saying.
“A neutral position does not state, and I quote you, “Rather than start with a result and find ways to prove it… why not start from the default position of uncertainty, and focus on gathering objective information to see where it takes you?”
Apparently you want to make this a semantics argument about your definition of “neutral” instead of making the obvious interpretation based on my next sentence “I do not have a bias against God or a bias for God”. By “neutral” I mean – I do not prefer one outcome over another, only that it is based on sound logic and doesn’t face obvious contradictions. I do not accept arguments that are flawed or can reach directly contradictory inferences using the same selective inductive reasoning.
“I did not even make the claim that a person should START with accepting God as the reason for his or her scientific inquiry.”
“The truly objective person would have said, okay, let me start my investigation WITH the “theorem” that God is responsible for the things I see.”
It seems you aren’t keeping up with the statements you are making. You suggested it is “objective” to start with “God”. I don’t know what your unique definition of the word “biased” is, but that appears to be biased to me. The fact that you do not recognize and admit such a bias is unfortunate.
“Scientists have had hundreds of years now, Rick, to start with the results we all have readily at hand. And they have spent hundreds of years relentlessly, feverishly, trying to prove their suppositions. And, as you must know, Rick, not a single scientist has PROVEN his or her supposition that life and the universe simply started on its own with no intelligent causation.”
Once again, I suppose I must re-clarify my position that I don’t assert this has been proven – your arguments are starting to sound like a broken record. I have repeatedly stated that I don’t believe we have proof in a “no God” theory, just as we do not have proof in a “God” theory.
There are very strong arguments to suggest a God is not needed in the equation, just as there are arguments that suggest a God is needed. For a reason that is beyond me, you and Perry seem more than willing to bypass the prime mover argument, and then somehow bring God back into the picture as if the rules that would prevent our direct evolution don’t apply to him. If he could exist forever or evolve in a natural way, why couldn’t the direct building blocks (laws, codes, forces) that guided our evolution have done the same? Whatever logical “trap door” you use to bring Gods existence back into the your argument of the origin of life – must also be considered for our own direct evolution. If you argue that God existed forever – you should also consider the idea that the fundamental rules of nature that lead to our direct evolution could have also existed forever. Perry and I have argued this back and forth in great detail… and I am awaiting his latest reply as we continue to discuss it.
Your statement that “Scientists have had hundreds of years now…” seems to ignore the vast amount of progress that was made and is still being made. We are understanding significantly more year over year, and for some reason you suggest the scientific community has been wasting their time. Would you prefer that we didn’t decode the human genome, that we didn’t gain a further understanding about evolution, that we didn’t advance medical technology, or that we couldn’t speed up learning and knowledge through technological advancements like the computers we are using to communicate these ideas/arguments from different parts of the world?
If you choose to simply assert that God exists through flawed selective inductive reasoning that bypasses fundamental arguments like the primum movens, go for it. However, don’t pretend it is based on sound logic or that we haven’t made significant advancements in understanding our origins since the days where man believed “God created us in 7 days, because it says so in the bible”.
“But this is all sophistry with nothing accomplished. Perry has stated that there are scientific reasons to investigate further. Every atheistic and agnostic and “neutral” argument to the contrary cannot counter the evidence that science still has many things to learn and to discover.”
This seems to insinuate I don’t want further investigation. I’ve made it clear that I am interested in keeping up with the latest information – that is the basis of my argument, that we still have much to learn. There is a dramatic difference between finding significant flaws in current theories and asserting we should stop learning all together. What statement did I make to even begin to suggest I was against further investigation?
Please stop taking a single word (in this case “neutral”), filtering it through your own definition, ignoring context, and then basing your entire reply around your selective interpretation that one word. It is a waste of time if you are going to intentionally ignore context. Assuming your next reply continues to distract from the actual topic being discussed, I really don’t see a need to continue this further with you. There are far better ways to make actual progress.
Rick,
Have you caught on that this forum is NOT NEUTRAL. There can NOT be two universes in which you and I and Perry live in simultaneously. One universe without causation (intelligently caused) and one with God, yes, the Christian Jehovah, who has already stated His case all He cares to at this time.
I have said several times that I, myself, am far from neutral. NO, there is no neutrality in what I claim is the Truth. Because of some definitely and persuasively powerful experiences that EXPANDED MY CONSCIOUSNESS I now see and perceive the universe in alignment with my faith, belief, and conviction, absolute conviction that God has proved Himself to me.
Now when I look at such things as the structure and design of DNA and read of Communication Theory I say, yes, OF COURSE. It is all so PLAIN and obvious.
So I look at your “neutrality” as, well, silliness. IF GOD exists then that is a HUGE thing to know. What is more important in any discussion of anything whatsoever than to know if God is behind everything we experience?
But you will argue that it is just as important to discover that God is NOT behind everything we experience.
Now ask yourself what are the consequences?
Suppose you are studying at Stanford and your crusty curmudgeon of a physics professor gives you homework for the weekend and says “If you can prove ‘X’ I will reward you with a Visa Platinum Card with a ten-billion dollar line of credit repaid in full every year, but if you decide to solve for ‘Y’ you get nothing but the satisfaction of knowing that I will give you an A for your time”.
Do you spend time in forums expressing your objectivity and neutrality over the issue?
Or do you drop everything and spend the same time solving for X for a fabulous credit line that will last forever?
So, the question is, Rick, is this not the most important question you have to settle for yourself before you take your last breath?
Is this not THE Question that we must all with haste, with deliberate urgency, settle and resolve for ourselves?
I will tell you why so many people are more concerned with professing an empty state of “neutrality” on this supremely important issue.
Into our consciousness, yours as well, Rick, is a deep dread and fear of the consequences. When we facilely skim over the evident arguments FOR a God in favor of saying “I am neutral” on this issue, we are responding to a train of logic that we have already walked and stored away for such forums and discussions as this.
What every scientist, mathematician, physicist, etc, knows intuitively is that if in his or her scientific pokings around he or she should accidentally stumble across another significant discovery that unmistakably by direct sight or statistical probability “strongly hints” that a superhuman power and intelligence set the universe and life in motion…. well, as they say, there would be hell to pay.
There is not a scientist, mathematician, physicist, or astronomer who relishes the idea of standing before the world’s media to announce the publishing of a scientific paper that conclusively proves or even strongly makes a case for a supreme causative intelligence at the foundation of the universe.
It is a fearsome nightmare to consider for so many scientists that they inwardly shudder at merely contemplating such a situation.
The train of logic is this, the boogeyman behind all of these forum discussions that assert “neutrality” in the search of truth– uh oh, now all of those nagging Christians are going to rise up self-righteously and claim that it is THEIR GOD who made the world.
These hypocritical Christians are going to have the last laugh, deride us mercilessly, and say, “See, we TOLD you so!”
I would rather remain “neutral” and shut my eyes and ears to any such ugly, humiliating fate. So let Perry prattle on about God this and proof that and Communication Theory. I will debate him but I would never wish the humiliation of agreeing with his position.
This negative consequences thing, if you will, is the most powerful motivator operating in atheistic and agnostic “debates”. It is a fierce thing to fear, that God might be proven. And such fear is more than capable of denying the existence of God towering over all.
I myself understand the fear and the dread of God raising His head above the waters and saying, “Boo, here I am!”
I have to confess that I would feel the same way if an Allah showed up on the scene and thundered out, “Did I not command you to KILL all the INFIDELS! Waste no more time!”
As a believer in the God Jehovah and his son, Yeshua, Jesus Christ, I take comfort in knowing that I have already had conversations with them, have already discerned their hearts in their words and the promises Jesus made regarding the world now and the world to come.
But, scientifically, mathematically I can not prove that I even believe, other than I say so. I cannot mathematically or scientifically prove that I have read the promises of Jesus and that I believe them as the Truth. I cannot mathematically or scientifically prove that I have, literally, literally, the Spirit of God within me.
All of the IMPORTANT things in life mysteriously vanish before Math and Scientific principles. No wonder that I accept that Math is INCOMPLETE.
Math is simply a tool to help humans construct what they must construct. The amazing thing to me is that as incomplete as Math may be, it already abundantly, generously TESTIFIES to an evident superhuman timeless all powerful intelligence.
But, I doubt God needed what we construe as “math” to create this universe.
Love that motivates my days and life has not one single formula that proves it even exists as a theory, let alone fact.
They will elevate the level of collisions at the Hadron Collider underneath Switzerland and France looking for the “God particle” and not discover love or faith or self-sacrifice or mercy.
These forums are but a diverting playground to keep yourselves busy proclaiming a “neutral, objective” viewpoint on the most important question you must answer soon.
IF a God is discovered then, yes, the odds are very very high that it is the same God who proclaimed, we believe, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Which for you, should be the most exciting discovery of your life.
David,
Your tone is consistently abrasive and it’s not winning you any friends. I ask that you please be more respectful of everyone here.
I do believe that one can, at least in theory, approach this question from a neutral stance. At least on paper, we can try our very best to set our raging emotions aside and say, “I’m not sure one way or the other. But I want to find out where the evidence leads.”
If you believe the Bible then surely you have regard for Paul where he says in Romans, that God has made His divine nature and eternal power plain to everyone so that all are without excuse. For me, then, I believe that we can sit down and pencil it out, and starting from a neutral position clearly infer that God exists.
For a couple of years I really wasn’t sure about this. I came rather close to becoming an atheist myself.
My big moment of clarity came when I said, “OK If God does not exist, if atheism is true, then what else has to be true to make it all work?”
I realized that there would have to be design principles in biology that they never taught me in engineering school.
Darwinists say that Natural Selection is the only design principle that you need.
I thought they very well might be right. So I started hunting for a set of basic principles that would prove that to be true. That you really would eventually get eyes and ears and changes and DNA necessary to make that happen, by random copying errors and natural selection.
I found that there is no principle anywhere in engineering or science which shows that to be true. What I actually found was information entropy – that random accidents can only destroy information, and there’s nothing that natural selection can do about that. I found that cells use the same engineering principles human engineers use. That cells re-arrange their own DNA the same way advertisers re-arrange Google ads, in the war of natural selection.
I believe that if Rick is open to following the evidence where it leads, he’ll find there is ample evidence for design in the universe and the only reasonable inference is a transcendent source.
I’m in no rush and I’m not worried about it. Please give Rick space to explore and investigate.
“So, the question is, Rick, is this not the most important question you have to settle for yourself before you take your last breath?”
No, I think the question of life purpose, striving for personal growth and understanding, and resolving to be an honest and moral person (for the immediate and inherent benefits that result) is far more important. I have no fear that such a God would, if he exists, would punish me for my prudent, thoughtful, and logical approach to life. A thoughtful video on the subject is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iClejS8vWjo
“Is this not THE Question that we must all with haste, with deliberate urgency, settle and resolve for ourselves?”
No, nothing motivates me to jump to a conclusion without all the facts due to fear of hell or promise of heaven… for it is the very facts that will determine if either place even exist. If God does exist, he did not give us human intelligence for the purpose of discarding it in exchange for faith. My neutral position is not based in fear or in reaching a conclusion different than that of God… it’s merely out of uncertainty and seeking more information before reaching a definitive conclusion.
“I will tell you why so many people are more concerned with professing an empty state of “neutrality” on this supremely important issue.
Into our consciousness, yours as well, Rick, is a deep dread and fear of the consequences. When we facilely skim over the evident arguments FOR a God in favor of saying “I am neutral” on this issue, we are responding to a train of logic that we have already walked and stored away for such forums and discussions as this.”
I’m sorry you feel this is a giant conspiracy theory, where everyone seems to secretly “know” there is a God but is running from him. I understand that is the message repeated throughout some bible stories, but it’s unfortunately that these ideas live on. You can believe what you want about me, my motives, and my reasons for remaining neutral – however, only I know how completely wrong your stated interpretations really are. I can only assume much of the scientific community feels the same way, but that is for them to know. I wish I could be more convincing, because clearly you are not accepting my words of intention at face value.
“IF a God is discovered then, yes, the odds are very very high that it is the same God who proclaimed, we believe, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Which for you, should be the most exciting discovery of your life.”
I see absolutely no reason to reach this conclusion. First off, I have never seen such evidence to even remotely make this connection… even if we assume there is a God, there is no evidence he would be the Christian god, or that he would even be capable of interacting with us in any meaningful way. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I have little reason to want (specifically) the biblical version of God to exist or to be “excited” about such a discovery. I find the biblical teachings of morality to be appalling, the methods by which he commands “love” to be disgusting, and his message of altruism to be proven destructive to human progress and prosperity.
Is it possible for a God to transcend the biblical version and turn out to be a loving creator… yes, of course, but the bible gives us little reason to conclude that. If he turns out to be truly loving, I won’t need to chase after him or fear his punishment or to use flawed arguments in order to “prove” his existence and then worship him. Such ideas are silly and degrade the notion of a truly loving God that would likely be interested in a relationship with us regardless of our personal experiences, beliefs, and which religion we happened to be born into.
This is for everyone on this page:
Suppose you create a comic book.
The characters in your comic book are subject to and are able to measure only those things which you, as creator, subject them to and allow them to measure.
If you do not force them to be subject to you and do not allow them to measure you, then they should have no understanding of you.
Without understanding of you, it would be silly to have them discuss you, whether the discussion is the reality of your existence or the nature of your existence.
As humans, without any certain knowledge of what is outside our greatest understanding, we would be silly to discuss that which is outside our greatest understanding.
Perhaps we should try to focus not on absolutely proving either side of any religious or mathematical argument, but on simply furthering the story, so to speak, making it as pleasant a story as possible. It is not likely that there will be (in time enough for anyone now living to enjoy it) one unifying and indisputable idea of what this is all about. So live and let live. People will differ and that, I think, is what makes us people.
I must have composed this for you!
“making it as pleasant a story as possible.”
http://www.esnips.com/displayimage.php?pid=3018648
****
Live and let live makes for very hungry lions!
“If Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem is true, then everything in my article directly and logically follows. Specifically, if we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and label it “Universe” then according to Incompleteness, there has to be something outside the universe that caused it.”
Actually, Perry, by your own demonstration, Goedel’s theorem proves that we cannot prove the existence of God. For the record, I am a theist, I believe in God, but it’s faith not fact. Now allow me to demonstrate how you’ve shown that God is unprovable. Goedel’s theorem proves that you cannot prove anything outside of a “circle” from within the “circle”, including the veracity of the circle itself. The universe is finite, as is the largest possible “circle” we can draw. Which you yourself assert God exists outside of. Therefore, using every available (and provable!) law, axiom, and rule in our universe, we cannot ever prove the existence of God. Sorry.
An addendum to this (and to Godel’s theorem): to draw a circle around something implies that we know that something beyond it exists (i.e. bike and factory). How can we know to justify the existence of something if we do not know of anything outside its circle? I would venture to say that you cannot draw out the greatest circle you inhabit due to the fact that by being within that extent of existence, you don’t know how far it extends (defined in this case as an understanding of where one thing ends and another begins). If we had direct knowledge of a creator (like a bike having direct knowledge of the factory that made it), then we could draw a circle around ourselves, and the bike could draw a circle around itself and explain its own existence. However, this is not the case, and like the inanimate bike, we are locked within our circle, unaware of how far it stretches. This is essentially where Godel’s theorem breaks down. We cannot draw a circle around the known universe, namely because we are included in it and all that we know (and can draw on to explain what we see) IS the known universe.
QED
This is not a refutation of atheism or theism, it’s just a clarification of how we should interpret the Incompleteness Theorem.
You ask: “How can we know to justify the existence of something if we do not know of anything outside its circle?”
Gödel’s theorem says that if what is inside the circle is logical, there is necessarily something outside the circle. Gödel’s theorem justifies the ‘something’ that you refer to.
Perry, I’m not making this an issue of “right” or “wrong”. It’s simply a matter of workability.
Draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and label it “Universe” and you cannot definitively say that it is dependent on something else outside it. You can speculate that it might be….but there is where the line is drawn between theorem and law.
Simply put, we don’t have enough information to say emphatically that Godel’s theorem is true. That’s why it’s a theorem. We can point to multiple ways that it IS true. But, it still makes its own assumptions in matters that cannot be observably demonstrated.
Thanks for the dialogue!
Tony
A theorem is not the same as a theory. Gödel wrote a formal proof of his theorem. You can read his proof here:
On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems
This is why we have enough information to say emphatically that Gödel’s theorem is true. To say otherwise is to reject the very process of mathematics, proof and logic.
It seems to me that you’re applying logic ti everything but your own proofs.
Unless I misunderstand, Godel’s Theorem as you apply it boils down to your explanation of inductive reasoning, in that, you have to make assumptions in order to prove something.
My biggest issue with this is that, you cannot then prove your assumptions are any truer, because you have a never ending regression of assumptions. You have then, somehow, gone from Godel’s theorem which boils down to, nothing can be proven definitively, since all proofs are based on assumptions, to “proving” an existence of god. I miss that leap of logic.
Some of your assumptions seems incredibly flawed, for example your assumption “In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.” How is this the introduction of information? The genetic codes are written using chemicals and enzymes. Those chemicals are just bits of information as well, made up of individual molecules and elements. Are not those molecules predating the genetic code?
Take, for example, the classic argument for intelligent design. You come across a watch on a beach. You then make the assumption that someone must have created it, for in your experience you’ve never witnessed something so complex coalesce without intelligence creating it. But, and here is my central problem with your writing, how can you prove that assumption is true? And since you cannot do that without making another assumption, how can you prove the watch wasn’t coalesced, randomly, by nature and chaos?
How can you prove anything at all, from a theorem which states nothing can be proven without that outside observer, without some set of assumptions that may or not be true themselves.
Zach,
You did not read my original article closely enough. My actual words:
“The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.”
If you read my entire article very carefully you will see that I have made a 100% logical progression from Gödel’s theorem to an understanding that ultimately the universe and all logic inevitably regress back to ONE unprovable but necessary axiom. If I have made a leap of logic then I invite anyone to show me where it is.
The closest thing to a leap in logic is the INFERENCE that the laws of mathematics, and therefore also Gödel’s theorem, apply to the universe. I cannot prove this. But if you do not assume this, all of science itself comes apart at the seams. Every science experiment in modern times assumes the universe is mathematical. And if it is then Gödel’s theorem applies to the universe just as it applies to pure mathematics.
In other words I do not have the full authority of mathematical proof in saying this but I do have the full authority of science. If algebra, calculus, vectors, complex numbers and differential equations apply to the universe then so does incompleteness.
As for information theory and chemicals, once again you have not taken the time to read the referenced links. You will need to go to http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq and apprise yourself of information theory as it relates to biology. I am using the definition of Claude Shannon information which is based on a complete communication system. Chemicals alone do not contain any information at all according to the Shannon definition. You have to have encoder, code and decoder to have Shannon information.
All systems of encoder / code / decoder are created by conscious minds. No known exceptions.
Have you ever seen a watch coalesce randomly by nature and chaos?
Without making the same sort of unfounded presumption which you accuse me of, have you ever personally seen ANY machine of any kind coalesce randomly by nature and chaos? Any motor? Any pump? Any encoding / decoding system? Have you ever witnessed any such thing in your own personal experience? Ever?
David Hume allegedly overturned Paley’s watch argument by pointing out that the analogy between a living organism and a watch was flawed. Information theory and Shannon’s model of communication put Paley’s watch argument back on solid ground and overturn Hume’s argument. The following statement is the reason why:
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
If you can find one example of a naturally occurring code I’ll write you a check for $10,000. The specification for doing so is here: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/solve/
““The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.””
You didn’t read Goedel’s theory carefully enough. It is logically and mathematically impossible to construct a consistent model of the universe. Goedel’s theorem proves that any such model will either be incomplete or inconsistent. That is the very essence of the theorem. In fact, if you somehow manage to create a model of the universe that is consistent and complete, Goedel’s theorem shows us beyond all doubt that it is certainly and provably wrong.
Bob,
You didn’t read my statements carefully enough. I have not proven that God exists. I have inferred that God exists. How? By showing that the only way the universe can be consistent is to be incomplete. You get to decide between inconsistency and incompleteness. Which do you have more faith in? God, or irrationality?
Zach is right. Perry, perry, perry….. I appreciate the enthusiasm about Godel, he was an intelligent man and I do believe his theory to be correct. His logic flows very nicely from premise to conclusion. You, on the other hand, are a different story. From your very first premise, you contradicted yourself and then you followed with a set of valid but unsound arguments. You showed why inductive reason could not bring about a definitive answer and then you used it to definitely prove your point. That aside, you are logical, but the first premise is incorrect. You called the genetic code immaterial and symbolic. As mentioned by Zach, the code stems from enzymes, dna, and other molecules passing along information. Its not entered into the system from some higher being. Now that I look at your second point under your proof of a higher being,I see another flaw. Even if you assume your first step valid and sound, you can’t assume just because you don’t know something about the universe that it must stem from a higher power. We can still learn more about our universe and provide explanations to every immaterial source of information. Once we definitely know all about our universe and we are still left with something, which logically must stem from something outside the system, then we must look to something symbolic and immaterial. But Godel would need to be wrong in order for us to prove the entirety of our system from within the system and know all about our universe. So for your point, based on Godel’s point, to be on point, then Godel’s point would have to be off point, undermining your entire point. Get my point?
I used inductive reasoning to infer not prove my point. Because what I can prove is that the opposite conclusion demands an irrational universe.
I agree with your logic, Perry (and Godel’s), thanks for sharing.
Any assumptions that are made when discussing where the universe came from seem to me to be related to the law of causality…anything that begins to exist has a cause. I think that’s a safe assumption.
Philosopher William Lane Craig puts it like this:
Premise 1): Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2): The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The Universe had a cause.
1) The ability of things popping into existence from nothing without a cause is not worth arguing.
2) Both science and philosophy support the idea that the universe had a beginning.
Therefore…it must have had a cause.
It doesn’t specifically point to the Christian God that I believe in, I have other reasons for that belief.
However, based on Godel and a finite universe I don’t think one can argue that the idea of a god of some sort is illogical.
What caused God? It’s not a coherent question. By definition God is eternal…uncaused…was always there, unlike the finite universe.
So “What caused God?” becomes “What caused the un-caused being?” Doesn’t make sense.
Always interested in this kind of discussion, though don’t usually have so much to say…thanks for posting!
Rod MacKenzie
Rod, you’re right. And if Gödel’s theorem applies to a rock then it applies equally to a planet and equally to all planets and to the whole universe. There’s nothing about zooming in or zooming out that suddenly changes everything.
Perry,
I checked out your talk on Information Theory: “If you can read this, I can prove God exists” on the Cosmic Fingerprints site and found it excellent.
I would like to offer a link to this talk in a Blog I’m working on re: the rationality of the Christian worldview…I had already planned my next post around the same topic.
Do you mind? If not, should I just send readers to the Cosmic Fingerprints site, or do you have this talk available on one of your own sites that you’d prefer I link to?
Thanks,
Rod
Rod,
Use it in any way you want. Also there’s a link “Origin of Life Video” which is similar – that may be useful too. I salute your efforts – nice site you have!
Perry
Thanks Perry,
I look forward to reading more interesting stuff from you, and I’ll definitely be linking to Cosmic Fingerprints from my Rational Faith site.
Rod
It’s also interesting that so many that have posted here can point to the universe and say that since it exists, it must have a cause, and if there is a cause then a god of some form must exist in order to cause it.
If it is accepted as true that nothing can exist without a creator, then God CANNOT exist without being caused by something else.
If you claim that God exists, and can do so without a cause since that is part of the definition of what it means to be God, then it MUST follow that other things (such as the universe) could do so without a creator as well.
The reason the universe cannot be uncaused is because of entropy. If it were infinitely old, there would be no available energy remaining. You can’t burn a candle twice. Modern cosmology has established that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old and began in a single point expanding with the big bang.
Gödel’s theorem shows that the cause of the universe has to be outside the universe, since the universe is by necessity incomplete.
The single direction of entropy and our perception of an “arrow of time” are closely bound together (we remember the past and not the future, and perceive everything as inexorably rolling from the past into the future, and at the same time from a low entropy state to a high entropy state) but it is conceivable that we may simply be in a region of a larger universe, where chance fluctuation created a (temporary) condition of low entropy, that is now returning to a ‘baseline’ level of entropy over billions of years.
In this wider universe, without the steady progression of entropy there might equally be little in the way of an orderly flow of time, matter interacting in ways that are very hard to imagine intuitively (I don’t claim to be able to understand what that would be like, which I’m aware must sound frustratingly similar to the “it’s a mystery” so often put forward as a nonexplanation by religion, but the model is workable, and it would be a way to explain our universe without appeal to a truly unknowable supernatural force.
The ‘outer’ universe would be an inhospitable place for our kind of life, but the idea would have some accord with the multiverse idea; relatively distinct universes expanding into their own pockets or bubbles of space.
I’m not saying that’s how it happened, or that it’s how I believe it happened; my stance would be to file it under “maybe plausible, pending further evidence”.
Matt,
I think it’s significant that in order to avoid the obvious consequences of entropy you have to invoke an undetectable universe in which entropy works differently than it works here.
I’d have a hard time calling such a theory parsimonious. Or scientific.
Are you unconditionally committed to atheism as a worldview or are you willing to follow the evidence where it leads?
On what basis do you assert that a supernatural force is unknowable?
Why do you define that which is outside the known universe as uncaused? How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is?
If anything exists, then it is reasonable to assume that it is caused, yes. This seems to go for anything that has ever been observed. It is mere speculation to say that it does not go for a being that is outside the known universe. In fact, once we knew that being, it would instantly become part of the known universe, and thus, caused.
Inevitably you arrive at the necessity of an uncaused cause. Just do a Google search on “infinite regression” and you’ll quickly see why philosophers universally reject it.
Christian theology has always defined God as NOT being part of the known universe, but a cause of it. This is entirely different from eastern religious views like pantheism and panentheism which see God as being part of the universe.
Please name your reasoning for rejecting an infinite regress. What christianity says about god is as irrelevant at what a few philosophers have said, since this is only an appeal to authority. In a discussion among adults, you show your logical deductions, and we can talk.
From Wikipedia:
An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite sequence needed to provide such support could not be completed.
A vicious regress is “an attempt to solve a problem which re-introduced the same problem in the proposed solution. If one continues along the same lines, the initial problem will recur infinitely and will never be solved.
An infinite regress such as you are advocating only proliferates the problem you are trying to solve right here. It is a non-answer.
I have showed entirely logical deductions. I have not appealed to authority, only Gödel’s theorem and logic.
So far as I can tell, your only reason for rejecting my answer is that you don’t like it. Can you present logical explanation for the origin of the universe that doesn’t just go around in circles?
Very interesting stuff.
This is a bit off topic but I find myself saying, “Yep; something must have created the universe”, but then the next thing that pops into mind is “so what”? Why do people go to such extraordinary lengths to ‘prove’ it to others (like you do Perry
? Even going as far as killing people.
How does that faith help us or impact our lives? Obviously the answer to that depends on each person’s concept of what the creator is, but to me it doesn’t help and shouldn’t make a bit of difference to how we behave.
Alasdair,
There is a huge battle in the marketplace of ideas regarding the existence of God. Look at how many books on this topic are bestsellers during the last few years. Yes, I have gone to great lengths…. Even to the point of writing an 1800 word summary of Gödel’s theorem :^>
Actually I have done much more than just that, which you can see if you visit my other websites http://www.coffeehousetheology.com and http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com.
I believe that no civilization rises higher than its idea of God. A lot of people consider faith to be a private personal thing which others should not be bothered with; but I think that idea is false. Our faith, whatever it may be, greatly affects what we do.
The US Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these things to be self-evident, that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The very idea of human rights is a faith statement. It is not scientifically provable. It can’t be derived from Darwinism. It comes from a belief not only in God but God’s relation to mankind.
These things matter a lot.
A counterexample would be the abuses of communism in the 20th century. Is it merely a coincidence that the governments who killed more than 100 million people just happened to be officially atheistic? Atheist regimes killed more people in one century than religious wars killed in all centuries put together. Could that really be just a happy accident?
A few articles I think might provoke more thinking on this:
http://www.perrymarshall.com/merry-christmas-2008/
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq
To the average guy on the street it seems like people are good or bad simply because they’re either good people or bad people and religion has nothing to do with it. But I would challenge you to press further: WHY should I believe in human rights? WHY should we take care of sick people and handicapped people? WHY should we try to eradicate poverty? What happens when you drill down to bedrock on those questions? What do you find?
Perry
“The very idea of human rights is a faith statement. It is not scientifically provable. It can’t be derived from Darwinism. It comes from a belief not only in God but God’s relation to mankind.”
@Perry – A very strong argument against this point… http://bit.ly/oleLkm
Morality, virtue, and concepts like “human rights” are objective. They are necessary for human survival, prosperity, and advancement.
Can you explain, in your own words:
Why is human flourishing objectively good?
What is the objective standard of goodness?
How is anyone duty bound to be self-made like John Galt or to embrace Ayn Rand’s virtues?
I can explain it in my own words, but note that its not a matter of me suggesting it (that would make the argument subjective). Rather, its the logic presented in such an explanation, and the objective outcome that results from following the principles. I hope you read the original link, as Rand is clearly more versed in her own views, but I’ll do my best here…
1. Human flourishing is objectively good because it protects the only objectively verifiable intelligent life we know of, and as beings our primary rational motivation is to sustain our own life and well being.
2. Goodness is that which sustains life and promotes happiness. I am not aware of any rational argument that objects with this idea? I understand some people make irrationally self-interested decisions (murder, drug use, self loathing, etc.) due to lack of education, lack of ability to identify how this act hurts their happiness/security/stability/etc., or lack of ability to use reason to promote their own well being. However, as this sort of thinking is grounded in irrationality, it is irrelevant. Objectively, goodness is not achieved by these acts.
3. We have free choice. We are not bound to be self-made or to even make rationally self-interested choices. This may be considered a downside to natural selection, random chance, and even the concept of choice. However, we are in fact “motivated” to embrace such virtues, as they objectively contribute to our own well being. As Ayn Rand would say “We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality”. That is how choice works, but the objective outcome is clear. We must exercise our reason and logic to maximize our happiness, prosperity, and advancement.
–
How do you objectively conclude God is moral? What authority does he report to, or how do you conclude that the only possible kind of “God” would by definition define morality? How is God bound to be virtuous, and moreover, how can we reconcile the idea of a moral God with the inherent destructive, torturous, and cruel process of evolution?
Rick,
Allow me to play devil’s advocate. In principle I agree with much of what you’re saying and there’s even a part of me that likes Ayn Rand.
1. If human flourishing is objectively good because it protects objectively verifiable intelligent life, then what about humans that are not objectively intelligent? What about those that fall below a certain IQ level or whatever? How do you not end up with eugenics?
2. Goodness is that which sustains whose life, and promotes whose happiness? I agree that people do harmful things for stupid reasons but sometimes they do harmful things for very noble reasons. The Chinese have mandatory abortions and cruel laws to limit the population. There’s a very persuasive argument that this is necessary. Are they right? On what basis do you argue that this is right or wrong? if you say it’s right can you prove it’s not wrong? If you say it’s wrong can you prove it’s not right?
3. Yes we do have free choice, yet there’s almost universal agreement that some choices are very bad. Is this agreement just social contract or is it rooted in something objective?
My argument for objective morality is metaphysical. Ayn Rand’s arguments are metaphysical too. Much of her thinking is philosophically incompatible with the New Atheism BTW.
To your last question: How do you objectively conclude God is moral, what authority does he report to?
In the theistic view, the morality of God is taken as an axiom. As I said to one guy several years ago, “I do not judge God, God judges me. I consider this statement to be self-evident, requiring no further explanation or justification.”
If God as theists generally understand Him exists, then yes, this statement does require no further justification.
I have already provided logical, mathematical and scientific inference to the existence of God. This conversation extends to moral questions about God. My logic is:
1) Science, math and logic infer the existence of God (which I am of course advocating here and on the other blog, as we converse)
2) The existence of God can then be logically taken as grounds for believing that objective moral values exist
I have not proven that God is moral so far but I have shown that my own worldview is logically sound. I have rational reason to posit an infinite limitless being.
In my opinion, “objective morality” only has any real meaning if there is judgment and consequences in the afterlife. Real suffering and real reward. Aside from that, even if God DOES exist, it doesn’t matter, because in theory you can mow down children at a daycare with a machine gun and get away with it. Western conceptions of God say you will ultimately never get away with that. Again that is the only definition of objective morality that has any teeth. (We could also consider eastern ideas like Karma of course. But that, too, comes back to consequences.)
In my view of the world, science/math gives grounding for believing in God and from that point forward, moral questions are theological questions.
In asking the questions you ask in the last paragraph, you are asking theological questions. Even your question about evolution being cruel is a theological question. Are you willing to consider my answers on theological grounds?
I’ll do my best to answer your questions based on my current understanding. As with most things – it’s a work in progress…
1. There is always room for charity and humanitarian efforts. Often times our happiness is in part derived from helping those we determine are truly in need (recognizing we could have easily ended up in their situation). On the other hand, I think our happiness is harmed by being forced to help those we feel are taking advantage of the system (through government or social obligation). This is just one of many examples of where constant individual thought and reason are critical to the achievement of happiness, and how there is no “fast food” philosophy that simply has ready-made answers to every question. I certainly wouldn’t derive happiness from watching people die due to inability to sustain themselves, and I sincerely doubt anyone driven by rational self-interest would either. What I am quite sure of is forcing people to give up prosperity to help others (some that need it, others that done) is a terribly short sighted approach to ensuring lasting prosperity of any kind.
2. This is a very complicated situation that is based on a wide range of fundamental issues. First off, I don’t agree with the vast majority of government regulations. The actual problem here stems from centuries of irrational thought – from people that have been given permission to act irrationally through both faith-based philosophies and government based handouts. When people are forced to truly think through the implications of their own decisions, based on knowing they will directly face the consequences, government regulation is not necessary. A very practical example, my wife and I have decided we won’t be having more than two kids – for the very fear of over-population. Reasonable and practical decisions cannot be forced by government mandate, and arbitrary rules that attempt to ban bad choices only create new problems (not to mention, promote a less rational society). History has proven that government central planning is simply incapable of efficiently solving anything.
3. Choices are only bad when people have limited understanding, reduced critical thinking, or don’t have a direct connection to the consequences of their choices. This is where I feel the message that “faith is a virtue” is simply one of the most destructive ideas in the history of mankind (here I make a fundamental distinction between blind faith in the unobservable and reasonable faith based on objective/observable evidence – many theists like to equate the two in order to minimize the advancement of knowledge and understanding). Furthermore, any attempt to place a barrier between an individuals decisions and the resulting consequences hurts mans ability to draw necessary connections within their mind.
“If God as theists generally understand Him exists, then yes, this statement does require no further justification.”
This entire concept is based on faith… of course it requires mountains of justification, evidence, and proof. We have been debating the existence of God separately from this, but that isn’t even the point. Assuming you still choose to use selective inductive reasoning to infer there is a God, I cannot imagine how you can connect this seemingly indescribable being with one very specific religion and one very specific understanding of his moral status. This entire idea strongly re-enforces my point that such beliefs are heavily rooted in pre-existing beliefs, confirmation bias, and selective reasoning. I don’t feel the need to convince you of this, but am simply sharing my outside perspective.
“In my opinion, “objective morality” only has any real meaning if there is judgment and consequences in the afterlife.”
This statement fails to address how God himself would be moral or how there is any proof whatsoever of an afterlife. Does God have no arbiter? Who is there to judge his actions? What consequences does he face? Who should conclude that evolution is a painful, destructive, and a tortuous method to bring about life – and that perhaps God should be punished as a result? Just as the prime mover argument suggests God would need a cause, my response is that God would need his own objective arbiter in order to be moral (based on the argument you are making). Furthermore, I have yet to see any objective evidence for anything resembling an afterlife, let alone a future existence in which we are reminded of our past “sins” and are punished for them.
Therefore, I would strongly suggest that the only real arbiter is reality. When we steal, we risk being stolen from (or at least must then live with this fear). When we kill, we risk being killed (again, at very least live with this fear). Every action or choice has it’s consequences. When it comes to “God” being an arbiter, this doesn’t seem to actually affect change. Many people are irrational enough to believe they are doing good when they are doing evil, or perhaps simply don’t believe there is a God and therefore don’t fear punishment at all. In theory, their actions would not be affected by there simply being a God – especially one that makes his existence difficult, or perhaps impossible, to verify.
Therefore, it is only the immediate and tangible effects of their decisions, tied with improved reason and logic to forecast such effects, that will direct positive change. The more we understand reality and dismiss irrational faith, the more likely we will be to make correct decisions and reduce negative consequences. Do I think we will even reach perfection? Not necessarily, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for it in the correct direction – one that affects actual change.
As far as me being willing to “consider (your) questions on theological grounds” – I fail to see how we need to step into the world of faith and mysticism to objectively verify morality. Again, even if you conclude there is a God, I see no path to determine he is moral, that a hell should/must exist, or that any form of punishment/reward beyond the real world exists. Such ideas seem to be overwhelmingly based in pre-existing beliefs, and don’t seem like efficient ways to deal with irrational decisions (if anything, theism erodes critical thinking by promoting faith and belief in many ideas – of which the existence of “God” is just one of many unprovable assertions).
I accept reality as the final arbiter, because wither individuals accept it or not, there is no escaping it’s consequences. We don’t have to believe anything, be fearful of a mystical force, or ponder unknown implications in order to be exposed to the natural consequences of our actions. Just like a free-market economy is extremely efficient (even with some elements outside of the control of individuals), reality is extremely efficient at delivering appropriate consequences (even with some results being outside of individuals control). Both free-market economies and reality-based morals have disruptions based in irrationality, but as we move away from faith and towards reason, logic, and critical thinking – things improve exponentially.
Rick,
Every totalitarian regime in the history of man has applied individual logical thought and reason. In many respects the programs of Lenin and Stalin were entirely logical, from someone’s point of view. We need to think through these things, we need to apply rationality… I don’t see where you have added anything helpful here. Sounds like a negotiation to me, where the most powerful person wins.
You haven’t told me whether it’s OK to force women to have abortions in China yet. I’m interested in your answer.
“Choices are only bad when people have limited understanding, reduced critical thinking, or don’t have a direct connection to the consequences of their choices.”
So choices are always good when people have unlimited understanding, expanded critical thinking, and have a direct connection to the consequences of their choices? Does anyone have unlimited understanding? Does anyone have direct connection to all the consequences of their choices? How does your statement help us make right decisions? What have you really added to the discussion?
I’m looking in vain here for anything here which could be considered an objective set of moral values. It feels as though you’re trying to avoid doing just that. Actually the most interesting thing you said was this:
“Therefore, it is only the immediate and tangible effects of their decisions, tied with improved reason and logic to forecast such effects, that will direct positive change.”
This is precisely what’s wrong with a purely Darwinian worldview. Because all of us create consequences with our actions that are far, far removed from us.
All you’ve said here is that actions have consequences. We all know that. So how does non-theism give us objective morality? You’ve spent some time insulting religious people but you didn’t answer my original questions.
You asked, how do I know God is good? One source of knowledge is my own personal experiences with miracles and healing, as well as scientific evaluations of the same.
See http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles/
“Sounds like a negotiation to me, where the most powerful person wins.”
The “most powerful person” doesn’t win when someone else loses. A truly rational person would recognize any gain based on “power” comes at someone else’s expense. Are you truly happy when you feel you’ve taken advantage of someone as opposed to winning fair and square? Of course not. A truly rational person knows that the joys of accomplishment come from honest achievement – and this is often best accomplished through mutual gain. Even those that “lose” in direct competition gain in overall prosperity when the winning idea/product becomes clear to all. A rational person would understand that the other individual has a natural advantage in this area, and would move on to innovate or contribute in another way. A rational person recognizes that his own happiness is enhanced by the happiness of those around him.
“You haven’t told me whether it’s OK to force women to have abortions in China yet. I’m interested in your answer.”
I didn’t intend to dodge this. It’s never ok to force someone to do something against their will. The problem of overpopulation is one that solves itself in a rational society. What is the purpose in having children if you know their existence will suffer because of over-population? Reasoning people would see this issue coming from a mile away and would solve it rationally.
Your example fails to identify the many factors that contribute to the original problem. Lack of education, lack of critical thinking and reason, and centuries of crippled technological advancement due to some of these multiplying factors. You can come up with tricky scenarios to challenge my views, but it is essential to ask questions like – where did the initial problem come from? I find it curious that you don’t blame your concept of “God” for the limited space we have here on earth, the limited resources, and the irrationality that contributes to women having too many babies in the first place.
“So choices are always good when people have unlimited understanding, expanded critical thinking, and have a direct connection to the consequences of their choices? Does anyone have unlimited understanding? Does anyone have direct connection to all the consequences of their choices? How does your statement help us make right decisions? What have you really added to the discussion?”
I’ve already addressed these points. I stated we may never have perfect knowledge, but we certainly do recognize that the more knowledge we have – the better our decisions are. We can choose to reject any personal responsibility of choice onto an imagined “all knowing God”… but that only supports my point that knowledge enhances decision making abilities while failing to prove the existence of such a being. Simply wanting perfect answers doesn’t mean there is a God ready to provide them.
“This is precisely what’s wrong with a purely Darwinian worldview. Because all of us create consequences with our actions that are far, far removed from us.”
In saying this, you are not contradicting my view that having more information, thought, and critical thinking is beneficial. You are simply asserting we will never have enough information to make perfect decisions. I fail to see how this changes the fact that a more rational world would be a better place… or to see how any theistic moral code or concept of God has been proven effective to date. Again, just because you want perfection now doesn’t mean there is a God waiting to provide it.
“You asked, how do I know God is good? One source of knowledge is my own personal experiences with miracles and healing, as well as scientific evaluations of the same.”
This is a clear example of selective reasoning. How and why do you dismiss blatant examples of world suffering, starvation, and the destruction of natural disasters? Your willingness to accept examples of good and dismiss examples of bad (or perhaps attribute them to a “devil”) is indicative of your overwhelming confirmation bias. Why do you arbitrarily assert “God” is good?
Can you prove the devil exists? Is he responsible for natural disasters? If you say “sin” or “evil” is proof of the devils existence – how can these are not a direct result of “God”? What evidence do you have that objectively proves God is inherently good and therefore couldn’t also create destruction and suffering?
The entire theistic belief system is based on indoctrination and acceptance of arbitrary ideas. If “God” is by definition “good”, why did he create the devil? If he didn’t create the devil, then God isn’t outside the existence of everything. If there is no devil – why is there evil/sin as you would define it? If there is no evil/sin… why is their heaven/hell or any form of post-life award/punishment?
We need to blindly accept the entire theistic message in order for various definitions to hold any merit. God has to be arbitrarily defined as perfect/good in order to support the notion that your concept of evil/sin proves the existence of a devil. All of these arbitrary definitions break down when we start asking for objective evidence of their validity.
Perry says:
‘You are invited to demonstrate a flaw in Gödel’s logic if you can. And I will certainly be happy to post that argument here on my blog.’
Well, it’s not that hard to point out the flaw in Godel’s argument. It isn’t something that can be put into a few lines, but you can see it here:
http://jamesrmeyer.com/godel_flaw.html
and in simplified form, together with a simplified explanation of Godel’s proof here:
http://jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/GodelSimplified0.html
James,
Q: Are you only seeking to show a flaw in Gödel’s original paper, or are you seeking to broadly show that the Incompleteness theorem in its various current forms is fundamentally incorrect?
Perry
James,
I am not sufficiently trained in formal mathematics to decide, myself, whether you are right or wrong. Perhaps I could with time but that would require a very significant time commitment from me. Readers can decide for themselves.
What I will say is that based on reading the online debates about this for a couple of hours, I’m not persuaded that you’re correct. I sifted through these threads:
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6300764&tstart=0
and
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_frm/thread/3fd9e2fe7b924c74/270a6b8f731207cf?hl=en&pli=1
and
http://r6.ca/Goedel/FFGITReview.html
and
http://www.jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/review-oconnor.html
I believe everyone is being fair with you. Also I believe that if you are correct about this, you can get this published. There is surely a mathematics journal that would be willing to risk opposing the Gödel doctrine. Such a thing would be a newsworthy event.
My own judgment is based on several things:
1) The conversations I see here are generally not vitriolic. There is real discussion happening here. I know what knuckleheads sound like when they’re in denial of losing an argument, and these people are neither knuckleheads, nor are they losing the argument.
2) This is not a shades of gray issue with dozens of difficult-to-quantify factors, like arguing about, say, the myriad causes of global warming. This is math and logic.
3) Gödel’s theorem has been scrutinized and obsessed over for decades. The Logical Positivists in particular had enormous motivations to disprove Incompleteness when Gödel first published his paper; yet they could not. I find it difficult to believe that Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell and even Hilbert would have been unable to find this flaw 50+ years ago if it were real. Not to mention thousands of others who have followed.
Again, readers can judge for themselves. In my opinion there is a slim possibility that the mathematical profession has been wrong about Gödel for 80 years but it’s not a horse I’m willing to bet on.
If you are right then I salute you and in any case encourage you to consider getting your findings published.
I am a mathematician, and I can tell you for sure that you have a basic misunderstanding of what the theory of everything is; the theory of everything is a grand unifying field theory. It has nothing to do with having a system that is entirely self contained, but rather a system that can describe the fundamental forces simply. Your assumption that a conscious being must be the external observer seems kind of ridiculous to me, and is a giant jump. You might as well be Descartes with his cogito ergo sum, ergo deus. What a ridiculous notion.
A system that describes the fundamental forces simply is still a system, and still subject to Gödel’s theorem.
You’re welcome to challenge any specific statement I have made. I maintain that everything I have said here is 100% logical and that the conclusions follow naturally from the premises.
Perry,
I thoroughly enjoyed your article, and the mental, logical, and theological exercise it plays in. There’s nothing like hangin’ out with smart people to make you smarter.
So frankly, with all the smart people you attract, I’m surprised no one’s mentioned this…
Just as “I am lying” is a paradox, so is Godel’s theorem. All we need to do is draw a circle around all the things that Godel’s theorem applies to. Outside of that circle must be all the things that the theorem doesn’t apply to. Therefore, Godel’s theorem does not apply to all the things that Godel’s theorem applies to.
Oh! (smoke coming from my ears) My head hurts!
Is there a flaw in this application of Godel’s theorem?
-Mark
p.s. All my best wishes for a healthy, happy, giving and prosperous new year, Perry.
Mark,
Gödel’s theorem applies to all systems, statements, objects and propositions.
The thing outside the biggest circle is not a system or statement or object or proposition. It’s real not imaginary; it’s axiomatic; it’s conscious; it’s boundless and immaterial.
Which is to say, Gödel’s theorem does not apply to God. Rather, I would say that Gödel’s theorem is itself contingent on God. Consider how God identified Himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14: Simply “I AM.”
Happy New Year to you too Mark! Great to hear from ya yesterday.
Perry
P.S.: There’s a lengthy conversation with a guy named Derek on my other blog about something very closely related to this, it’s at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/comment-page-1/#comment-3241 and http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/comment-page-1/#comment-3725
I loved the article until it stop being descriptive and tried to argument for the existence of god. You made some really big jumps there, pal.
I liked your approach to explaining the existence of god, but you have to be honest with yourself.
At least you are not the kind of christian who believes Jesus used to ride a velociraptor.
cheers!
You’re welcome to explain exactly where, logically speaking, I made “really big jumps.”
It seems that you have grossly misunderstood Godel. There are actually two theorems.
Number 1:
“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250).”
Number 2
“For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.”
(Pulled from Wikipedia.)
These do not apply to all systems. They only apply to those that express arithmetic.
If logic and arithmetic describe the universe, then Gödel’s theorem applies to the universe.
If logic and arithmetic do not describe the universe, then scientific thought also does not apply to the universe.
Everything I have said here is contingent on science and math being valid tools for studying the physical world. My conclusions here are therefore as valid as the practice of science itself.
I do concede that the practice of science is based on, literally, FAITH, that the universe is rational. By the way, the notion that the universe is rational originally came from Judeo-Christian theology. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq/#christian
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
My point was that this is not what Godel’s theorems say at all. The theorems say nothing about having to assume the existence of anything outside the ‘circle.’ What you have done is taken a metaphor and extended it far beyond its bounds, and the metaphor was incorrect in the first place.
Derek,
Quoting you, the theorem says:
“…there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable IN the theory.” (Emphasis mine.)
This means that is axiomatic. It relies on an axiom, which is something you know to be true or have to assume to be true but which is unprovable. If it is consistent it is incomplete. Anything that proves its consistency is outside the statement. Therefore there is something outside the statement.
“This means that is axiomatic. It relies on an axiom, which is something you know to be true or have to assume to be true but which is unprovable. If it is consistent it is incomplete. Anything that proves its consistency is outside the statement. Therefore there is something outside the statement.”
Perhaps some clarification will help. All formal systems are axiomatic. A proof is when you show some statement to be a result of the axioms. So such a statement cannot rely upon an axiom, per Godel’s theorem. Also you are assuming that there is something that does, in fact, prove it’s consistency, which Godel’s theorems do not assert.
You also are confusing objects of language with the language itself. Just because parts of the universe can be described by mathematics, does not make the universe a formal system. It’s like calling a chair a noun. ‘Chair’ is a noun, but a chair is not; only words can be nouns.
Derek,
If you don’t think the universe can be accurately described by mathematics – and that it is not a formal system – you are free to take that position. At the same time you are then taking a position that science is a questionable endeavor.
If a statement is a result of an axiom then it relies on the axiom. And this is what Gödel is saying.
Rolling with your chair analogy, I am not saying a chair is a noun. I’m saying that a chair is an object. The word “chair” is a noun.
In mathematics, all systems rely on axioms – assumptions which must be taken to be true but cannot be proven.
If the universe is a formal system then the universe similarly relies on *something* which must be taken to be true but cannot be proven. And the thing that the universe relies on is a something, not a nothing. Therefore the universe is not the only thing that exists. There is something outside the universe which is not a system.
Wow, thought provoking post. It’s not often that I see proofs of Gods existence of such high quality. That said, I’m curious to know how your take on two points that didn’t quite jive for me.
First, does Godel’s Theorem apply to itself? Can it truly ever be proven, if it’s making assumptions that it can’t prove? If it can, then the theorem is proven useless, and if it can’t, then how can anything in the universe ever be proven? (If nothing can be proven, what evidence for a god could we have?)
Secondly, using the circle analogy, if there is something outside of the largest circle that it is possible to draw, then that something must be infinite. If it is infinite, then it is everywhere. If it is everywhere, how has evaded detection of scientists for so very long? If a creator is boundless, then science must have found evidence of its existence, and if not, it could be encompassed by a circle. Paradoxical…
Again, thanks for a well thought-out post.
Gödel’s theorem does rely on assumptions you cannot prove, in the sense that Gödel expresses his theorem in Peano axioms, a mathematical system which is not provable within itself. Incompleteness is proven in the same way that geometry proofs are proven. It is 100% consistent with all that is known.
God IS everywhere. Judeo-Christian theologians have been saying that for 4000 years. Why does God evade detection? Because God is immaterial and we can only detect material things with the scientific process. But God is inferred in innumerable ways.
Dire misunderstanding of Godel’s theorem. It was all going so well until you took the metaphor you’d constructed around the maths and tried to apply it to the universe. As another commenter has said, the theorem applies only to mathematical systems. Specifically those systems that are complex enough to derive arithmetic from.
The real “incompleteness” is that when working with the axioms of those specific formal systems, you will find there are either things that are true that you cannot prove, or things that are paradoxical that you can prove – the system is either incomplete or inconsistent.
You insist on saying that the universe must be a formal system for it to be described by science, the truth is that science describes the world _using_ various formally phrased “laws”, but the universe itself is the “outside of the circle” (outside of our descriptive system) to point to in this case.
Our formal systems don’t define the universe; they’re a best approximation to what we observe, and the self-justifying element at the foundation of it all is the bald fact of the way things are. Reality doesn’t derive from axioms, it just is what it is, and because of that it doesn’t in any sense match up to what the Incompleteness Theorem was about.
Matt,
Gödel’s theorem applies to everything that reason and logic apply to.
No, our formal systems don’t define the universe, they describe them.
If the universe is complete it is inconsistent and thus not amenable to scientific analysis.
If the universe is consistent and amenable to logical analysis, then it is incomplete and therefore contingent on something.
I vote in favor of science. IF the universe is scientifically, mathematically and logically describable, then God exists.
You are welcome to reject the God proposition. In so doing you also reject reason and logic and science.
“Gödel’s theorem applies to everything that reason and logic apply to.”
No, I believe you’ll find that it applies strictly to axiomatic mathematical systems; “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory”
So if you start with a set of mathematical axioms, and those axioms are sufficient to express arithmetic, then it is also true that your system is either incomplete (there are truths that it can’t prove) or it’s inconsistent (you can prove things that are contradictory).
Now say it with me, the universe is not an axiomatic system of mathematics. There are no axioms of the universe, and hence no logical derivation of other propositions from the universe and no Incompleteness.
Empirical derivation of propositions, maybe (although that’ll run the risk of simple observational error), but I can’t repeat enough; the universe is not a system of formal logic. Further, it has no need to prove itself by formal logic – the universe just is. Its nature is a simple fact, that to some extent we observe.
I also take issue with your talk of “The origin of information”. The genetic ‘code’ is not symbolic and immaterial, it’s carbon-based chemistry. Not even very complicated chemistry to be honest. You claim that ‘information’ had to come from the ‘outside’, which seems to miss the fact that randomly combined nucleotides have just as much genetic information in them as the same length of useful DNA. The only difference is that genetic material that is conducive to its own replication will do just that, replicating more than other such material until it dominates.
“All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings” is a barely concealed circular argument. It fails on the count that genes are not real codes (they are molecules – talk of information being coded into them is a convenient shorthand for talking about their chemical properties) and even if I let that pass, it fails on the second count that you use the assumption of all codes being consciously designed to argue that a specific code is consciously designed without any further evidence for your position.
“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it. If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know that all systems must rely on something outside the system. [..] Because the universe is a system, it has an outside cause.”
Once again, the natural world is not an axiomatic system, and hence not something that Godel’s theorem is applicable to.
Matt,
Any system of logic (boolean algebra for example) is always definable in terms of axiomatic mathematical systems.
You are free to reject the idea that axiomatic mathematical systems accurately model the universe. But in doing so you are rejecting the very premise of science, which is that the universe is weighable, countable, measurable, and that the activities of matter and energy conform to reason and logic and mathematical formulas.
The pattern in DNA is a code. All you need to do to verify that fact is read a biology book very carefully. Study the history of the genetic code. Discover for yourself why GGG=Glycine and AAA=Lycine etc etc.
The clearest explanation of this in my book collection is by Hubert Yockey. He says: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802938?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwperryc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521802938
“Any system of logic (boolean algebra for example) is always definable in terms of axiomatic mathematical systems.” Agreed, but I don’t see the relevance.
“You are free to reject the idea that axiomatic mathematical systems accurately model the universe.” I didn’t, I rejected the idea that the universe itself is an axiomatic mathematical system.
To put it in your terms, the reason we can model the universe with logical systems is that we have an actual universe “outside of the circle” to “point to”. (Quotations used to express the fact that I dislike the terminology; it’s an oversimplification of the theorem and makes it too easy to misapply it)
The universe as we know it acts as the ultimate axiom – if the model contradicts the universe, we know the model is wrong. It may be that some physical ‘laws’ that we think are true turn out to be incomplete or inconsistent in their description of the universe, but that means we need an improved model, not that the universe needs some external factor to be explained.
As for genetic codes, it’s as I’ve said; even if I accept that it is a true code, you don’t have a valid argument. Saying that all known codes have a conscious origin, and that therefore a specific code has a conscious origin, is specious reasoning. To prove that all codes have conscious origin would require you to prove that genes have a conscious origin, which you have not done.
I can accept Yockey’s assertion that “the origin of life is the founding axiom of biology” — biology being the study of life it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to talk about pre-biotic biology.
Pre-biotic chemistry is another matter though; chemistry and physics do not depend in any sense on the existence or origins of life, and we can very usefully study the precursors of life in the form of non-living organic chemistry, and theorise on how such chemicals might become self-replicating and come to form something we recognise as living.
Matt,
The relevance of my first comment is that Gödel’s theorem applies to all things that are defined as systems.
You are rejecting the idea that axiomatic mathematical systems model the universe. You are free to do that.
But if math does accurately describe the universe, then the universe is just as axiomatic as the math that describes it.
The universe cannot be the ultimate axiom if you believe in cause and effect. The universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. Something had to cause it.
You are of course free to reject the principle of cause and effect. That is your decision.
If we were to build a mathematical system that perfectly describes the big bang, it would rely on some initial conditions and axiomatic statements that are not provable inside the system. Therefore if we accept the principle of cause and effect, the universe is contingent on something outside itself.
My statement that all known codes have conscious origin, therefore a specific code has a conscious origin, is not specious. Perhaps this conclusion is bothersome to you, but it’s straightforward inductive reasoning. You can choose not to accept that. If you reject it then you reject induction which is the basis of most scientific propositions. My statement is just as reliable as gravity and entropy. For example, the assumption that the law of gravity is the same 10 billion light years away as it is here is not proven and probably not provable either. (Formally speaking it is not provable at all.) We assume gravity is a consistent law based only on induction.
Self replication requires a code to exist first, as John Von Neumann determined in his papers on self-replicating machines in the 1960′s. All codes we know the origin of are designed. Therefore we have 100% inference that the genetic code is designed and 0% inference to any other explanation.
We understand codes every bit as well as we understand gravity. Maybe better. We create codes all the time. We can’t create gravity. Thus any conclusion other than “DNA is designed” is specious.
“The relevance of my first comment is that Gödel’s theorem applies to all things that are defined as systems.”
Mathematical systems and logical systems that are equivalent to mathematical systems, yes. I have never denied this. But the universe is neither; it’s a physical system. It doesn’t derive from axioms, it can’t be used to derive propositions, it doesn’t fit the bill.
The closest you can come to ‘deriving a proposition’ from the universe is to observe its behaviour and formulate a mathematical statement to describe that behaviour. Maybe the model is subject to Incompleteness but, as you’ve said, that just means it needs something outside of the model to serve as an unproven given. The thing outside the model is the universe’s actual observed behaviour. We can take that as an absolute axiom with respect to what our models should predict.
“But if math does accurately describe the universe, then the universe is just as axiomatic as the math that describes it.”
The model has, as far as we know, been accurate up until now. I don’t take that as absolute/unshakeable proof that the universe will always be consistent with our predictions. If the two things diverge we’ll need to come up with a new model because they remain two different things. Using an axiomatic model to describe a thing, however accurately, doesn’t make that thing, itself, axiomatic.
“The universe cannot be the ultimate axiom if you believe in cause and effect. The universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. Something had to cause it.”
I’ll take this seriously when you can convince me that a) your god doesn’t equally require a cause and that b) the universe (or some n-dimensional ‘higher’ universe) can’t be self originating in the same way as you propose that god is. If you’re going to restate the Cosmological argument, I feel quite happy using the age old objections to it. (If you manage the first one, you’ll still need to prove that your first cause has any attribute other than uncausedness. I know you think you’ve done that, you even put it bold, but that’s a whole other argument to have).
You don’t appear to have fully comprehended my point on the subject of “all known codes have conscious origin, therefore a specific code has conscious origin”. There’s no denying that the former implies the latter, but your argument is backwards – to boldly assert something about “all codes” you first need to prove that thing true of each specific code without reference to anything being true of “all codes”.
To put it shortly, “all known codes have conscious origin” is dependent on each specific code having conscious origin, so when you introduce “all known codes have conscious origin” to your argument about a specific code, you’re implicitly assuming that which you’re trying to prove. It’s not “straightforward inductive reasoning” at all, just partially obscured circular reasoning.
As a sidenote, I’m curious; why is a piece about Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem on a site that’s otherwise about Google-based marketing?
Matt,
Postulate: IF the universe conforms to reason and logic then it is subject to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.
The universe is finite. It came into existence 13 billion years ago. How could it give birth to itself?
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that the universe CAN be self-originating.
You can resort to an infinite regress of universes, but philosophers almost universally reject infinite regression as an adequate explanation of anything.
I cannot prove to you that God doesn’t require a cause. I can only point out that at some stage in the past there is a necessity of an uncaused cause. The universe is not its own uncaused cause because everything physical is subject to causality. If you have empirical evidence to the contrary you’re welcome to present it.
All codes we know the origin of are either direct derivatives of DNA (RNA, bee waggles, viruses, dogs barking, pheremone trails, animal instinct) or else they are created by conscious beings making deliberate choices (zip code, morse code, bar code, TCP/IP, every single file on your computer).
My reasoning is not circular. It begins with an open question of not knowing where the genetic code came from and observing closely how all other codes came into being. The process of creating codes is well-known branch of science taught in CS departments in major universities all over the world. There is no other known process for creating codes besides sentient beings making conscious choices of symbols based on desires and priorities. DNA reflects all the same kinds of choices, from the 4-letter alphabet to the most complex genetic transpositions.
If you examine them closely you’ll find that all arguments that DNA is not designed are in fact circular. I have a much more complete presentation on this at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
I really comes down to this: If you hypothesize that codes can occur naturally, then show me one empirical example that supports that hypothesis.
Why an article about Gödel on this website? Because I’m interested in a lot more things in life than just search engines.
Perry
You don’t have to prove scientifically that god exists. You can just be faithful, its a more gracious way of being a believer than trying to push your opinions in a semi-literate way to everyone else…
I recommend Soren Kierkegaard.
Something out of context: ” Thus, faith is united with the truth by serving as the most extreme expression of subjectivity, and by representing the only manner in which the existing individual can accept paradox.”
http://www.schoolbytes.com/summary.php?disp=term&id=234
Check this site, i haven’t read it all, but it could be helpful to everyone like you. In some way, a more complex way you’re trying to do what every silly creationist tries to do in a more naive way, that is, trying to push a belief into science.
Sorry for the errors, english is not my first language.
I think you are putting god outside the circle boundary everything that is real;)
“My reasoning is not circular. It begins with an open question of not knowing where the genetic code came from and observing closely how all other codes came into being.”
Allow me to analogise for a moment. Imagine I were to examine all of the cats I could lay my hands on, I would find that to an animal they would all have tails. I might hence conclude that all known cats have tails, and thus that I believe all cats to have tails.
Then someone presents me with a Manx cat, to which my response is that we already know that all known cats have tails, so this cat must also have a tail. I think you are committing the same flaw of reasoning; hasty generalisation.
All human designed codes have conscious design. That much is tautologically obvious. The other class of ‘codes’ we have are those in the natural world. We know of no designer for these things, and it is faulty reasoning to conclude that because “all known codes” (excluding the natural ones under consideration) have conscious design, that the codes of the natural world must also have conscious design.
I submit, that the codes of the natural world, be they genetic, bee waggles, or any other, are the results of what I will term unconscious design. Brought into being by blind processes with no intent, no thought, no goal and no consciousness.
I’m talking about, of course, evolutionary processes. Amino acids form spontaneously under a variety of conditions, RNA strands have been found to assemble, using cyanide or the checker-board patterns of charge in ice as a template. RNA is also known to be potentially self-catalysing, and self-replicating. Once we have replication (and mutation via faults in replication), we have evolution. Some RNAs go on to produce proteins and DNA, which turn out to be advantageous because they can improve the process of replication and help the RNA that produces them to dominate the available resources.
That path may be hopelessly wrong; we may later find the evidence that shows it happened a different way, I entirely accept that possibility. But at the same time, having any plausible explanation that fits within the natural world without any awkward ‘nomological danglers’ hanging out is infinitely preferable to resorting to the supernatural as an ‘explanation’, because it does not really explain anything at all – no predictions to be made, no evidence to be found, no proof or disproof except the incredulous cries of “well how else could it happen”.
In your other article you dismiss out of hand the idea of naturally occurring codes, without any reasoning presented beyond … well, actually I don’t see any reasoning except stating your position again in slightly different ways; “Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols.” is another example of your circularity – assuming the general case as a way to prove the specific case, when the general case is dependent on the specific case. Maybe chaos has been shown to produce a code, in the instance of naturally occurring codes. Nothing you can say about “all codes” can rule that out.
[Sidenote: I would take exception to natural selection being characterised as chaotic; mutation is the only random step, everything beyond that is much more deterministic, except for true accidents of nature like the first carrier of a novel allele having the misfortune to be hit by a meteor or some such]
If you could prove to me, without any reference to “all other codes” or other generalisations that are dependent on the specific cases, that DNA as an information carrying molecule could not possibly arise by natural processes, then I would be most impressed. (Note also, that stating “Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy” as a premise, without some very strong supporting evidence for that extraordinary claim, will not get you very far).
It’s late, I’m tired, but reply to this and the email notification will remind me to come back and say more about the universe as opposed to DNA.
Matt,
Code is defined as a system of symbols for communication between an encoder and a decoder (Claude Shannon, 1948).
Show me a naturally occurring code. Of ANY kind. Just one.
The problem is that you’ve defined DNA as a code. You were going on about cause and effect; DNA is a series of molecules (physical things) that act in concert to produce/maintain/whatever else (effect) creatures. It’s not a code; it’s a chemical reaction.
Second, you are squirreled down in semantics in a big way. 13.7 billion years ago, we SUSPECT that the big bang occurred because that fits the available data. We suspect, but don’t know. You say that something must have caused it. I ask why?
In university, I used the reaction/proaction argument to “prove” the existence of something beyond what we can know — i.e. if everything is a reaction, and you go back far enough, there was a beginning, therefore a proaction, therefore that energy or whatever it was…et cetera et cetera. But it doesn’t prove anything. Here’s why:
1) I postulate that before the big bang, there was nothingness, and in that state of nothingness some energy (God?) acted on the speck that was our universe and caused it to explode into what we now see. I postulate it, but there’s nothing to indicate this is so. There’s no trace of this energy now, and there’s nothing to indicate it ever happened.
or
2) I postulate that the “universe” is an ineffably vast concept that can barely even be perceived by our fallible minds and senses, much less understood to any great degree.
or
3) I postulate that because thoughts are formed as words, and words can be traced back to some primitive articulation that was created by a fallible mind, all words are most likely wildly inaccurate at best, and completely fallacious. Therefore, any discussion about great concepts is like pissing into the wind. You feel good about yourself, you get it out of your system, but it ends up all over your face.
If you accept the notion that we have an imperfect understanding of the universe, then you have to accept the notion that Godel himself was imperfect. You can’t state with equanimity that his imperfect theorem. based on a imperfect system, which imperfectly describes the universe can POSSIBLY be any type of legitimate proof for anything.
You can say that it is a logical confirmation of something you would like to believe anyway. But I can say (more accurately) that what we think of as logic, is most likely flawed, inaccurate and wrong. It’s simply the best system we have, to date.
BB,
The definition of DNA as code is the most fundamental definition in all of biology. If you want to throw everything we know about genetics in the dumpster, that is your choice. But a more anti-scientific statement could hardly be uttered. I can only urge you to study the history of the genetic code and find out why the pattern of base pairs in DNA is, in fact, a literal code.
Your (1) is actually quite reasonable, and most importantly, pretty much matches the data we have on hand. But it still requires an antecedent event, namely an External Agent.
Your (2) avoids (1) in favor of irrationality. It abdicates to confusion. It discards reason and logic. Which in my opinion is a huge step backwards. It tosses 3000 years of philosophy and mathematics in the dumpster.
Now what I want you to notice is that your (1) and (2) summarize Gödel’s theorem perfectly. Either the universe is consistent, in which case it is incomplete (God is necessary). Or else the universe is complete (no God necessary) but therefore inconsistent.
In other words if we take God as axiomatic, reason and logic and science are allowed to proceed. Then we successfully assume that we can study the universe and learn more and more. If we exclude the possibility of God then we have no choice but to assume the universe is an ineffable mystery.
Correct me if I’m wrong but you appear to be saying, “You just gave me a logical set of statements that show the necessity of God. I prefer illogic.”
I would invite you to open yourself to all the different possibilities and simply follow the evidence where it leads.
Your (3) is an epistemology that we would expect Darwinism to produce. If we are the result of nothing but random copying errors filtered by natural selection, then we have no reason to suspect that our minds can accurately model the mysteries of the universe. If, however, living things have been purposefully programmed, we might rather expect that we were designed to comprehend our creator.
No, that was not was I was saying. My postulates were all statements that were equally valid (they have nothing physical to support them but they are logically sound). Any one is as likely as the other.
With regard to my (1), it does not ‘pretty much match the data on hand.’
Do you know what the scientific consensus is for what happened “before the big bang?”
We don’t know.
Either the universe itself has always been, or it’s cyclical, or there is God, or the big bang never even happened, or or or…
There is problem in saying things with certainty when there are so many unknowns and barely-knowns. But here’s one thing that is known:
Godel’s Theorem isn’t a scientific proof. It’s a thought experiment. It’s an observation about the mathematical system; but it’s a THOUGHT experiment.
It wasn’t that Godel went out and, say, observed anything. He simply observed that, in terms of arithmetic, there were unprovable assumptions made.
The thing is, that assumption doesn’t necessarily hold true in a macrocosmic way. It’s like saying, “I’ve observed (x) about a piece of fruit, therefore (x) must be true about the supermarket, because the supermarket contains fruit.”
It’s not necessarily true. People haven’t disproved his theorem because it’s a logically sound statement. But it doesn’t necessarily hold true as you scale up (similar to how Newtonian physics is true for a vast majority of all cases, but at extremes, it becomes inaccurate).
If you want to dispute that by saying “logic is logic” or something similar, or dismiss this again by saying that I’m throwing out science, be my guest. But that’s not the case. Logic is a tool and not the bottom line. And science is filled with instances of microcosmic observations being true and macrocosmic observations being false (and vice versa).
The universe cannot be cyclical because of entropy. Once a candle is burnt you can’t light it again.
There is no such thing as a scientific proof. Science can only infer. It cannot prove.
Gödel’s theorem is a mathematical proof. In philosophy, a mathematical proof is about as close to an absolute truth as we can get.
Getting hit by a bus and dying is an absolute truth. But it’s not a scientific theorem, it’s just an empirical fact.
Also, DNA is described as a code, but is certainly not DEFINED as a code. Similar to the way many people call every bit of music “songs.” It’s a convenient way to be understood, but it’s not the most accurate.
BB,
See “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” by Hubert Yockey (Cambridge University Press, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802938?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwperryc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521802938
Also see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq
A code is a member of the class ‘symbols’. A first level symbol is a label which is used in place of the thing which it identifies. For example, suppose a building with a sign over the window which bears the word ‘pharmacy’. We can use the symbol ‘pharmacy’ in language as a symbolic substitute for any real pharmacy. Suppose now that we invent a slang term ‘pill-farm’ to mean ‘pharmacy’. We now have a secondary label ‘pill-farm’ which is a second-level symbol for ‘pharmacy’. ‘Pharmacy’ in its turn is a first level symbol for a real building of a specific type.
By convention, a primary symbol is a name, but any secondary symbol is a code: a symbol which stands in place of another symbol. For purposes of clarification, I will give another example. ‘And so forth’ is a primary label or symbol for an idea. By converting it into Latin, a language spoken by few speakers of English, we encode it as ‘et cetera’. We now abbreviate it to ‘etc.’, a second level coding.
A code is not a symbol. A symbol is not a code. A symbol stands in place of an object or idea. A code stands in place of a symbol: it is a symbol for a symbol.
In computer instructions, we start with the simplest possible representations of what is going on inside a computer chip. We observe that a location in a computer chip can be at one of two voltages. Taking these voltages as our idea we invent symbols for the two voltages: ’1′ and ’0′. These are our primary symbols and they can only be written as binary expressions.
As a convenience, we can use a form of abbreviation which is easier for humans to handle than binary. The most common such abbreviation is hexadecimal code, or hex. As an example, the binary 1010 0101 can be written as A5 in hex. Note that hex, being a secondary symbol level is a code.
When dealing with binary as computer instructions rather than as numbers it is convenient to use mnemonic codes. It may be that the binary string 1111 0000 1100 0100, or F0C4 in hex, is an instruction to the computer core, expressed as F0, to jump to memory location C4, but only IF a previously computed result was non-zero. We can write that as a mnemonic code: JNZ C4.
Such mnemonics are called assembly language. The ‘assembly’ part of the name comes from the fact that this mnemonic code needs to be assembled into a package of binary numbers in order for the computer to be able to use it as a program.
DNA is a string of molecules. There are four main components: guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine. Those names, the words ‘guanine’, ‘adenine’, ‘thymine’ and ‘cytosine’ are primary symbols invented by humans to identify the physical molecules which are found in DNA.
For convenience, we often abbreviate these symbols to CAGT, so that we can more readily handle the huge volume of data which we have accumulated about DNA. Please observe: there exists a long molecule of a type which we label DNA. It has four major components to which we assign symbols as names. We next assign symbols to the name symbols as an abbreviating code. We humans have agreed to assign the four letters CAGT as a code for the symbols which in turn stand for the molecular components of DNA.
A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these ‘codes’.
A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state.
DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end state from an initial state.
To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific.
Definition of CODE: 3a: A system of symbols for communication 4: Genetic Code (Webster’s 9th collegiate dictionary)
Quoting Webster’s to prove that DNA is a code is about the weakest appeal to authority I have ever seen.
It also shows that you didn’t even bother to read what I wrote.
Appeal to authority is a classic fallacy that you’ve employed more than once by quoting specific authours and disagreeing with or ignoring others.
I am using Claude Shannon’s definitions as found in his paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” and Yockey’s definitions in his book “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” by Hubert Yockey (Cambridge University Press, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802938?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwperryc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521802938. Both use the term code in the same identical way.
The pattern formed by the four bases in DNA is a code in exactly and precisely the same way that TTL voltages in a computer are code, that magnetic domains on a hard drive are code, that pulses of light in a fiber optic cable are code, or pits on a CD-ROM are code. This is a standard engineering definition and usage of the term “code” and is universal in all literature on digital communications. Webster’s definition of code as “A system of symbols for communication” is 100% consistent with this usage. Again I quote Yockey (2005):
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
In this conversation I must insist on using standard engineering definitions that are universally accepted in scientific literature.
By the way if you want to argue about the definition of the word “code” then you need to be aware that whole conversation already happened four years ago, when my debate on the world’s largest atheist discussion board, Infidels, began. You can read all about it with links to all relevant conversations at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infidels. I’ll save you some time – you will get nowhere attempting to assert that the genetic code is a code by some strange definition that’s different than other contexts. Again, you can read the Infidels thread for an exhaustive discussion of the history of its discovery and why biologists have defined it that way for 50+ years now.
On http://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm, in reference to http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=135497&page=1, Perry Marshall comments that “For Three Years and counting, I have successfully advanced the Information Theory argument for Intelligent Design on Infidels, the world’s largest Atheist discussion forum.” and that “The discussion continued for more than 4 months and 300 posts. At the end, nearly all participants dropped out, having failed to topple my proof or produce any new objections that had not already been addressed.”
This is a rather interesting spin on reality. Just to give folks a balanced perspective, here are actual numbers taken frum just that discussion thread:
Start of thread: August 30, 2005, 06:00 PM
Total number of postings: 1398
Total number of postings by user pmarshall (on ALL of freeratio.org): 26
Last posting on thread: March 10, 2010, 05:56 PM
Last posting by user pmarshall: October 26, 2008, 09:17 PM
I’m leaving the conclusions up to the learned reader.
you are using a theorem within a system to explain something beyond the system. whut
using something we know to describe something which we cannot know is just faith. you jump from logic to faith when you use the incompleteness theorem to make a logical induction about something beyond “everything”. you “believe” that it applies to something beyond “everything”.
in other words: beyond the scope of the universe you cannot with certainty apply knowledge that is within the universe (otherwise it would be describable by the universe and therefore part of it)
Tim,
What you’re really describing is the inherent problem of induction. Induction can give you only so much specificity; that’s why when you apply Gödel’s theorem to “whatever is outside the universe” you get a list of what God is not, rather than a list of what God is. God is not material, not matter & energy, not time, not divisible, not a system. And by the way this list is remarkably similar to Aquinas’ 5 statements about God. This summary of Aquinas is from Wikipedia:
Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five statements about the divine qualities:
1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.[60]
2. God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God’s complete actuality.[61]
3. God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.[62]
4. God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God’s essence and character.[63]
5. God is one, without diversification within God’s self. The unity of God is such that God’s essence is the same as God’s existence. In Aquinas’s words, “in itself the proposition ‘God exists’ is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same.”[64]
If you sift through every single element in both my Gödel article and Aquinas’ statements with a fine-toothed comb, you can verify for yourself that it is all 100% logical.
One of the realizations that you come to is that God is “outside of” reason and logic. This at first seems disturbing until you remember that God is not divisible, God is not made up of “moving parts” and since reason and logic are about relationships between separate parts, this therefore does not make God illogical. It just makes God superior to logic by virtue of being One.
Many people have said, “Logical statements cannot be made about God.” But that statement itself is a logical statement concerning God, therefore it is self-contradictory, therefore it is not true. Logical statements CAN be made about God. And the most logical statement you can make about God is:
God IS.
Thus it makes perfect sense that Jesus, who claimed to be God, said:
“Before Abraham was, I AM.”
what youre saying is that the same rules of logic that apply within the universe apply outside the universe. you cant say this with certainty. the applicability of the theorem ends with the “edge of the universe” because it is based on logic of the universe.
in short:The universe and not the universe are not the same. “Universal” logic cant apply to outside the universe by definition
Which specific rules of logic do you think do not apply outside the universe?
For example:
If we draw a circle around all the matter in the cosmos and say that there is no matter outside that circle, are you saying that’s not a true statement?
Dear Perry,
Thank you for the interesting read on Goedel.
May I refer a small comment to your statement:
“In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Godel,
published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single
Theory Of Everything is actually impossible.”
To my understanding Goedels incompleteness theorem can be
stated in simple english as:
A formal system of sufficient complexity is either
or .
I assume your above statement refers only to a contradiction-free systems,
which is indeed incomplete according to Goedel. Am I correct?
Well, my comment is the following:
If you consider for a moment a contradictive system with the potential of completeness,
would this not possibly allow the existence of a theory of everything? Of course
such a theory would then include contradicitve statements…
Here I do not want to think about such a contradictive system or discuss its
usefullness. But refering to your above statement I would like to mention,
that in my understanding of Goedel, there is the possibility of a single Theory Of Everything.
Even so it would (according to Goedel) necessarily include contradictive statements.
I might be missing a point
or miss-understanding Goedel, but at least I do see this possibility of a contradictive theory.
However I admit, that it might be never understandable by the human mind, because of its
contradictions. Would be nice, if you could let me know your opinion on this comment.
Thanks & Best regards,
Starbucks
Gödel is saying that if a system is complete, it is inherently contradictory. “This sentence is false” is a perfect example of a complete system that is contradictory.
So yes a theory of everything is possible as long as it’s irrational.
This is just an interesting way of saying that if we accept that the universe is irrational, then atheism might in fact be true. Atheism can only be true if the universe is irrational.
Which is a very interesting conclusion, because the usual atheist argument is that religion is irrational and atheism is rational. Nobody prattles on and on about the superiority of their “reason and logic” more than atheists. Yes, if you are willing to be irrational then you can embrace atheism.
Dear Perry,
Thanks for your kind answer! I agree with you,
I was just curious about the possibility of an *upside down* approach on Goedel theorem using a contradictory system that gains completeness.
Best,
Starbucks
So this is still sending me reminders… which is sort of useful; I’d forgotten about it. I wanted to jump back into the fray to say that you appear, once again, to be conflating the universe with our model of the universe.
Let’s say I accept your premises (you know I don’t, but for the sake of argument) then the conclusion is that if we came up with a Grand Unified Theory, that described all the behaviour of the universe (was complete), then it would also be possible to derive a contradiction from that model, i.e. model a situation where our one model can be used to predict two (or more) mutually exclusive events.
That is very much like self-referential statements like “This statement is false”, which tells you that the statement is both false and true at the same time depending on whether you take it at face value or think it through some more, and many other “paradoxes” where you look at it one way to get one result and then think through another line of logic to get a different, contradictory result.
The difference with a model of the universe is that we can go and determine by experiment which of the contradictory results is the right one. The model may have included a contradiction as an artifact of being made complete, but we still have an external reference to go to – empirical observation of what really happens.
I think I’m beginning to see that this is a little like the Cosmological Argument, dressed up for a new era in some slightly dodgy application of mathematics. If you’d allow me to paraphrase; “All systems must have something external to themselves, and an infinite regress of systems is impossible, therefore there must be a super-system with no external factors, and this all men call god”
It’s a nice variation on the old ‘first cause’ or ‘unmoved mover’ arguments, but with the one tiny flaw that the universe is not a system of logical propositions. Godel said nothing about physical systems, and there’s nothing to stop a physical system (such as a universe) being self contained.
Now I’ve been writing too long and made myself miss breakfast… must be off.
Matt,
As I have said to others, you are welcome to reject the idea that Gödel’s theorem applies to physical things. You are free to say the universe is not a system of logical propositions if you wish.
The only problem is, you kick the legs out from under science itself when you do that. Because science assumes the universe is rational and mathematical and logical.
If E really equals MC2 and if F really equals MA then Gödel applies to the universe and the universe is incomplete.
And yes, you’re right, there’s that tired old old prime mover argument again. Reason and logic are troublesome things, aren’t they? Whether you approach the question from a physical cause and effect perspective, or an information theory perspective, or from a philosophical perspective of regression of causes, or via moral argument, or from a mathematical perspective, you keep running into the implication of an intelligent First Cause.
If atheism is true, then the universe has to be irrational and illogical. You can choose to believe that if you want. But don’t accuse Christians of being illogical. This thread has been going for months and nobody’s shown any flaw in my logic.
I choose reason and logic. They lead me to God and I accept that. I likewise invite you to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Your logic is very close to flawless. I very much liked this article, and honestly, impressed.
However, I do have an issue. I haven’t checked on the formal proof of the theorem yet, but I’ll take your word for it. You have an unwarranted assumption in your argument.
You assumed that whatever is outside the universe is boundless, and that is the assumption. If the universe is explained by something outside of itself, then that thing is also explained by something outside of itself, and this process would never stop, and we have an infinite amount of causes, and not one single cause. You have no clue or proof that suggests that we should assume whatever caused the universe cannot have a circle drawn around it. If the universe is any clue, circles will be drawn infinitely. Maybe the universe is part of a finite multi-verse that is part of a multi-multi-verse ad infinitum.
In summary: You proved that every ring of the chain needs a ring ahead of it, but then you assumed the chain we’re connected to is infinite, which is in no way a given. Looking at the ring we are, I say it is more likely that this chain is simply infinitely long, with finite rings.
A process of cause and effect that never stops is called “infinite regression” and is almost universally rejected by philosophers. Look up “infinite regression” on Wikipedia for clarification and why that is not logical or acceptable. An ad infinitum scenario is not rational.
If universe(s) are infinite, we have no evidence of them. Everything we know about cosmology says the universe is finite. And if the universe or even a past series of universes are finite, then they are incomplete and require a transcendent cause.
Perry,
Having done a rather extensive amount of research on the subject and having discussed the matter both with mathematicians and philosophers, the concensus is that you’ve extrapolated to beyond what Godel was doing in the first place.
His First Incompleteness Theorem stated “Any adequate axiomatizable theory is incomplete. In particular, the sentence ‘This sentence is not provable.’ is true but not provable in the theory.
What he discovered and formalized was –
For any sentence s,
(1) is in PROVABLE iff s is provable.
Since the set of axioms is computably generable,
so is the set of proofs which use these axioms and
so is the set of provable theorems and hence
so is PROVABLE, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, PROVABLE is definable.
Let s be the sentece “This sentence is unprovable”.
By Tarski (Undefinability of Truth Theroem), s exists since it is the solution of:
(2) s iff is not in PROVABLE
Thus
(3) s iff is not in PROVABLE iff s is not provable.
Now s is either true or false.
If s is false, then by (3), s is provable
This is impossible since provable sentences are true.
Thus s is true.
Thus by (3), s is not provable.
Hence s is true but unprovable.
Godel discovered that the sentence “This sentence is unprovable” was provably equivalent to the sentence:
CON: “There is no with both and in PROVABLE”.
CON is the formal statement that the system is consistent.
Since s was not provable, and since s and CON are equivalent, CON is not provable.
Thus –
Godel’s SECOND Incompleteness Theorem:
In any consistent axiomatizable theory (axiomatizable means the axioms can be computably generated) which can encode sequences of numbers (and thus the syntactic notions of “formula”, “sentence”, “proof”) the consistency of the system is not provable in the system.
The theories of real numbers, of complex numbers, and of Euclidean geometry do have complete axiomatizations. Hence THESE THEORIES HAVE NO TRUE BUT UNPROVABLE SENTENCES. The reason they escape the conclusion of the first incompleteness theorm is their inadequacy, they can’t encode and computably deal with finite sequences.
So… it’s a mischaracterisation AT BEST to try to use Godel’s theorem to extropolate the existence of god because, if math and science is correct, which we have every reason to believe, our universe HAS NO TRUE BUT UNPROVABLE FACTS. The notion of science is that at some point, everything is explicable.
And scene.
The problem with your argument is your final statement:
“The notion of science is that at some point, everything is explicable.”
Gödel shows that if it is explicable (consistent) then it is necessarily incomplete.
Science itself is incomplete. It cannot explain itself. Historically, science came from the theological proposition that the universe operated according to fixed, discoverable laws. Believe in God was necessary for science to even get off the ground. More at:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq/#christian
Perry,
You could take away the final statement and you’re still left with the one before it as a problem with your argument:
“…if math and science is correct, which we have every reason to believe, our universe HAS NO TRUE BUT UNPROVABLE FACTS.”
Science is based on the assumption that the universe is complete in and of itself. Similar to the way Euclidean Geometry, real numbers and complex numbers are not subject to Godel’s Theorem; if the universe is a complete system, it too is beyond the scope of Godel’s theorem.
Godel’s theorem deals with the paradox inherent in an incomplete system. It doesn’t deal with labelling complete systems incomplete and then ipso facto, there’s something outside the system.
Ben,
Science does not assume that the universe is complete in and of itself. In fact science makes all kinds of unprovable assumptions, such as the assumption that the universe is logical.
You cannot truly prove that, you can only demonstrate that it’s a workable hypothesis.
And I’m sorry but you’re mistaken, Euclidean Geometry, real and complex numbers ARE subject to Gödel’s theorem. That’s the whole point of the theorem. That every system of mathematics is incomplete.
Syllogism:
1. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem applies to all logical systems.
2.The universe is logical
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete.
Godel himself postulated that his theorem did not apply to Real and Complex number systems as they contained no paradoxical statements.
Are you suggesting that you have a better understanding of his theorem than he himself did?
In addition, science DOES assume that the universe is a complete system. It also assumes that the universe is describable. Science is based on all sorts of assumptions. Fortunately, SCIENCE ITSELF is an INCOMPLETE SYSTEM that depends on THE UNIVERSE for completeness.
I need you to quote Gödel’s exact statement regarding real and complex number systems.
If the universe is logical, then the universe also is incomplete.
Ben is right, Perry.
Read “Gödel, Escher, Bach,” by Douglas Hofstadter for more on why real and complex number systems are not caught by Gödel’s Theorem.
Gödel’s Theorem only deals with formulae derived from axiomatic systems of numbers.
Basic addition cannot derive formulae. It is a complete system that can be proved in its entirety
asin:
You first define the symbols – In this case, they are the numerals 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and the two symbols + and =. Next we need to define our rules. In the case of addition, the rules are as follows:
•All the basic results of adding two single-digit numbers together. e.g. 0+0=0, 0+1=1, …, 1+2=3, … 9+9=18. In other words, the basic addition table.
•The rules of how to add together multi-digit numbers using the above rules. i.e. You start at the right-most digits, add those, determine if you need to carry a digit, etc.
An important feature of this theory of addition is that you can then use the system to prove any statement of addition. “Prove” in this context has a very precise meaning. It means that you can take a statement written in symbols, like 79+3=82, and generate that sequence of symbols using nothing but the explicitly defined rules of the theory. How does one generate this sequence of symbols?
The simplest method is to start with the numbers before the equals sign (79 and 3) and add them using our rules. That produces 82, and we know we can write the resulting sum as 79+3=82. That proves (using the rules of our theory) that the statement is correct. The important thing to note is that we are doing all of this merely by manipulation of symbols. We don’t have to think about, understand, or even know that there exist semantic meanings for these symbols. We don’t need to know that “79″ can mean a number of objects. In other words, we could teach this sort of addition to someone without explaining to them that the symbol “3″ means “three”.
We can instruct a computer to do addition like this without the computer having any understanding of what it means to have three objects. All the computer is doing is manipulating a bunch of arbitrary symbols based upon a set of well-defined rules.
If you set up a formal theory of mathematics correctly, you should be able to prove any true statement, and be unable to prove any false statement. This is true of our simple theory of addition. In fact, we can prove every true statement about the addition of two non-negative integers with nothing more than what I have described so far.
To do this, perform the following steps:
1.Start with two numbers 0 and 0; remember these. Work out the addition of these two numbers according to the rules of addition, and write the result (in this case: 0+0=0).
2.If the two numbers we are remembering are equal, add 1 to the second number. But if the two numbers are unequal then check the second number: If it is not 0, increase the first number by 1 and decrease the second by 1. But if the second number is 0, set it equal to the first number plus 1, and set the first number back to 0.
3.Work out: (first number)+(second number) and add that to our list of results.
4.Return to step 2.
This procedure works out the following sums in this order: 0+0, 0+1, 1+0, 0+2, 1+1, 2+0, 0+3, 1+2, 2+1, 3+0, 0+4, … Now, no matter what true statement of addition we can think of, say 75843+87249=163092, this procedure will eventually produce a proof that it is true. It may take a long time, but it will eventually get there. This is what the “computably enumerable” bit of Gödel’s theorem means: there is some procedure by which we can (eventually) generate any possible proof in the theory.
For complete systems, Gödel’s Theorem does not apply. There are no contradictory statements.
Not to mention this little bit of information:
You said that philosophers reject the notion of infinite regression. I accept that.
Philosophers also rejected the idea that Gödel’s theorem could apply even to the human MIND, much less the entire universe. So you extrapolated well beyond what philosophy and math had to say and you’ve made your own (inaccurate) syllogism.
That’s fine. You’re welcome to your beliefs. Please just understand that your arguments are fatally flawed.
I’m not sure why you or Ben assert that Gödel’s relation to real or imaginary numbers then implies that the universe is not subject to incompleteness.
You said, “Basic addition cannot derive formulae.” Science asserts that the universe operates according to a whole range of formulae. Gödel says, all formulae rely on axioms that cannot be proven within themselves. So I’m not seeing how you’ve escaped incompleteness.
As for the mind, Alan Turing believed that the human mind was a Turing Machine and thus human brains are simply performing computation. Turing believed that free will is an illusion.
Gödel believed that free will is real, that intuition and human thought is something beyond mere computation. Gödel also believed in God and he believed that human beings are spiritual creatures. As I understand, he starved himself to death to prove that he had free will that was not determined by the physics and chemistry of his body.
I’m not aware that any philosopher has definitively proven one or the other to be right. So far as I can see it’s an unsettled question. It seems to me that this issue brings us right back to the age old mind/body problem in philosophy, and the question of free will vs. determinism.
What do you think? Do you believe that you are a conscious volitional agent who truly has the ability to freely choose? Or do you believe that your own actions and beliefs are determined by a mechanical process?
“I’m not sure why you or Ben assert that Gödel’s relation to real or imaginary numbers then implies that the universe is not subject to incompleteness.”
Because you said that Gödel’s Theorem applies to all logical systems. Addition is logical. Gödel’s Theorem does not apply to addition. Therefore Gödel’s Theorem does NOT apply to all logical systems. QED
“You said, “Basic addition cannot derive formulae.” Science asserts that the universe operates according to a whole range of formulae.”
No. Science postulates formulae to explain the operation of the universe. The universe does not operate according to our formulae. Also, and more importantly, the UNIVERSE did not derive the formulae. We did.
“Gödel says, all formulae rely on axioms that cannot be proven within themselves. So I’m not seeing how you’ve escaped incompleteness.”
Gödel never said any such thing. He said, “When using an axiomatic system to derive formulae, it is possible to derive a formula within the system that is not provable using the system therefore the system is incomplete.” Again, we don’t use the universe to derive formulae. We use science to derive forumlae about the universe.
“As for the mind, Alan Turing believed that the human mind was a Turing Machine and thus human brains are simply performing computation. Turing believed that free will is an illusion.”
Yes, and many philosophers disagreed with him.
“Gödel believed that free will is real, that intuition and human thought is something beyond mere computation. Gödel also believed in God and he believed that human beings are spiritual creatures. As I understand, he starved himself to death to prove that he had free will that was not determined by the physics and chemistry of his body.”
All true, but you neglect to mention that Gödel didn’t use his theorem as an argument for God because he knew it did not prove the existence of God. Gödel instead built on the work of Descartes and Leibniz and tried to craft an ontological argument for the existence of God.
“I’m not aware that any philosopher has definitively proven one or the other to be right. So far as I can see it’s an unsettled question.”
Certainly. In fact, many things that are commonly accepted are frequently debated by philosophers. However, many many philosophers have rejected the notion that Gödel’s Theorem applies to the human mind simply BECAUSE of free will. Free will isn’t necessarily a consistent, axiomatic system, is their straightforward argument.
“What do you think? Do you believe that you are a conscious volitional agent who truly has the ability to freely choose? Or do you believe that your own actions and beliefs are determined by a mechanical process?”
This is a kind of straw man as it is so far removed from what we were discussing, but I was never one to shy away from answering. I believe in a combination of the two, of course. We make choices, certainly. But I also believe in chemical addiction, and chemical imbalance which skews our ability to make decisions and sometimes even prevents us entirely from executing free will.
Arthur,
I have a lot of thoughts about this. But first I would like you and/or Ben to reference exactly what Gödel said in regards to real and imaginary number systems being both consistent and complete at the same time, and exactly what Hofstadter said.
Computable systems are deterministic. Free will is not computable, by definition not deterministic and not decideable in advance.
Perry,
In “Gödel, Escher, Bach”, Hofstadter spends a number of pages discussing his arbitrary theory called “Typographical Number Theory” or TNT, “which is one attempt to represent all of math in an axiomatic way. I’m going to assume that TNT works–that is, assume that it really does encapsulate all of mathematics perfectly…And eventually, I’m going to be led to a contradiction.”
He says, “…assumed that TNT is perfect, and proceeds from there to a paradox. In doing so, it crushes any system which makes similar claims of perfection.”
He then spends the next several pages putting forth his system and discussing its incompleteness via Gödel.
He addresses the sentence “Sentence G: This statement is not a theorem of TNT.”
If sentence G is false, then it is a theorem of TNT. Then we have a valid theorem which is false, and the whole system falls apart.
So it must be true. But if it is true, then it is not a theorem of TNT. Which means that “sentence G is true, but it is not provable within TNT.
That is Gödel’s “incompleteness,” that TNT, although it may be perfectly consistent and always correct, cannot possibly prove EVERY true statement about number theory, there is always something which is true, which the system cannot prove. So we’re done!
“Except that, as you may have noticed, this is totally ludicrous. After all, TNT makes statements about numbers, and sentence G is a statement about a statement (itself). So while writing a TNT-string for “100 is a power of 10″ might be very difficult, it seems reasonable to grant that it’s possible; but translating sentence G into TNT seems about as likely as yodeling in sign language.”
He then spends the next several pages doing just that, however. He expresses G in terms of the system itself in a computable way and discusses Gödel all the while.
also,
Read about Torkel Franzen and specifically his book “Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use and Abuse” ISBN 1-56881-238-8
and also,
http://www.ams.org/notices/200604/fea-franzen.pdf
He spent most of his professional life speaking to common misconceptions or misapplication of Gödel’s Theorem.
Arthur,
If your point or Ben’s point is to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a system that is both consistent and complete, I cannot discern that either one of you has successfully done so. When I get to the end of GEB’s chapter on TNT, he circles back to the conclusion that “Any system that is strong enough to prove TNT’s consistency is at least as strong as TNT itself.”
Which is just another way of saying that to prove what’s inside the circle, you need something from a bigger circle.
Where I differ with Hofstadter is where he concludes on p. 230 “and so circularity is inevitable.” That is a misrepresentation of what Gödel says and of the progression of his own chapter on TNT. Logic is not a huge set of circular propositions. It’s a progression of inductions that ultimately rest on axioms that are known to be true but are not provable.
I think a significant problem with this discussion so far has been an ambiguity with the language used, which has meant a bit of back and forth with no real change in the arguments. There have also been some misunderstandings of Gödel’s theorem, which is understandable, as unless you have studied mathematics, analogies tend to obscure the strict meaning of it.
Firstly we can agree that a non self-referential statement is either exactly true, or not exactly true. Secondly Gödel’s theorem refers to a set of statements, split into two groups, those we label “axioms”, and statements derived from those. The theorem essentially states that if the “axioms”, which are the statements we assume to be true, are true, then there are also other true statements that cannot be derived from those axioms, and that those axioms cannot be proven to be true without the addition of a new axiom. The corollary is that if a proof of the truth of the axioms is derived from the axioms, then the axioms are not true (in their entirety). I’m going to use a bit of an analogy for this next part, if you can forgive me for that, as I personally find analogies highly dubious. In mathematics sequences of numbers can be of particular interest, and these can be generated through formulae, or can exist independent of any formulae. Now what is particularly interesting is that for any finite sequence there are an infinite number of different formulae that can generate the same sequence, so when attempting to find the formula for generating a sequence you may have found one that matches all available data, yet not be the correct one. I guess that wasn’t particularly an analogy so much as a cut-down version of universal laws, however that is not the point I am aiming to make. Within this analogy the universe is the sequence of numbers, the formulae which determines it’s behaviour are the laws of the universe, and our estimation of the formulae are our current laws of physics. Now the point that Matt was making, and perhaps you misunderstood, is that the sequence of numbers, and the formulae are different things, he was not arguing that Gödel’s theorem did not apply, merely reminding you that it only applies to sets of statements i.e. the formulae, not the sequence, the laws of the universe, not the universe itself. He is not arguing against logic, merely stating that you have applied it in the incorrect place. Now as it happens I am an atheist, I believe that there is no God, however I am not so presumptuous as to claim it as a certainty, indeed I do not believe it is possible to know whether or not there is a God. I am merely arguing that this particular path of logic is invalid.
With regards to causality, it can be broken down fairly simply, either everything requires a cause, in which case a being without cause does not exist by definition(granted this does not forbid a being with a cause which created the universe from existing), or not everything requires a cause, in which case the universe does not demand the existence of a God without cause(although one is possible). With regards as to codes, we really need to clarify what you exactly mean here in your argument, as if you define a code to be a message intended to send information, then all codes are the work of sentient minds merely by definition.
Gödel’s theorem is about systems of logic.
I cannot prove that the universe is a logical system. However, the assumption that it is is the cornerstone of modern science. If the universe is logical then it is also incomplete.
I define communication systems per Claude Shannon’s 1948 paper “A mathematical theory of communication” which applies to things like telegraphs, CD players, computers, cell phones, etc.
All communication systems we know the origin of are designed. No known exceptions.
Sorry but ‘god’ must also have something ‘outside its circle’
Godel proved that you cannot have a god which explains himself.
Atheism also says that.
NOTHING can understand it all. God CANNOT exist.
Bob,
If NOTHING can understand it all, how is it that you can then say “God CANNOT” exist?
As for your first statement, you don’t appear to have followed the logic of my argument. You need to substantiate your statements with logic.
I think what Bob is trying to say is that, according to the incompleteness theorem, there is always a bigger circle, and a god cannot be totally on the outside of the system, there would have to be something outside that circle to explain god. Similarly, one cannot know everything, because that would put him outside the system, he can explain the whole system’s existence. That wouldn’t disprove a conscious entity being outside the universe, but that would indicate that he is not all-knowing or omniscient.
Bob didn’t read any of the 12 times I already addressed that objection.
Yea, so I have no problem with your logic in saying that “god” exists, but I do have a problem with the assumption that this god is the christian god. Every logical proof of “god” simply defines god as something undefinable. That does not, in any way, mean that the christian god is the god that created the universe. Religion is made up to answer unanswerable questions (or at least unanswerable at the time of its inception) and as a means of social control, and to give hope, and meaning and blah blah blah.
Also, almost every response you’ve made to people goes along the lines of, “If you think that, you obviously reject science and are an idiot.” Not very classy….
But, yeah, christians are illogical for saying the god of the bible is the god that started the universe. The only conclusion you can come to is that something must have started the universe, assuming Goedels theorem applies (which, as has been stated, really doesn’t apply to the universe, go ahead and tel me I’m an idiot for saying that, it’s fine).
Also, I would like to question, what is the significance of all of this? Does if affect anybody in anyway? I really don’t think it does. I’m just bored and want to get into this heated discussion, heh.
I’m sorry for my choppy/poorly thought out comment. ADD is not my friend this night.
Look out your front door. Turn on your TV. Look at this discussion thread.
I invite you to answer your own question:
Does the truth about God – do claims about God – affect anybody?
Still getting those email reminders every so often… odd that they don’t seem to come through for all the replies, but then I suddenly get 10 at once. Oh well. Wanted to reply to this specifically: “Does the truth about God – do claims about God – affect anybody?”
If god existed and had a measurable effect on the physical universe, it would bring it under the purview of science – god would be like the force of gravity; observable, measurable, predictable. Maybe not so predictable as gravity, but we could reason about the effects of god on the universe.
Funny thing is, we haven’t observed any supernatural effects on the universe; nothing that can’t be reduced down to naturalistic physical principles. So in a very real sense, the existence or not of god has no effect. If god does exist, he’s not doing anything with any noticeable effect, so why care?
We tend not to believe in the existence of things with no observable effects though; that’s the only way to keep obvious absurdities like invisible goblins and Russel’s teapot out of our belief system.
Another sidenote; your website remembers my name and email perfectly, but seems to have complete amnesia on the question of whether I want your “free mini-course” delivered to my email. It’s the strangest thing, almost as if you’re hoping repeat-commenters will eventually forget to untick the box and inadvertently sign up for your mailing. But of course you wouldn’t do a sleazy thing like that, so I’m sure it’s just a bug in the server.
Matt,
We have observed supernatural effects in the universe. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq for a discussion on the lower half of the page. In any large public library you will find an entire section on documented cases of miracles. Just because they’re politically incorrect doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I describe my own personal experiences at http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles
Reason concerning the effects of God on the universe is a field known in academia as theology. I invite you to set aside the pejorative attitude and follow the evidence where it leads.
Interesting article, but Matt did a very effective job of demonstrating that the universe is a physical, actual system, not reliant upon abstract axioms to prove its existence.
Sorry, but Matt is very clearly better informed on this issue. The language of the article oversimplifies the theorem so as to allow the author’s worldview to seem better justified. The comments made a nice read, though.
Ben, I have two questions for you:
1. Is the universe logical?
2. Can you name any law of physics that is not expressed as mathematical or logical statement?
I haven’t read all the replies above so I am probably repeating some people but below are the flaws or premises that I disagree with in your argument.
1) You define God as what is outside the largest circle. As the number of circles is infinite it is meaningless to talk about the largest circle. Gödel’s theorem suggests that all things depend on something else, if a god exists and is subject to our laws of mathematics then it is no exception, therefore by use of modus tollens if a god is subject to our mathematics then it must be dependent on something else to exist.
The existence of a god is not necessary to explain how something can be true despite depending on an infinite chain of assumptions. It is clearly wrong to say that because each natural number requires you to assume that there exists a larger natural number that there must be a god that is larger than the largest natural number. The natural numbers and, if Gödel’s theorem is true, the ever increasing circles that depend upon things they do not contain are infinite
2) All codes must come from a conscious being. You are using a double meaning of the word code, its normal meaning is a message from one conscious being to another that has be altered to make it difficult for those who are not its intended reader to understand. DNA is referred to as a code because it contains information that is difficult to understand, the same could be said of many things that do not originate from a conscious being, pulsars (rotating neutron stars) are a simple example, we receive from them a brief burst of radiation which we can decode to gain information about the star.
3) A being can be conscious, boundless and without cause. To me conscious seems to cause problems when combined with the following properties; if something is conscious then it is aware of itself, if it is boundless then there is an infinite amount of itself that it has to be aware of, information from its farthest edges would have to travel with infinite speed to cover an infinite distance in finite time. If it is without cause then it must have existed forever, over an infinite quantity of time a conscious being would go through an infinite amount of thoughts and would end up unable to think anything new and robotically repeat through previous states, this is not a contradiction but is probably not how most would think of a god. The same problem occurs with an omniscient god as if truly omniscient it would know in advance what it was going to think and do and at the correct time would think and perform those actions like a robot.
4) In what little of the comments you mention the Holy Trinity so I shall assume you are referring to the Christian God. This is where your argument really falls to pieces, you go from trying to prove the existence of a potential creator to the existence of three very specific Gods. There is nothing in your debate on Gödel that applies to the Christian Gods and could not apply to Ra the ancient Egyptian Sun God or to the thousands of gods that humanity has worshiped throughout history, or to any of the millions that I could invent, name and create a back-story for right now. Assuming that all other points I have made are false and your argument is sound you have still proved nothing other than a vague conscious being outside our universe that somehow proves some things in our universe to be true.
Finally I would like to thank you for the excellent quality of the first part of you argument, it is one of the best explanations of Gödel’s theorem I have ever read, I apologize for the length of this piece but may add more if I think of anything else.
1. There is not an infinite number of circles, because the universe is finite.
2. I am using the exact same definition of code for biology as I am for computers etc etc. This is explained in extensive detail at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/information-theory-made-simple/ and elsewhere on my site. Pulsars are not digital commuication systems.
3. You are defining an infinite being in terms of space but I clearly explained that God is outside of space and time and I explained the logic behind this with care in the article. Got is not matter, not energy, not space, not time. Information does not travel from one end of God to another in packets. Please go back and read my statements with care. Your statements about infinite amounts of thoughts are self contradictory since any infinite sequence by definition never repeats itself.
4. The Trinity does not say there are three specific Gods. Please do not misquote me, and if you wish to critique the theology of the trinity then please avail yourself of theologians who have written about it such as Augustine, Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards etc. Or read exactly what I have written: That God is ONE and is in complete unity has three aspects: Self intent, expression of intent, and understanding of self.
Bizzare:
1- Assume the whole universe is just:
The concept of the number 1.
The concept of the number 2.
The concept of sum.
We can draw a circle around the whole universe and safely say that 1+1=2 without the need for external reference.
2-I think not. You’re assuming that, using the same logic the article points as flawed (inductive reasoning). It reads “you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time”, and while this logic can be used to reach some truth it can also lead to fallacies. It isn’t as safe to assume that all codes come from a conscious being as saying that gravity makes things fall.
3- You’re just trying to say god exists
4- You’re trying to hide the fact from #3.
1. If you say 1+1=2 you reference numbers and symbols which are outside the universe you just defined. In your own description you are standing outside of the universe. The whole thing still depends on you.
2. Show me a naturally occurring code. Just one.
The “unknown” agent outside the circle always somehow seems to point to one’s favorite religion or metaphysics (the immaterial vs. material). The true incompleteness perhaps lies in the symbolic, linear conceptions human understanding is stuck with. This theorem FALSIFIES it does not give positive verification to speculations or personal convictions. It is much too easy and sloppy to interpret the limits of understanding as reflected by our greatest proofs as an excuse for thought termination and to fill in the cosmology of the unknown and unreachable with all too human answers.
As for “code” the human mind has a tendency to see patterns everywhere, even in vacuum energy. Using this as proof of supernatural intelligence (since these things are everywhere in the universe) violates the very theorem you are misusing (the circle would prove itself). Intelligence is itself recognized through quite finite and definable parameters that are always experienced well within the circle. If human intelligence and the tragic world of crude matter and its pointless replication and destruction are really some positive indication of what lies beyond, a perfect God would have to be exchanged for a perfect monster, which would have to “inductively determine” from the very cruelty of nature. A cruelty, by the way, which intelligence only seems to make MORE insanely devious, not less. God should do us a favor therefore, to remain an Impersonality.
Codes are not a subjective impression on the human mind, they objectively exist. DNA is decoded by the ribosomes whether we see it and acknowledge it and describe it or not.
I suppose various people have tried to tell you that God is some kind of cosmic teddy bear, but you surely did not get that from me. Indeed, surely if nature tells you anything, it tells you that God can be wild and ferocious. If nature tells you anything about God, it also tells you that God can be soft, tender and beautiful.
Open your eyes, look around you, and see.
And as you do so, do not neglect to distinguish the difference between what God has created and what man has destroyed.
I would invite you to open yourself to understanding God as God really is, and follow the evidence where it leads.
“Codes are not a subjective impression on the human mind, they objectively exist. DNA is decoded by the ribosomes whether we see it and acknowledge it and describe it or not.”
Their physical reality is precisely why describing the process as a code is flawed. Take a symbolic system like writing, we take information from our thoughts and ideas and encode it into letters, words, sentences, all according to the rules of our language. None of these odd little squiggles on paper or a screen make any objective sense, the information can only be retrieved by conscious understanding of the symbols and the language.
DNA is different; the chemical properties of the molecule are what allow a ribosome to take a string of DNA as a template for building a protein. The base pairs quite naturally have some affinity for each other, and amongst the millions of chance collisions between molecules in cell chemistry that lets the ribosome find the right strand of tRNA to pull an amino acid from to build a protein.
I’m not a molecular chemist, so I don’t know every detail… but if I remember rightly I think the ‘affinity’ stems from the shape of the amino acid being conducive to the formation of hydrogen bonding. It’s not too horribly complicated but it’s been a long while since I’ve had cause to think about it.
The important part is that it all happens chemically; the ribosome isn’t required to understand what it’s doing, it isn’t “decoding” the DNA in any real sense – it’s just a protein that reacts with DNA and RNA molecules in such a way that some other protein is formed.
The defining difference is that our symbolic codes have no objective relation to the information they represent. Nothing really links the letter A to an “ah” sound, or any of our words to their meanings, except for our minds and the associations they store as language. With the genetic ‘code’ the DNA molecule and the protein synthesised are related by deterministic chemistry. You could decide to redefine a word, you couldn’t redefine a DNA sequence.
GGG is not Glycine, it is instructions for making Glycine. AAA is not Lycine, it is instructions for making Lycine. DNA has start bits, stop bits, error correction mechanisms, pointers, objects. CD players don’t “understand” what they’re decoding either but they decode just the same.
If you want to debate this, you may do so on the Cosmic Fingerprints website. But you will need to do your research first – this ground has been thoroughly covered on my website for 4+ years now. See http://cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm, http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq. These definitions have been universal for 50 years.
In short, you will get nowhere with this argument. DNA is just as much a coding system as your hard drive. In fact the list of similarities is long indeed.
Perry,
We think your main misinterpretation is that you believe Gödel’s theorem applies to the physical universe. You say, basically, that Godel’s theorem applies to science because science is made of logic. Therefore, science is either incomplete or inconsistent. We agree. But because humanity can change what it believes, science adapts to evidence to remain consistent. This leaves only the possibility that science is incomplete. We think you will agree with this.
But you then say that Godel’s theorem applies to the Universe and/or Multiverse, because it can be described by science. Wait, didn’t We just say that science is incomplete? That would mean that science does not fully describe the Universe/Multiverse, and therefore is in some way wrong. So Godel’s theorem cannot apply to the universe, because we do not actually know it is a system. Even if we did, we would not know it’s limits.
Additionally, Godel’s theory could be applied to itself if we use your ‘put something in a circle’ interpretation, which is wrong anyway. If we did this, it would prove itself wrong, meaning you entire argument is, in fact, invalid.
You need to pick an argument and stick with it.
Gödel’s theorem does not prove itself wrong because his theorem is also based on axioms. For example the assumption that peano arithmetic is valid. He wrote his original proof in peano arithmetic.
You’re right, science is also incomplete. No matter how much we know about science, if it is consistent it will require something outside of itself to verify its truth. There we go again – eventually we need Something that is outside the universe.
Science ASSUMES that the universe is logical. It cannot prove this. If the universe is logical, it is incomplete.
You misunderstand. Science does not assume. If science were to say that an object will fall, due to gravity, at roughly 9.81 meters per second, minus the effect of friction from the air, there are no assumptions. Literally countless examples of evidence are available, and on the off chance that an object were to behave in a different way than expected, the scientific ‘laws’ we currently accept would adapt to include that to remain as accurate as possible. The thing that science depends upon is the Universe.
Also, if the Universe is an axiomatic system that depends on a ‘god’ figure to have created it, the god would need a cause. Now, We know you will argue with this. But consider: If your ‘god’ created the universe, something must have happened to spur that action. And something must have spurred that, leading to an endless loop of logic. If we discard the endless loop, we come to the conclusion that your god is unchanging, having nothing to change it. An unchanging entity would not do anything other than what it is already doing, because it cannot change from that pattern. So the universe must have a cause, or not exist.
From Dictionary.Reference.com:
in·fer·ence (?n’f?r-?ns)
n.
1.
The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
(emphasis mine)
Science INFERS that all objects on earth fall at 9.81 meters per second. Science infers that the law of gravity is the same everywhere in the universe. Science infers that the law of gravity was the same 1 million years ago and will be the same next year as it is now.
An inference is indeed an ASSUMPTION that the specific can be applied to the general. You cannot deductively prove these things about gravity. You can only assume (HYPOTHESIZE), then do an experiment that confirms the hypothesis. A successful experiment is not a formal deductive proof. It is a confirmation of our own prior assumptions and a validation of inference as a way of knowing things.
In this case, “knowing” is always provisional, because, as you say, if an object were to behave in a different way than expected, the scientific ‘laws’ we currently accept would adapt to include that to remain as accurate as possible. You are correct in putting the word ‘laws’ in quotations. Science is always provisional.
You are assuming (there’s that word again) that because God’s nature is unchanging, that therefore nothing in God’s universe can change and that God cannot cause anything. That is a non-sequitur. You are conflating God’s nature with God’s actions. Let’s trace the logic:
1. The universe must have a cause, or not exist – that much is true.
2. The universe cannot be the result of an infinite regression of causes because that’s irrational. Also true.
3. Therefore there is a first cause, which is without prior cause. That is also a logical necessity.
4. Therefore the first cause caused all subsequent effects.
5. Therefore the first cause is capable of causing things outside of itself.
Clearly, you have thought this through for more time and in more depth than We have. So, We will close with this statement: We wish for you to remember that deductive reasoning is worthless without conclusive proof, just as experimentation is worthless without reason to support the conclusions. Furthermore, a lack of evidence for either argument is not eveidence supporting the other argument. In fact, We agree that there is a god, We merely wish to be clear that all we can do is speculate. There is no proof in this debate, and so none of Us can ever truly be ‘correct’.
If you draw the biggest circle around everything, you’re not leaving anything outside, you have from the explainable to the unexplainable inside, it doesn’t matter if it can be explained or not, everything is inside thus there will be no need for outside reference.
What this theorem seems to do is first to expose some really good logic, it certainly is right in smaller scales and/or when using the adequate example (the bike for instance), once it has proved that this reasoning can work it proceeds to use the same statement with everything else, assuming that if it worked there it must always work.
I have to admit I was agreeing with it, but the part about inductive reasoning clearly reveals a flaw. While it is true that inductive reasoning can lead to mistakes, it isn’t the case every time, because you can prove things, even if you start looking at the facts from the inner circle. Gravity being of those provable ideas. You also have to keep in mind that some things, when explained or researched upon, give more questions than answers, and this is another issue used to support this Incompleteness theorem, but it’s just a part of the search for an answer, and raising questions helps to nothing but to better understand everything, the more questions the closer to the truth we get.
I believe this theorem can be both flawed and perfect depending on the circumstances. And that it suffers from the same misuse of general relativity Once I had a very fiery discussion with a friend who said that everything, from matter and energy to concepts are relative, to which I replied that concepts can be constant, as units like 1 meter, the concept of 1 meter can not be relative, maybe the tool used to measure differs, maybe it has shorter centimeters, but the concept will not change under any circumstances. Perhaps this is the case.
I want to finish saying that I don’t reject the idea, humankind will probably never discover the secrets of everything (I’d bet to 42 tho), but I had to speak up because I think that some of the logic in the article is somewhat off.
“* Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.”
while this may be true, you can also always draw a circle around the CAUSE…therefore the cause cannot be outside the circle
“* All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
* Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.”
Oh, where to start? LOL
1) Information is a thing…maybe not in the physical sense, but it still exists, and is therefore IN the circle.
2)Just because all the codes THAT WE KNOW are the creations of conscious beings in no way shape or form implies that all codes must be such creation. It only suggests that there are codes that we are unfamiliar with.
3)once again, if someTHING exists outside of the circle to generate information, or anything else for that matter, logic would dictate that you could then draw a larger circle that would encompass that creator as well
If you want to make a logical argument, it usually helps to actually USE logic and not just tiptoe around it
Graeme,
You will need to read the other responses to other posts in this thread. Every issue you have brought up here has already been addressed.
In a loose sense of the world “address”. You’ve diligently responded to all my comments, but I’m not convinced you’ve really given a satisfactory answer. I and others have asked you to demonstrate that DNA really is a consciously designed code, without appeal to “all codes are consciously designed”, and “DNA certainly is a code” (I could accept either one of those, but not both at once, depending on whether you take ‘code’ to imply conscious design by definition or not)
Fundamentally, you can’t assert something to be true of all codes, then use it as proof about a specific case; to make the general statement requires the proof of the specific case. And yet, your own “proof” of DNA being designed by a mind follows as: (1) DNA is a code (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
Point 3 simply does not follow from points 1 and 2. You’re effectively trying to establish the origin of DNA _from_ now knowing the origin of DNA. If you have a way to demonstrate the conscious origins of what I hold to be a naturally occurring code (or a non-code if you really want to assume code to imply conscious origin) then I’d love to see it, but I’m still waiting.
(And before you ask) my proposed origin for the system would be a very rudimentary genetic molecule, likely to be RNA, synthesised by prebiotic chemistry and having just barely enough complexity to get a copy of itself made. Once that foundation is in place, mutation and selection over vast spans of time could arrive at the much more efficient system we see now.
Oh, and I may have made the mistake I’ve been hoping I wouldn’t and just clicked submit with the little box ticked. (If this is a duplicate comment via double-submission, please feel free to delete the first) No matter, a little gmail-fu will sort that one out.
New codes are created all the time. Recent examples from the last 20 years include PDF, HTML, DLL, JPG, MOV, DOC, XLS. Each of these is distinctly different from the others, using in some cases radically different coding structures. All of the above are stored / transported on dozens of different kinds of media including CD-R, hard drives, laser light, voltage pulses etc.
If the question is stated as: “Is there a natural chemical process that produces codes? Or do we have reason to believe there is some sort of Intelligence behind biology” then Point 3 naturally follows from points 1 & 2. In science this is called inference.
Please support your proposed origin theory with an experiment. Preferably an experiment that is not designed. The ideal would be an example of biogenesis from some “warm pond” somewhere.
Or show me ANY code created from scratch by any process other than design. All you need is one.
1) All known plates are designed by conscious minds.
2) The earth has tectonic plates.
3) The earth was designed by a conscious mind.
This is what happens when you play fast and loose with semantics.Just because you’ve used the word “code” instead of plate people get all confused and mystified, but it amounts to the same thing.
Now let’s see what happens when you abuse metaphors:
1) All known sandwiches are created with the intention of being eaten.
2) The solar system is sandwiched between other galactic formations.
3) Therefore the solar system (and the starry loaves in which it is nestled) is going to be eaten.
Now let’s see what happens when you can’t tell the difference between a system (science, math, language, etc…) describing a thing and the thing itself (the universe).
1) “Apple” is a noun.
2) Nouns are found in the dictionary.
3) Next time you’re feeling hungry, open the dictionary up to Apple and chow down (with apologies to Gwyneth Paltrow).
Now after seeing Matt’s point-by-point rebuttals of your arguments and your refusal (or inability) to understand the strength of his objections, I can’t assume this will have any effect on you (why, for instance, you are troubled by infinite regress but not by the idea of an immaterial god who sits outside of existence but still affects it and – what luck! – requires no cause, is a mystery on par with that of the big bang itself) But hopefully this is a simple explanation of just a few of the flaws in your reasoning for people who read your article and aren’t wearing god-blinders.
The word “code” is used in precisely the same way and with precisely the same meaning in both computer systems and biology.
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005).
See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/solve.
All philosophers are troubled by infinite regress.
An uncaused casue is not infinite regress. Which is exactly my point. At some point, one is required. Godel’s theorem shows why the universe cannot be its own uncaused cause.
If you want to seriously take part in this discussion, you will need to apprise yourself of the definitions used and the details of the argument.
It’s clear that it isn’t used the same way. The mere fact that human designed codes are self-evidently designed by humans and the genetic code isn’t is enough to show that. That there are resemblances does not make them the same. The fact that you are asserting that they are used in exactly the same way only serves to highlight your circular reasoning.
“I can take quotes out of context and misapply them too.” – Me in a different conversation that had nothing to do with this.
The fact that you would try to take Yockey and use his quotes to argue for intelligent design would be comical if it weren’t insulting. I won’t go into depth as to why it’s wrong here, because, thanks to the power and beauty of the internet, someone else has already done this for me. Here’s a teaser:
“I’m told creationists have started citing this new book of his in defense of their own argument that God must have started life on earth. I’ve not seen this abuse myself, but it wouldn’t surprise me, and at any rate, forewarned is forearmed. If that’s their plan, Yockey throws a bucket of cold water on it.” — To find out why you’ll just have to read the article. Here’s the link – http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2006/11/yockey-on-biogenesis.html
As for infinite regress and the uncaused cause, this is literally the kind of thing they do in intro to philosophy courses. I’m not going to reiterate the entire history of the cosmological argument and its objections, but you’re welcome to read a brief introduction to it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments
I guess you think that by throwing Goedel in you can make an old dress new, but just like creationists attempt to rebrand themselves as “intelligent design,” it’s lipstick on a pig.
Cute bit at the end there. If you want to seriously insult my intelligence while seeming dignified you’ll have to apprise yourself of more intelligently designed slams.
Mike,
If you want to refute my argument about Godel, you will need to refute it line by line. Snide remarks about “lipstick on a pig” are no substitute for facts and logic.
You will use 100% respectful language in your posts from this point forward or your posts will be deleted.
Yockey on biogenesis: p. 176: “I have no doubt that if the historic process leading to the origin of life were knowable it would be a process of physics and chemistry. Thus the process of the origin of life is possible but unknowable.”
“The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws” Yockey wrote this in his previous book (1992).
“The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico -chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.”
Yockey states that the genetic code must be taken as axiomatic, much as we take Planck and Newton’s axioms, because it cannot be derived from the physics of chemistry.
Pretty sure I’ve already addressed your use of Yockey as a pro-creationist source. I also think I’ve made it clear that I’m not trying to convince you personally of anything. The posts above already refuted your argument days before I even read it, the fact that you don’t see that speaks volumes. You have been refuted and you don’t see it, so you’ll forgive me if I choose not to waste my time any more than I already have.
My commentary was hopefully just illustrative for anyone who didn’t see the plain flaws in logic. I don’t think I’ve said anything here or elsewhere to impugn you, as opposed to your arguments posted (and, as I said, refusal/inability to take any rebuttals seriously).. In terms of your arguments, arguments don’t deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to be attacked. Those that are strong enough will withstand the attack. Yours do not.
You will use 100% non-condescending ultimatums from now on or I won’t post anything else — I probably won’t anyway, I just wanted to let you know in my own special way that I found that to be gratingly paternalistic. Since this is only 93% respectful, you are welcome to delete it.
I quote Yockey precisely because he’s not a creationist. Same with Claude Shannon and others. 99% of the people and papers I quote are non-controversial mainstream peer reviewed research. There is nothing remotely controversial about the fact that the genetic code is in fact a code.
I fully understand that Yockey disagrees with me philosophically. There’s no rule in science, philosophy or life that the person who produces the evidence you use in an argument has to agree with the conclusions you reach about that evidence before you can use it.
Yockey makes the clearest case I’ve ever seen that the laws of physics and chemistry do not explain the origin or nature of the genetic code. Yockey stops right there and goes no further. I continue forward with the simple observation that all codes and coding systems we know the origin of are designed. Therefore we have 100% inference to design in biology.
This is not proof, but it is scientific inference. As such it is just as reliable an observation as the laws of thermodynamics and gravity.
The fact that Yockey doesn’t agree with this is no concern of mine. Yockey tells you there’s no other instance of a naturally occurring code, just the same as I do.
I have taken every legitimate rebuttal seriously, as I have debated this particular topic online for 4 years now. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infidels for an entire history of this debate. You can attempt to argue that DNA is not a code in the same sense that ASCII is a code but that line of argumentation will get you nowhere. The literature is very clear on what the definition of a code is and both examples fit that definition 100%.
Mike, if you can produce one example of a naturally occurring code I’ll write you a check for $10,000 and post your evidence on my website. The specification for doing so is http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/solve/
Until someone can successfully demonstrate a naturally occurring code, the only scientific inference we can make about the origin of the genetic code is that it’s designed. And note that in saying so I have not stepped outside the bounds of science at all. We don’t have to know who the designer is or the exact details of the design process in order for this inference to hold.
1. All types of rapid transit utilities (bikes, cars etc…) are designed by conscious minds and not naturally occurring.
2. Horses are a type of rapid transit utility.
3. Therefore, horses are designed by a conscious mind.
I will give 10 million rubles to the first person to show me a naturally occurring rapid transit utility — keeping in mind that horses don’t count, donkeys, ponies mules, bulls, buffalo neither (Half credit for a midget riding a lasso apso).
Seriously man, good luck with life and everything, but I am beyond done here.
In relation to this comment…I believe Perry’s point was that when you’re discussing codes, there is no example of a horse.
Hy folks. Nice debate. Roy, you stated “What caused God? It’s not a coherent question. By definition God is eternal…uncaused.” Ok, but by who’s definition? What if the nether that harbors the multiverse is what is really eternal and infinite. What if it has always been. No one can prove otherwise and and the proverbial circle cannot be drawn around it. If this were the case then God simply fades into one possible explanation as opposed to “the” explanation. What of time? We experience time on a liner scale but that is a function of the brain (as opposed to Brane…couldnt help it), and no necessarily how time exist in its own dimension. Can you draw a circle around time? Can you prove you can? No, you cant. Time may well extend infinitely in all directions unaffected by gravity, energy, velocity, expansion, or the boundaries of the multiverse. Does this prove that all things are begotten from time?…maybe. Or is time the true God? Either that or time doesnt exist and is an illusion according to the reasoning of this article. Thats been proposed before but not readily accepted by science, much less proven. I think what we have here is a creationist trying to prove his view through a very guided discussion using a single mathematical concept; Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. To truely understand the implications of that theorem we would all need to be doctorate level mathematicians. A single simple tenet of this theorem was put in even simpler layman’s terms. Then that was used to try to argue a point as absolute. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem does not “prove” the existence of a god (much less a Christian, Buddist, Muslim, Jewish, Egyptian, Greek, African, or any other god invented by mankind). Yes! I whole heartily agree that the possibility of a cosmic conscience exists and that it might be Godly. I believe this because there is no way to completely disprove it either. If time is finite, which we cannot prove, then there is always another circle. Keep in mind. Time was just one of many examples. Replace time with an infinite multiverse, or nether that cant be circled or just consider that the larger circles are also infinite once you break past the multiverse. We have NO way of knowing and many of the variables to this conundrum and God is just one of many…it just happens to be the one you favor.
- Eric M.
My assertions are based on the facts about the universe that are known at this time.
The facts as we know them are: The Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, that it expanded from a single point, and that it has finite mass and energy.
Time and space are inseparably linked. No space = no time. Time itself begins with the big bang. Therefore time is finite. Yes, you can draw a circle around it. It has boundaries.
There may be other dimensions of time and other universes but it is impossible for us to know anything about them.
You are welcome to assert that time and even our own selves are illusory but I don’t know how you’re going to build any kind of epistemology from that foundation. You’re on your own if you want to embrace that view.
If you want to posit an infinite number of universes, I’m going to ask you to provide evidence that they exist because invoking an infinite number of anything violates parsimony.
God is defined as eternal and uncaused in Judeo Christian theology.
Gödel’s theorem directly implies that whatever caused the universe is timeless, boundless and uncaused and not a system.
Which does interestingly match Aquinas’ Via Negativa.
No, Gödel’s theorem does not prove God. It only directly infers the existence of an axiom which the entire universe must rest – something which is not space, not time, not matter, not energy, not a system, conscious and boundless.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to address my comment. Time and space affect each other proportionally but it has not been proven that time is relegated to this space only. We are learning more by leaps and bounds and these are exciting times indeed. Your arguments imho are logical and I respect them. I just think there is more to existence then we have discovered. There are unknown variables that we have yet discovered that need to be plugged into the known concepts of existence. I appreciate your comments. Live well
Eric, I appreciate your comments too and I appreciate being able to disagree respectfully.
Oh yes there is definitely more to existence than we have discovered.
I’d like to address what is commonly described as “god of the gaps” arguments where God is invoked to explain things we can’t explain. I think this is often misconstrued.
People often paint a picture that “God” used to be the default explanation of everything. And now that we have science that is no longer necessary. This is a mis-characterization of history, science and theology.
The Judeo Christian worldview has never in the habit of saying “the wind just blew, gee I guess it must’ve been God.” You just do not find that kind of thinking in Christian theology. Or…. if you find it among simple peasants you certainly don’t find it in Augustine or Aquinas or Origen or Luther or Edwards!
Rather it is asserted that God created the universe, that the universe operates according to specific discoverable laws. And that *sometimes* those laws are superceded by miraculous events; and that the creation of the universe itself is a miraculous event.
And furthermore that if something is a miraculous event, you will probably know it. Because it was distinctly different from what would *normally* happen. (Like resurrection for example. Everyone knows that dead people normally stay dead.)
From that standpoint, science is not one bit closer to “eliminating God” than it was 1000 years ago. Far from it! In fact with each passing discovery the we see that the universe is profoundly fine-tuned and highly ordered. And in the largest sense, the mystery only increases. We know know that there are dozens of universal constants (like gravity and nuclear forces) and if those constants were 0.000001% different the universe as we know it would be impossible.
The mystery will be only that much greater in 20 years than it is now. Not because we know less, but because we know MORE.
The more we know, the more questions are raised.
Which is precisely the point of Gödel’s theorems. Gödel is essentially saying that the more you know, the BIGGER the gap is between what is necessarily true and what you can actually prove. In broad terms, Gödel was telling us the same thing the theologians were already saying 1000 years ago.
Science is not about eliminating God. Science is about discovering how God gets things done. I would submit to you that it’s never been more reasonable to believe in God than it is right now, and there’s nothing in that at all that is weak or abdicates the search for knowledge and truth. Quite the opposite.
“Pulsars are not digital commuication systems.”
Neither is DNA. You just proved to yourself that DNA is not a code by your definition…
Brandon I suggest you consult a dictionary, in which one of the very definitions of “Code” is THE GENETIC CODE. Hubert Yockey’s book should lay to rest any notion that DNA is not a communication system and I invite you to read it before continuing to make this assertion.
Perry,
First please excuse any mistakes in grammer or spelling, English is not my first language, I accept Godels theory but only as a basic premise, it does seem to explain what “is” however as has been mentioned by you one needs to draw a circle around something to describe it and to refference something ouytside of that circle for a rational explaination of what it is. You use the word “God” to explain that which cannot be rationalised that which just is, but by doing so you necessarily draw a circle arround it. I think the answer which has been mentioned in some posts that perhaps the Universe itself is irrational. Take for example your circle (no matter the size or the object within), concentrate on the circle, the realationship of the circumfernce to the radius is (untill proven otherwise) incorporates an infinitly irational figure “Pi” in that it has no recursion. Although we have no problem seeing the circle as a whole? I think perhaps this is confusing to many but as we delve deeper into subatomic world we see more irrationality and duality. Is light a wave or a particle. It is as with the schrodinger’s cat thought experiment the act of measureing causes the breakdown in the paradox. So to return to your original premise that god must exist is your measurement and true for you untill further information is available to breakdown the paradox created by drawing the circle and breaking the Pi paradox that exists within that circle.
Hans,
You can eliminate the need for God if you postulate that the universe is irrational.
I don’t see that this is helpful to anyone at all. Doesn’t that pretty much discard the entire foundation of science? For one thing it prevents any atheist from believing they have some kind of corner on “reason and logic.” Actually that would be an interesting reversal, wouldn’t it?
A religious person says, “I’m religious because I believe in rationality.”
An atheist says, “I’m an atheist because I believe in irrationality.”
However odd it may sound I think it’s remarkably close to the truth. A religious person is likely to tell you that while they do not understand everything that happens in the world, they believe God has a plan and it will all make sense in the end.
An atheist person is likely to tell you they don’t believe in God because of all the wars, bloodshed, disease, gloom and destruction in the world.
One has faith that there is something outside the circle. The other, because of the inconsistency of what they see in world, insists there is not.
As a Buddhist I find this discussion very interesting. A concept called the Mystic Law refers to the unknown and inexplainable workings of the Universe, whether or not it is of a God or not, whether one believes this or not. I believe irregardless of an individuals beliefs, the workings of the universe are beyond our understanding; but this should not stop us from at least trying to explain us and our existence.
I’m not sure why nobody has said this so far. You’ve asked for a “naturally occurring code” multiple times. It seems to me that the answer is quite straightforward, especially as you’ve called it a code multiple times.
DNA
Is it not the product of natural processes? Why is it excluded from being considered a natural code? DNA is encoded and decoded every billions of times every day around the world as a consequence of the laws of physics which dictate the behavior of the molecules that make up DNA. Why is it not a suitable answer to your challenge?
Because nobody knows the ORIGIN of DNA.
There is no known physical process that gets us from non-life to life, from chemicals to self-replicating nanomachines. It’s not a trivial problem, in fact it’s profoundly difficult. The #1 unsolved mystery in all of biology.
I feel like this is assuming time is an actual thing and not a perception. Time only exist because you need it to exist or everything would be all bunched up together.
Time is an actual thing.
“[Paul A. M. Dirac] appears to have shared much the same opinion as the Time Traveller in the 1895 novel The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, whose science-fiction novels he read: ‘There is no difference between Time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our consciousness moves along it.’” -from The Strangest Man, The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Mystic of the Atom by Graham Farmelo
This theorem says indirectly, that whatever we don’t know must be god’s work. But that’s how religion was born. There are certain things our brains cannot comprehend. One simple example: what is infinite?
Or, if somebody believes in the bible I would ask him/her: What happened before the first day was created. What was there than? What/who created god? If nobody/nothing, then what? These things are impossible to comprehend. Our brains are not capable to understand. I simply accept those things and don’t try to explain them with an entity named god. That’s why I don’t believe in the entity named god. And I am very content with that. The main difference between me and religious people is, that I don’t say that in what I believe is the right thing, and try to persuade others to think like me. Religious people believe, that their view is the right one and keep trying to persuade others to believe in what they do.
George,
In college I took a math class called “Matrix Theory” aka Linear Algebra. In Matrix Theory you create and analyze dimensions of space as easily as x’s and y’s in 9th grade algebra. You say, “H is a 27 dimensional space with 16 orthogonal vectors…” just as casually as drawing X and Y coordinates on a piece of paper. Even though it’s impossible to visualize 16 or 27 dimensions.
I can’t say I really enjoyed the homework assignments in that class, it was all very abstract. But the concepts definitely expanded my mind. It made the concepts we’re describing here not so impossible to comprehend.
We live in 3 dimensional space. Time is a 4th dimension, linked to the expansion of space. String theory posits 7 more dimensions in addition to those four.
Those dimensions are just mathematical variables. Just a space that the universe operates within.
This entire article is about the idea that all those dimensions and elements of the universe are necessarily contingent on something. And that something is outside of space, outside of time, outside of all dimensions, and boundless. That something is inherently similar to how theologians have always described God.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” – Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-proclaimed agnostic.
God may have created millions of other dimensions and other universes that we have no way of peering into. What happened before the first day was created? Only God could tell you. Maybe someday… He will.
Time is real and I believe this can be proved through say the decay of carbon 14, or if I get out of a chair and walk across the room; and relative to my own consciousness, time exists.
Perry;
Thank you for this, I found it very engaging and enlightening. I do think, however, that you are making a logical maneuver that is not valid, yet I think there is an interesting dilemma posed… and perhaps a way out.
Godel’s arguement is essentially one of epistemology: how can we know. If I were to live in my house, and all the doors and windows were eternally blocked shut, I could know nothing of the outside world. Yet, to truly understand, objectively, my predicament would entail stepping outside my house and seeing it from the outside. Yet, this ‘need to know’ does not necessarily say anything objectively about what is outside my house, it only illustrates that fulfilling my need to know would entail stepping outside. In a sense we are like lab rats. Can the lab rat know anything about the observer? There is an epistemological directionality that must be observed – the need to know does not necessarily prove that that need can be fulfilled. While God perhaps can draw a circle around my house, does not mean I can draw a circle around Him. Or does it? Seemingly, something from outside the sphere would need to reach back.
Reading your article jogged my memory that Godel’s argument sounds suspiciously like something else much older. Many are familiar with Anselm’s Ontological Argument, and its over-simplification, but many are not aware that Anselm proceeded that argument in his writings with a clarification that runs something like this:
The comparative goodness of any two things cannot be determined solely by comparing them to each other, invariably a third ‘ideal’ is needed to set a standard of comparison. This not only holds true for any ‘goodness’, but also any goodness one can think of, such as ‘greatness’. This applies when comparing any two commodities one can conceive, regardless how great. Therefore, for thought to be possible, a supreme ‘Ideal’, or ‘Greatness’, higher than any conceivable ideal, must exist or any comparison or description would be stymied. It is this supreme Ideal Greatness we call ‘God’.
People have tried to criticize Anselm’s logic for centuries, yet it somehow bridges a gap that most don’t understand. His logic is often called Modal Logic. While this sounds very much like Godel’s argument, I think Anselm had provided something Godel hasn’t.
If I am still locked in my house, I may wonder what about all these things in my house that don’t have sufficient cause for existing within my house alone. There are no trees in my house, yet my furniture is all made of wood, etc. Something from the outside is indeed reaching back. For Anselm, this ‘thing’ that is reaching back, bridging the gap between my circle and God’s is rationality itself. To Anselm, rationality is not a sufficient cause in itself and provides perhaps a unique case of ‘reaching’ that doesn’t have the same limitations as other things might have.
While it appears that epistemology can only move one way, there does seem to be, according to Anselm, a certain capitulation in the act of knowing itself. Something ‘bounces back’ from the observed to the observer or the act of knowing would be stymied. While much of this might be an illusion or imagination (a movie about Avatars does not prove they actually exist), when applied to ‘knowing’ itself, it can’t be just an illusion or ALL knowing would just an illusion, a phantasm (certain ‘realities’ of the Avatars must exist such as existability or the movie would make no sense). Where Anselm succeeds and Godel fails is in the recognition of evidence needing to traverse the boundary in both directions. To Anselm, rationality itself is this ‘thing’. In Godel’s example, the question is not whether a circle can be drawn around us, it is can a circle be drawn around God.
Steven,
Thanks for your great post. You have actually provided the most understandable explanation of Anselm’s ontological argument that I’ve ever heard. In the manner that it is normally stated, it makes no sense to most people. Your explanation is very good.
To your last point: I maintain that a circle cannot be drawn around God. This is the only way that my argument stands without any internal contradiction. The most important point is: God is not a system. God is not composed of individual parts and God is not divisible and God is not space. So God therefore must be boundless.
My conclusions based on Gödel are remarkably similar to St. Thomas Aquinas’ Via Negativa:
1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.[62]
2. God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God’s complete actuality.[63]
3. God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.[64]
4. God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God’s essence and character.[65]
5. God is one, without diversification within God’s self. The unity of God is such that God’s essence is the same as God’s existence. In Aquinas’s words, “in itself the proposition ‘God exists’ is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same.”[66]
You might be interested in knowing that Gödel took Aselm’s argument quite seriously and in fact wrote a proof of it. You can read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel_ontological_proof
I’ve thought about Gödel’s ontological proof but haven’t arrived at any definite conclusions. I think more can be done with it and hopefully I’ll get a chance to address it. (There are some other comments waiting in the queue right now and I’ll get around to those too, soon.)
You have said:
“…Rather it is asserted that God created the universe”
You obviously believe the judeo-christian god created the universe. If you are a Christian, then by definition you believe God has a plan for every individual on this planet. You also believe he made us in his image. My objection concerns our understanding of a being that can conceive of things on a linear time scale, ascribing properties, making plans, creating things…
I haven’t seen anyone call you out on this yet, but if you believe God has a plan, “created” the universe, made us in his image, or just generally has any plan at all for anyone or anything, then you face the problem that any being that can conceive of a linear series of thoughts constituting a “plan” than this being must have a mind, a mental space, containing said concepts, and as such a being it would contradict your #1 assumption about God…
“1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.[62]”
He must have composite parts if he is to think in a linear series of events, such as having a plan for the universe. So not only does this contradict your most essential definition of God, but confronts you with the problem of “drawing a circle” around God to explain him and his workings. Infinite regress of explanations ensue…
Why does being able to think plan or intend necessarily require a composition of parts?
“Why does being able to think plan or intend necessarily require a composition of parts?”
By definition to think means:
1 : to form or have in the mind
2 : to have as an intention
Where in nature do we find a system that plans, thinks or intends without a composite of parts (physical parts) or a mind?
Secondly,
“Since all known mental activity has a physical basis, there are probably no disembodied minds. But God is conceived of as a disembodied mind. Therefore, God probably does not exist.”
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/minds.html
Forming a thought or intention requires a temporal series of physically causal events shaping said mind, therefore necessitating by definition composite parts.
You didn’t carefully read the article that this whole thread is about.
When you apply Godel’s theorem to the universe the conclusion is that the axiomatic thing on which the universe depends (ie God) is IMMATERIAL. Read the article and walk through the logic step by step.
This question goes back to the mind/body problem in philosophy, which is at least 3000 years old, and answers it: The mind is not necessarily a body.
I wonder, why doesn’t the logical fact that disembodied minds are improbable give you a sense of the enigma of creation instead of reaffirming a thesis (the Christian God) that has never been sufficiently proved with any kind of evidence? (which is why I assume your using a mysterious and complex logical theorem to argue your case then actual evidence that would be accepted by any good scientist) The disembodied mind case is contradictory to your Godel God conclusion, so why not see it for what it is, a logical mystery maybe best delegated to classroom/intellectual discussion so as to learn how to think properly and in turn focus on real world problems in which science can give a big helping hand.
First, assuming your logic pertaining to Godel’s theorem is correct than I must agree that an axiomatic thing must describe the universe, being boundless and immaterial. But this far from proves the Christian God existence, but instead proves that a formless thing needs to be logically evoked to fulfill the requirements of Godel’s incompleteness theorem in application to the universe and the question of existence and creation.
The implications of this proof are just as mysterious as our understanding of singularities and the matter that gets sucked into them at the center of black holes. Why am I wrong in this assumption about mystery and my accusation that you are logically wrong in the unwarranted conviction about the Christian God, instead of the innumerable amount of other God’s created by man?
Why don’t people assume, in the same way you do in your argument, that an immaterial flying spaghetti monster must be evoked to explain the formal system of a black hole? Because it’s a farcically made up religion, not a millennial old religion based on concepts and rituals from previous doctrinal (and fundamentally irreconcilable from Christianity) religions. There’s evidence in this fact, that Christianity is one of many systems of thought to fulfill many of humanities evolved needs in response to our unique consciousness; hence one of many answer systems, but more importantly to notice is the logical consequence of this fact, that the Christian God does not logically follow as a unique or obvious divine being that best answers philosophic questions about existence, creation and morality.
My main question for you is this; will you admit evoking the Christian God is a premature answer to this immaterial logical-necessity, which is only possible to defend in a theorem that gives many a sense of wonder and mystery, not logical certainty in the Christian God? The fact that a lot of people read your arguments, and see it’s evident sophistication, but nonetheless take it as an interesting anomaly in our constant struggle to discover our place in this universe (multiverse?) shows that the christian God is far from apparent and obvious; most importantly in the lack of evidence for his direct effect upon this world and people’s lives. All historic events, personal testimonials and claimed witnessed miracles have more logical evidence in favor of a naturalistic explanation. More on this later…
Ok, so we agree on an axiom of immaterial cause for the universe stems from the logical consequence of your logic. We also agree (I’m assuming) on a disembodied mind being evidentially and logically a more probabilistically false assumption about the nature of minds than that of a disembodied mind that happens to be that of the Christian God, or souls etc. I’m sorry but you have not answered the mind/body question at all, as you stated in your last response. I have not read one thing in any of your debates that has you logically confirming a fact about the nature of disembodied minds. So this is how I see it. Your taking two mysteries, that are hotly debated topics throughout human history, ones that have inspired millions of great thinkers toward a cornucopia of conclusions (that give much to the world in their mysterious nature and the training it takes to shape ones mind to understand even a small portion of them and the debate as a whole), and fusing them into coherence when none is evident, instead only loose correlation based on the beliefs of one religion amongst many.
You then argue further with a question:
“I invite you to answer your own question:
Does the truth about God – do claims about God – affect anybody?”
Did the claims about Zeus affect anybody? Do the claims of mystics of all types, mediums, masters, gurus, lunatics affect anybody? How about the book “the secret”, it affects people positively, how do you explain this? Natural explanations can, very well actually. Psychology, cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology do extremely well if we wanna get specific.
and:
“Just because they’re (supposed miracles) politically incorrect doesn’t mean they don’t exist…”
Politically incorrect? I think more accurately they can be labeled as “conjectural claims, unsupported by robust evidence”, and subject themselves to naturalistic explanations, which are more wondrous and interesting then the claims themselves (not to be mention vast, as in volumes and hundred of years of theory, research, paradigm shifts and more accuracy of theory and result).
You also said,
“Reason concerning the effects of God on the universe is a field known in academia as theology. I invite you to set aside the pejorative attitude and follow the evidence where it leads.”
I reply with this refutation that methodological naturalism does not rule out explanations that are a priori:
“In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don’t really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural. However…methodological naturalism would not be as stunningly successful as it has in fact been if metaphysical naturalism were false. Thus the de facto success of methodological naturalism provides strong empirical evidence that metaphysical naturalism is probably true.”
“methodological naturalism does not rule out any explanation a priori. To see why this is, let us recall that methodological naturalism is defined by the way a metaphysical naturalist trying to advance science would act. I think it is relatively clear that such a person would have to be a fallibilist with respect to even his metaphysical beliefs; …he wants to be as sure as he can that his explanations correspond to the way the world really is. Since he does not have all possible data, he cannot be sure that there is not some kind of evidence for the supernatural out there, so he would not want to trap himself in a routine that would ignore even blatant evidence for the supernatural in favor of a less plausible naturalistic hypothesis. The metaphysical naturalist who wishes to fulfill the aims of science cannot rule out the possibility that his metaphysical views may eventually be shown to be wrong – hence, he must be open to some degree to supernatural explanations. However, this degree is likely to be a very slight one, which is what gives methodological naturalism its naturalistic flavor – the methodological naturalist, in acting like a metaphysical naturalist devoted to science, will, while being open to the slight possibility of evidence for the supernatural, consider naturalistic hypotheses on average more parsimonious than supernaturalistic ones, and hence will give them more benefit of doubt. In short, his methodological commitments can tell him to examine all possible naturalistic explanations for a phenomenon first, and can assign higher prima facie probabilities to such explanations on average, but the least plausible naturalistic explanation will tend to have a lower prima facie probability than the most plausible supernaturalistic explanation.”
“Of course, if naturalistic methodology can lead to the confirmation of supernaturalistic hypotheses, it can also lead to the falsification of supernaturalistic hypotheses. In fact, this is what has happened to a number of models offered by scientific creationists…But it is perfectly clear that a large number of hypotheses that appeal to the supernatural make sufficient empirical predictions to be falsified.”
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/ntse.html
You must first refute the logical conclusions of these claims before you assert that theological evidence for God’s effect in the world is stronger than the naturalists evidence.
and this is what you said about nature (the natural world)….
“Indeed, surely if nature tells you anything, it tells you that God can be wild and ferocious. If nature tells you anything about God, it also tells you that God can be soft, tender and beautiful…”
How do you make this monumental leap in logic? Also remember it’s contradictory for God to be both ferocious and tender if he is also to be logical, which you said he was. “It tells you” is off the bat a wrong interpretation of our interaction with the world; “Science tells us” is more accurate, or if you want, “we tell it”, in that there was no written or thought about account of the world before homosapiens arrived on the scene. And if the world was somehow telling us anything how do you make the assumption there is the Christian God behind the curtains telling us? Why not instead try to really follow the evidence (countless pieces of logical, natural evidence) and see that your attempts at marrying God (immaterial and unknowable) to natural effects and stating it as if it was a ipso facto proof of your first premise that God Is, is an extremely premature leap in logic and certainty? The ever cohesive and well understood accumulated evidence, research and pragmatic effects on how we live because of science towers over the accumulated religious evidence for any of it’s wild creation myth/immaterial God claims. This is without question because the logic shows it to be. There is more evidence anyway you look at it for a naturalistic world than that of a supernatural one (one in which a Christian God intervenes on behalf of human, which you admit you believe).
“…do not neglect to distinguish the difference between what God has created and what man has destroyed.”
How about what man has created: science, logic, vaccines, peace treaties, constitutions, medical devices, academy’s of learning, language, art, music, meaning. Each one of those developments can be naturally traced along a historical time-line with varying degrees of cultural transmission between an innumerable amount of connections between individuals. This is the amazing natural world we live in, one where emergent properties exist from apparent chaos. The only way to distinguish between your two choices is by first making God self evident, which he is not, due to the fact that we are debating him, along with millions of other people right now.
“I would invite you to open yourself to understanding God as God really is…”
I would invite you to open yourself to understanding the natural world as the natural world really is.
You say at the top of this web-page,
“The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a consistent model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.”
Isn’t this exactly the leap I’m talking about?
So, the theorem doesn’t prove God exists, only that the natural world needs something outside of it to explain itself…therefore a consistent model of the universe necessitates belief in the Christian God? You say “belief in God”, but can’t this be debated as to what “God” is? If so, then why aren’t you holding your tongue since no one has given us a definitive definition or evidence of God that stands up to all attacks of logic, evidence and reason, the same tools you use to argue your claims?
Here is some new naturalistic/scientific research, so I must ask, how does this square with your conviction that there is more evidence for God’s presence than the opposite? These few are a drop in the bucket compared to all accumulated naturalistic observations and theories.
“There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).”
1. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
“We’re slowly chipping away at the structure of morality,” says Young. “We’re not the first to show that emotions matter for morality, but this is a more precise look at how emotions matter.”
“The finding offers a new piece to the puzzle of how the human brain constructs morality, says Liane Young, a postdoctoral associate in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences”
2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324121008.htm
God is not the Creator, claims academic
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html
4. http://www.livescience.com/culture/081027-religion-altruism.html
5. http://www.livescience.com/culture/090109-kids-spirituality.html
6. http://www.livescience.com/culture/etc/090512-the-evolution-religion.html
Chris,
You have discomfort with the Christian God and I understand that.
Nonetheless let it be clear that my logic regarding Godel is sound. If the universe is logical then it necessarily follows that the universe is contingent on something outside itself that immaterial and boundless. Such an assumption is axiomatic – not provable but necessary.
This alone firmly establishes the validity of metaphysics.
Naturalism itself presumes to somehow know that there is nothing outside the universe. Godel’s incompleteness theorem gives all possible inference, with the full authority of science, that there is something outside the universe. Therefore we can make a 100% logical conclusion that if science is valid, naturalism is false.
Thus the core of the atheist argument is dismantled by Godel.
Disembodied mind flows from the following syllogism:
1. The pattern in DNA is a code
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
We can explore five possible conclusions from this:
1) Humans designed DNA
2) Aliens designed DNA
3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
5) DNA was Designed by a metaphysical mind, i.e. God.
I rigorously argue this case at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq and articles linked from this page.
The implications of this are that information is not a product of physics and chemistry but rather that information is always created by top-down causation not bottom-up.
The existence and nature of information itself likewise dismantles the materialistic worldview. Because materialism cannot explain the origin of information.
Information is immaterial, therefore it has an immaterial source, therefore the Original Mind is immaterial.
I do not believe the Christian God is a premature conclusion because if one embraces an essentially Darwinian time line and a secular understanding of the Big Bang (as I do), Genesis 1 matches this time line tit for tat. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/genesis1 for a detailed examination of the text.
You may be unaware that there are many volumes of documented miracles. You can find links to many sources at http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles, near the bottom of the article.
You may also be unaware that the foundation of science, which is an assumption that the universe is governed by fixed discoverable laws, originated in Christian theology. It most certainly did not come from atheism. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq/#christian
Thanks for the quote from Mark Vuletic. I know him, I had extended conversations with him 10 years ago in Oak Park Illinois, we were good friends for awhile. I appreciated the mental exercise and challenge of having those discussions with him. One time we rode to Madison Wisconsin together to see Dan Barker.
Yes I understand that supernatural hypotheses can be falsified, but you seem to be forgetting that my line of argumentation is Godel’s incompleteness theorem. Again, if the universe is logical and mathematical, then a metaphysical world necessarily exists.
A mother bear can be wild and ferocious, and tender. If it is logical for a bear to be that way why is it illogical for God to be that way?
Man did not create science or logic. Man discovered these things.
“Emergent properties exist from apparent chaos.” True enough if you’re talking about snowflakes. Not known to be true if we’re talking about digital code, such as we find in DNA.
You have presented a predictable atheist list of objections but you have not refuted any of my logic.
If you want to talk about correlation between religious belief and social problems in the United States, fair enough. Then let’s also talk about the human rights track record of atheism.
I’ve got a book on my shelf called The Black Book Of Communism. It documents in excruciating detail the genocide of 160 million people under mostly atheist regimes — in the 20th century alone.
“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.“ -Vladimir Lenin
Is it merely a coincidence that more people were murdered by atheist governments in the 20th century, than by all religious wars in all centuries combined? You decide.
“Well, our friend Dirac, too, has a religion, and its guiding principle is this: ‘There is no God and Dirac is his prophet.’” – Wolfgang Pauli, Nobel Prize winner in physics.
“God is a mathematician of very high order.” -Paul Dirac, theoretical physicist who predicted the existence of antimatter
No. It will not. In my world god doesn’t exist.
Hey Perry,
I really admire you for taking the time to respond to every single comment posted here… It is for this reason that I now find myself writing a comment when initially I did not have the intention to do so.
I believe I have a slightly different take on the ‘DNA is designed’ argument from that of earlier commentators. Hopefully this new argument will interest you.
I take it you believe that since all observed codes that we know of (putting aside DNA) are designed by conscious beings, then DNA can be inductively assumed to also have been designed by a conscious being.
Now imagine, if you will (for just a few moments), that there was a world where it were possible that some codes occur without the input of a conscious being, and that they were around on that planet. And imagine, please, that in that world, we could thus divide all codes into two types: those created by conscious beings, and those not created by conscious beings.
Person A believes that there exist both types of codes. Person B believes that only consciously created codes exist.
How would person A, I asked myself, in that particular world, prove to person B that some codes exist without conscious creators? Perhaps he would take a code that has existed long before humankind, show it to person B and say, ‘Behold, this is a code not created by a conscious mind.’
But person B would merely say, ‘You have not proven that this is a code not created by a conscious mind – only that it is a code not created by humans. This only shows that a conscious creator of codes existed before humans, and that it was that creator who made this code. The same can be said of any code not created by humans.’
Of course, person B cannot be proven wrong, even in this world that we are imagining where some codes do exist without conscious creators. The simple fact is that no-one can prove that a certain code has no conscious creator, whether that is actually the case or not.
Hopefully you will realise by now that it is impossible to distinguish, using logic or other means, this imagined world from our own. It may be true that all codes in this world were created by conscious beings. But to say that it MUST be so because we cannot prove it false is a logical fallacy.
( From Wikipedia: The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (“appeal to ignorance”), or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. )
Once again, thank you for your patience and willingness to respond to the comments directed towards your article, and have a nice day.
Sam,
You ask: “How would person A, I asked myself, in that particular world, prove to person B that some codes exist without conscious creators?”
Simple. You demonstrate that you can put chemicals in a tank that don’t have codes and open it up later and find that they do. Then you analyze the process by which it happened.
In other words, simple scientific proof. Empirical evidence.
The scientific community has never provided any kind of evidence that a structure such as DNA, or the information it contains, originates from chemicals. You cannot derive the properties of any code from the laws of physics and chemistry.
We know more about codes in 2010 than we know about most other things in science. Every major university in the world has a Computer Science program. You can take 200 credit hours of classes that discuss the conceptual aspects of codes, objects, databases, storage, transmission and computation.
My argument is not an argument from ignorance. It’s an argument from positive evidence. Based on exhaustive knowledge of the thinking process involved in data storage, processing and retrieval.
It is the materialist / atheist position which is presenting an argumentum ad ignorantiam. I invite you to scour, in detail, the contents of http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infidels – read every single argument people have made against my thesis in the last 4 years. See for yourself if I’m not telling you the straight-up truth. They insist DNA isn’t really a code; they tell me rocks & snowflakes are codes; they tell me I’m not allowed to use inductive reasoning; they tell me that DNA was a happy chemical accident….
Not a single one of these arguments is scientific.
The conclusion that DNA is designed conforms to everything we know about codes, and everything that’s taught in any accredited 4-year Computer Science curriculum.
In Jodie Foster’s film, Contact, she plays a scientist looking for radio signals from space that will prove that intelligent life forms exist far from earth.
Eventually her scientific team receive a signal from the vicinity of a star named Vega. The signal is decoded to show that it consists of a series of prime numbers. The supposition is that prime numbers are universal values that first have to be discovered by an intelligence as least as high a level as ours. That prime numbers don’t just happen randomly in space and are randomly put into a self-evident sequence of separate prime numbers.
And then, of course, transmitted repetitively into space by some sort of transmission device which must be also an intelligently discovered device. The assumption in this storyline (by agnostic/atheist Carl Sagan) is that such a massive device was put into operation for a purpose. There was, by natural assumption, a plan created inside an intelligent mind far away. And the plan seems to be to attract another intelligent species in the universe to hear.
The assumption of the movie is that another intelligence is transmitting a code that must necessarily invoke a concomitant awareness that this is a deliberate communication from one intelligence to another.
But, as exciting as that is, the meaning is further enriched when further analysis reveals beyond the prime number sequences several sets of packaged data with their own code. The code is further discovered to have its own decoder attached (like delivering a DVD along with a DVD player and monitor) that would be ultimately decipherable to mathematicians who have reached our present state of sophistication.
Decoded from that help they discover a video source buried in the signal: Adolf Hitler’s welcoming address at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin which was actually televised with such television transmitters as existed in 1936 and which apparently travelled to the Vegan system.
Then a third set of data was found in the signal; over 60,000 “pages” of what appear to be technical drawings. Later they are decoded to allow for 3 dimensions and this method now reveals a complex machine allowing for one human occupant inside a pod to be dropped into three rapidly spinning rings.
Well, to sum up, we build, the Jodie Foster character travels, she returns, and is treated as a “religious nut” or hoax for making claims she cannot substantiate.
We all of us, ALL of us, agnostic, atheistic, believers in God, quickly, without debate intuitively jump to the same conclusions when we are presented with such a storyline.
Every single person of whatever persuasion or non-persuasion religiously on this earth accepts this premise.
Some “intelligence” MEANS to COMMUNICATE with other intelligences in this story scenario.
We ALL understand that we are begging the impossible to argue that a signal containing a sequence of prime numbers, where one long string of prime numbers has a start and a definable end before another long string of prime numbers is transmitted could just happen to be a random cosmic occurrence.
We understand that we would instantly heap scorn upon ourselves to argue in the face of all these conditions — so WHAT?
And when we discover more data in that signal that also helpfully and INTENTIONALLY gives us algorithms to decode that into a moving video signal that reproduces an old video transmission from our world, we are completely, absolutely convinced that another intelligence is deliberately speaking to US.
And then when we discover a third set of data that has thousands of drawings done in a 3 dimensional model well there is NO argument. This PROVES intelligent life exists in the star system Vega.
Even if the drawings build something that looks ridiculous and seemingly non functional we assume that we just got it wrong. The question of whether another intelligence exists is beyond a doubt, even if they are pranking us.
When you follow every lead that Perry has provided explaining already accepted Communication theory and how it is inextricably demonstrated in the basis of all life as we know it, the DNA system of data storage, transmission, replication, repair — all in not just in 3 dimensions of space but also IN SEQUENCES of TIME, DNA also carrying the code for WHEN something is brought into play at the time that its manufacture or dissolution is optimal for life, then you have to face up to the inevitable.
Some vast Intelligence created a code so complex, yet elegantly compact, and simultaneously from the very first moment of its existence already completely encoded so that its DECODING mechanism is completely as sophisticated, and its transmission of instructions to create tissues and enzymes (themselves staggeringly complex compounds) on a cosmic mathematical scale of deliberate INTENTION by a superhumanly vast intelligence and personal power.
Ladies and Gentlemen, when will you allow yourselves to privately admit that what is ALREADY KNOWN, by itself, is far, far more than an electrical pulse from Vega?
David,
Yes, DNA *is* like a DVD that’s encoded with instructions to build a DVD player. The SETI project is proof that even secular people know coded information is proof of intelligence. BRAVO. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Perry
David,
Yes, DNA *is* like a DVD that’s encoded with instructions to build a DVD player. It also contains error correction checksums based on a Fibonacci sequence. The SETI project is proof that even secular people know coded information is proof of intelligence. BRAVO. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Perry
Perry,
Thank you for your reply. While I’m glad to hear that you would be convinced by empirical evidence, I hope you do realise that an experiment to display the random event of code coming together ‘randomly’ would be impractical – I hear that even computer models would be inadequate to show such an event, though I myself am a little confused as to why.
Still, I suppose there’s not much room for manoeuvre on the ‘empirical proof’ side of the argument, so I will say that I am defeated, when it comes to that, and will merely hope that one day science will once again come to understand something that only religion is be able to explain for now.
I’ll go and read that Infidels thread you gave me the link to now, and perhaps I will return with more questions when I have finished. Thanks for your response!
Sam,
A question I’m surprised people don’t ask more often is: “What if a physical process that creates codes is discovered? What would that mean? Would it destroy your ‘God argument’?”
I think it’s a really great question. And I’m not at all opposed to such a discovery being made.
That discovery would probably hold the key to our scientific understanding of consciousness, which so far is nearly a complete mystery.
It would also be a giant breakthrough, a massive paradigm shift on the same level as the splitting of the atom or Einstein’s theory of relativity. It would be the Nobel prize discovery of the century.
And by the way I don’t think it would destroy my ‘God argument.’ It would only stack the deck even higher at the beginning of the universe. It would raise even greater philosophical questions about how our universe came to be the way that it is. In 2010, science is no closer to “eliminating God” than it was 500 years ago. The ‘gaps’ that science has allegedly closed only grow bigger with each passing year.
Meanwhile I think it’s dishonest of the scientific community to not simply follow the evidence where it leads. To simply admit what is a very obvious conclusion from the facts at hand: That intelligence appears to be behind the genetic code.
We don’t have to agree on what that intelligence is or what it means. But once we acknowledge the exacting design and purposeful nature of DNA all kinds of other doors will open for biological discovery. We need to acknowledge the facts we do have before we can discover new ones.
Hey Perry,
I’m not a biologist, unfortunately, and even if I were, I wouldn’t necessarily know enough to understand the full workings behind this, but since I’d like to continue discussing this, I hope you’ll forgive me for my stabs in the dark and correct me where I contradict current evidence.
I have read through the Infidel’s riddle section of your website, and found it quite interesting. I guess I would have to say that I’m not entirely sure that I understand your argument as to why DNA can’t have ‘evolved’ (I know I can only use the word as an analogy at this stage) from earlier, simpler biological or chemical components… And why those components could not have arisen by chance from other chemicals. After all, I hear the earth had a few hundred million years before any real complex stuff arose.
If that sort of thing can happen, I don’t see how the whole ‘code/information’ bit is relevant. After all, that is only a consequence of what something like DNA consists of, surely?
Again, I hope you’ll forgive me for my tentative guesses – if I had more time, I would look into the subject properly and try to see if I could understand papers on the subject, but I am a student with not long before my exams, so now is perhaps not the best time for that.
(As for the ‘simplier biological/chemical components’ I mentioned, I believe the Iron-Sulphur world theory and the RNA world hypothesis are examples of this, though unconfirmed.)
Any argument for chance fails as soon as you try to apply some statistics to it. I talk about this at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/infinite-chasm/
The possibility of such a thing happening by chance is so vastly improbable that trillions of years and literal a universe of universes would not be even close to enough time. Most people have no comprehension of how bad the statistics actually are. A few hundred million years doesn’t even begin to be enough.
Nowhere in any biological literature will you find any statistical model that shows this is favorable. Frankly the only people who believe this is possible are those who haven’t tried to do the math.
Any proper definition of evolution means variation filtered by natural selection. To have variation you have to have replication and to have replication you have to have a code. Therefore a code is a REQUIREMENT for evolution to even be possible.
So it is not possible that the code “evolved” from a non-code. The term evolution does not even apply.
I have created a specification for discovering a naturally occurring code here: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/solve/
The very basic fallacy and the wrong premise made in this argument is information’s being a product of a conscious entity. You cannot make this presupposition since information may also thought to be an emergent entity, rather than being a designed one. For more about this you can read Daniel Dennet’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2573941/Daniel-C-Dennett-Darwin-s-Dangerous-Idea-Evolution-and-the-Meaning-of-Life
I have this book. Nowhere in this book does Dennett ever demonstrate that information is an emergent entity. For that matter, nowhere in science is there any hard evidence that this is true. “Emergence” in this context is a purely hypothetical construct.
Dennett also asserts that all you need is self replication and evolution will occur automatically. This is also not true and there is no evidence for such an assertion in any of the literature. Evolution is an engineered process as I discuss at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/new-theory-of-evolution/
I’m no scientist, (wish I was because I’d be rolling in the dough!) but I’ve come to the conclusion that DNA is the “Language of the Creator”. Once we become fluent we will be able to talk to God. Or, I look at it this way. If DNA is a language, the the Human Genome or any other creature’s genome is a book.
To be correct, and fair, Darwin actually ‘lifted’ the Theory of Evolution in an act of out-and-out plagiarism, shifting it into the camp of Uniformitarianism. Darwin had no real observational evidence from which to derive the Theory, nor did the Theory appear in the first editions of Origin of the Species.
Darwin was Russel Wallace’s research contact person at home in England. Wallace was sending his overseas research to Darwin for safe keeping. Then Darwin saw Wallace’s Sarawak Law: “Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species.”
Darwin rushed to take credit for the finding (Wallace was overseas and could do nothing about it) leaving out Wallace’s conclusion: “Because man’s physical structure has been developed from an animal form by natural selection, it does not necessarily follow that his mental nature, even though developed pari passu with it, has been developed by the same causes only.”
Then this statement from Wallace: “these speculations are widely held to be far beyond the bounds of science — a superior intelligence has guided the development of man… and for a special purpose, just as man guides the development of many animal and vegetable forms.”
See – ‘A Delicate Arrangement’, Arnold Brackman, (New York) Times Pub.
Hey Perry,
I have read your Infinite Chasm page and I understand where you’re coming from, mostly. I looked around for a while afterwards and came across this page with an article by Ian Musgrave (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html). It’s not too long, and tries to justify all his statement with references to scientific papers.
Looking elsewhere, I found that the actual numbers used in that article were not accurate, since it was mostly to make a point, rather than to be 100% mathematically accurate. I found that the corrections for those numbers (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#notemusgrave) did not apparently negatively affect his conclusions.
You have probably seen that article before, and since it seems to contradict your statements on your Infinite Chasm page, I was wondering if you’d be willing to explain what errors Musgrave has made (aside from the corrections found in the second link)?
He says:
“The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40″
This statement is not being made on the basis of any kind of empirical evidence. He’s playing a shell game. And that’s regardless of whether his math is right or wrong. Here’s why:
Nobody has ever in any circumstances synthesized a self-replicating molecule, ever, anywhere. The only known self replicating machines are living organisms. No one has ever even designed one successfully, let alone seen one assemble by chance.
(I am using Von Neumann’s definition of self replicating machines, not something else like salt crystals etc, which is not really self replication at all. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_replication)
He is only giving you the probability that the chemicals allegedly necessary to make this molecule will arise under some particular circumstances. But he has not given you a probability that they will self assemble in the right structure.
Thus there is no empirical basis whatsoever to the claims he is making. Frankly the entire Origin Of Life field is barely on the fringes of empirical science. This article contributes nothing to it.
Hey Perry,
It’s true that he never precisely mentions how those self-replicators get together from their individual parts. I guess the text reads in such a way to make the reader assume the ingredients can randomly stick together somehow, through chemical processes…
Well, I guess that’s the big question then, isn’t it? It’ll be interesting to see the progress that scientists make as they try to find the answer. It just goes to show how far we still have to go before we can fully understand life.
There is one last thing I’d like to ask you, now. In an earlier comment, you said “once we acknowledge the exacting design and purposeful nature of DNA all kinds of other doors will open for biological discovery. We need to acknowledge the facts we do have before we can discover new ones.”
This confuses me more than anything else, I must confess. Surely the only way to make progress is to keep probing, testing and doubting… What could be gained from accepting that DNA is designed?
If you could explain what you meant by that statement, I’d be very grateful.
The proposition that DNA is NOT designed has led to all kinds of ridiculous theories. The most egregious being the “Junk DNA” hypothesis, which held for about 30 years. Many biologists actually believed, if you can even fathom it, that 97% of our DNA is “junk.” I’m absolutely serious. The term has not even yet been completely abolished – it’s still floating around.
The entire human genome barely fits on a CD ROM. It’s surprising enough that 750MB of data is enough to contain all the plans for a human body. That alone is some sort of miracle. If humans designed DNA it would take 100 CD Roms. Microsoft Windows doesn’t even fit on a single CD ROM and it’s nowhere near as amazing as the human body. The Junk DNA theory would actually imply that all the plans fit on 22 MB. Outrageous.
And: The idea that nature would waste 97% of anything has to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.
There’s also “vestigial organs” – evolutionary leftovers that serve no purpose. Well, I’m sure there’s *some* truth to the idea but the vast majority of organs declared vestigial were eventually found to have important functions. At one time some people said the human body had 200 vestigial organs. Now the number is hovering at maybe less than 5. That number will continue to get smaller.
And so it goes. When you read atheistic biology literature you constantly find descriptions about how “dumb” the “designs” are. This literature is written by people who for the most part have never designed anything, let alone designed an eye or a lung. As an engineer who designed products that were produced in quantities of hundreds of thousands, I have a particular appreciation for the complex tradeoffs involved in even the simplest devices. When I see living things I see incredibly elegant designs, and choices that involve tremendous subtlety. That subtlety is lost on people who deny purpose in biology.
What happens if you reverse that assumption?
You CANNOT study purpose-FUL things the same way you study purpose-LESS things. In other words you study a thermostat very differently than you study a rock. (There’s a whole book on this distinction called “Perceptual Control Theory” by Powers.) A rock has no goals, no programs, no intentions. It’s just a rock. A thermostat actively seeks to maintain temperature in a room. It has definite goals and it accomplishes those goals in certain ways.
If you study a thermostat and you assume it has no purpose, it’s totally impossible to really understand it.
That is the problem with reductionistic, materialistic biology. It denies teleology (purpose) and it denies design. If there is, however, a design, then materialism will inevitably come to wrong conclusions. If it’s true for a thermostat, it’s doubly true for a Toyota Camry and triply true for biology. The Junk DNA hypothesis is a prime example of the failure of that kind of thinking.
If there’s not a design, it’s still better to assume there is one than to assume there’s not one. Because assuming purpose naturally leads to more detailed discovery and interpretation than assuming accident.
It now turns out that the other 97% of the DNA is where all the INTERESTING stuff is. The 3% only codes for proteins. It specifies the raw materials. The 97% is instructions for how to assemble those materials. Well that part is a lot more interesting. 30 years of assuming it was “junk” prevented a whole bunch of people from ever studying it at all.
30 years of lost scientific process because someone whose ego was out of control proclaimed that something he didn’t understand was junk. Tragic.
By the way, the 97% is also the part that controls evolutionary development. So the people who told us evolution was random and accidental were actually preventing us from finding out how evolution actually happens: That it’s a systematic, engineered process that is goal seeking and incredibly sophisticated. See See James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf for a paper on how the evolutionary process actually works.
If we assume design in DNA then we can make all kinds of hypotheses – predictions – about what biology will discover in the next 3 or 10 or 20 years. I have made a series of such predictions here:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/testable-hypothesis-id-1/ and in subsequent articles 2 3 and 4.
I proved mathematically beyond any question that the logical system of simple addition is complete in and of itself.
Every symbol you define in your system of simple addition has to be taken as axiomatic.
“Every symbol you define in your system of simple addition has to be taken as axiomatic.”
No they don’t. Not even close. The symbols are arbitrary. They’re not bloody axiomatic, they’re just a convenient shorthand. Remember “computably generable?” A computer could prove addition with the FORM of my proof above. The symbols are irrelevant. You could use anything you wanted. The definitions are all INSIDE the system.
What’s more, Gödel’s Theorem is discussed at length by Torkel Franzen and specifically in his book “Gödel’s Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use and Abuse” ISBN 1-56881-238-8
He spent a lot of his life specifically devoting his time to discussing this theorem and common misconceptions applied to it. You would benefit from reading his work.
Arthur,
Yes you are right, your addition system is computable and I stand corrected.
So at this point the attribute in question is: “Non-trivial.”
Gödel’s theorem says:
“For any consistent, non-trivial, formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.”
If your system of addition is both consistent and complete, it is therefore “trivial” according to Gödel’s definition.
Now the original question that brought this up in the first place was: “Does Gödel’s theorem apply to the universe?” I said yes: If the universe is logical [CONSISTENT] then it is necessarily incomplete.
To make my statement completely accurate I have to say that if a theory is consistent and non-trivial then it is necessarily incomplete.
What happens if I substitute the word “system” in place of the word “theory”?
“For any consistent, non-trivial, formal, computably enumerable system that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the system, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.”
I don’t believe the above statement is any less true than the original version. The physical universe is most definitely capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. I still stand by my statement that the universe is incomplete.
“…any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.”
I hardly think you’ve come anywhere close to proving — or even creating a convincing inference — that the universe is effectively generated. You quoted the Wikipedia article to me, so let me do the same to you: “A formal theory is said to be effectively generated if its set of axioms is a recursively enumerable set. This means that there is a computer program that, in principle, could enumerate all the axioms of the theory without listing any statements that are not axioms. This is equivalent to the ability to enumerate all the theorems of the theory without enumerating any statements that are not theorems”
That’s fine but you said:
“What happens if I substitute the word “system” in place of the word “theory”?”
Well you’ve made a bit of a mess, that’s what happened. A formal theory is necessarily incomplete. That’s what Gödel was referring to. No matter how clever my observations about a system, no matter how far-reaching my insight, my theory will always depend on the system itself which is beyond the theory and always will be. There is always the possibility of creating an axiom which is true but not provable within my theory.
The system itself, in this case, the universe, cannot be proven by a computer program. It does not prove anything. The universe DOES nothing. It just is. It doesn’t derive arithmetic or theories. It doesn’t create formulae. It is the thing outside that we observe and try to explain.
“For any consistent, non-trivial, formal, computably enumerable system that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the system, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.”
The universe is neither effectively generated, not is it capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.
“I don’t believe the above statement is any less true than the original version.”
And yet it is.
“The physical universe is most definitely capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. I still stand by my statement that the universe is incomplete.”
Give me one example, just one example, of a naturally occurring expression of elementary arithmetic. Keep in mind, that pointing to the world and saying one apple plus one apple equals two apples doesn’t count. You have to show me one naturally occurring expression of elementary arithmetic and then we can talk some more.
Arthur,
Are you saying that a computer can express elementary arithmetic but the universe can’t? That it’s OK to count 1′s and 0′s but it’s not OK to count apples?
“Are saying that a computer can express elementary arithmetic but the universe can’t? That it’s OK to count 1′s and 0′s but it’s not OK to count apples?”
Arithmetic is not naturally occurring. It’s a philosophical concept WE devised to try to have reference to plurality. I’m saying EXACTLY that. WE programmed computers based on OUR concept of arithmetic. Counting apples is HUMANS counting apples. Using a computer to count apples is HUMANS counting apples.
There is no difference because they are both artifice.
Give me one example of a naturally occurring expression of elementary arithmetic and we can have a serious debate about the applicability of Gödel to the universe. Until such a time as a naturally occurring expression of elementary arithmetic has been discovered, however, it’s a far cry to say that the universe derives its own formulae and theories.
If a computer counts apples and no one is there to watch it, then are apples being counted or not?
Of course the apples are being counted. But given that a human created and programmed the computer to count apples based on a series of commands, it’s just humans counting apples.
Unless, of course, you’re arguing that computers are naturally occurring, in which case I would use your own syllogism against you:
1. All computers are designed by humans.
2. A computer is counting apples.
3. The apple-counting computer was designed by humans.
I’m glad you agree that the apples are being counted. I’m also sure we both agree that the computer is not conscious that it is counting apples.
Nonetheless it is counting.
I don’t want you to forget the larger point which is that computers, not just humans, can perform mathematical expression. Is that not the whole point of the Turing Machine, which was inspired by Gödel’s work in the first place? Turing proposed a mechanized way of doing computations and showed that even computers can produce undecidable propositions.
Everything mathematical that can be applied to a computer, also applies to the universe, because a computer is part of the universe.
A falling object that accelerates due to gravity is expressing mathematics: The velocity is the integral of the acceleration and the position is the integral of the velocity. That’s the concept behind an analog computer.
All things that obey the laws of physics express arithmetic. To be more precise, they express the laws of physics and so far as is known to science, all such behaviors are mathematical.
While one could argue that there are several ‘things’ in the Universe, such as mathematics, that exist un-caused because they arise out of naturally occurring ratios etc., that in no way challenges the belief that those things whose existence is contingent, such as rationality and life, require a cause. Their existence is contingent on having been caused by something. As there is not sufficient reason within the bounds of the Universe for these ‘contingent things’ to explain their existence, it is very warranted to look beyond the bounds of the known Universe to explain their existence. While mathematics may have a certain ‘order of proportion and ratio’ within its own bounds, that order falls significantly short of explaining true order, the ability of an intelligence to recognize that order, and the ability to communicate the meaning of the order. While one rock plus one rock equals two rocks, what does either rock care about the other?
Further, the fact that someone might extrapolate an infinite regression of causes from a speculated ‘First Cause’ in no way undermines the need for that Cause. One could say I am caused by my mother, who, in turn, is caused by her mother, and on and on. Just because I can create a hypothetical infinite regression of ‘mothers’ does not undermine the fact I, indeed, had a mother. In fact, it is this very infinite regression that demands a ‘First Cause’ at some point.
“Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, that we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence, every theory of the universe which makes the mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such proofs. Which is nonsense. But Naturalism, as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort.” – CS Lewis
Perry
I wish to add something which is off topic but of interest none the less. I have added comments before, and you have been kind enoughh to answer them. I have also stated hat English not being my first language may cause some confusion. I woud classify myself as an agnostic. Perhaps a cowards way out, however I have been invited to a bible study group consisting of people who in all but their unwavering belief in a christian god seem rational. I mainly take a back seat as I feel my scepticsm would be doing an injustice to their hospitality, however at a recent event (which they called the HOLLY SPIRIT night) I was privy to something that trully amazed me. I had heard that when invocing the Holy Spirit believers have been known to speak in tongues. At the particular event I attended one specific person seemed to go into a trance like state and started talking what seemed to me to be giberish (for reference the meeting was recorded!) after the meeting the person who had the experience was taken to one side and questioned by a mesianic jew who was also present it turns out she was talking in an ancient form of aramaic which he recognised part of. We are having the transcript of the meeting looked at by a scholar who hopes to be able to give a fuller explaination of exactly what she said, as she was as suprised as any of us. Had never learnt any arabic, latin or aramaic in her life… crazy no??!
Hans,
I think it’s great that you’re doing that and I think you should feel free to lurk there as long as you like. It doesn’t surprise me that this happened.
Mark 16:17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
Acts 2:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.
5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”
Tongues is a normal and customary aspect of a healthy Christian community.
“I’m glad you agree that the apples are being counted. I’m also sure we both agree that the computer is not conscious that it is counting apples.
Nonetheless it is counting.”
Agreed. But it never would have been counting without humans telling it to. So you really haven’t accomplished anything by pointing out what we already knew.
“I don’t want you to forget the larger point which is that computers, not just humans, can perform mathematical expression.”
In fact that’s the point of computers. A machine, designed by humans, to perform the operations we tell it to faster than we can perform them ourselves.
“Is that not the whole point of the Turing Machine, which was inspired by Gödel’s work in the first place? Turing proposed a mechanized way of doing computations and showed that even computers can produce undecidable propositions.”
Because branches of mathematics are incomplete systems and are by definition incomplete. Therefore, if you set a computer to computably generate the system, it will reach a paradoxical statement at some point. Again, this doesn’t do anything for your argument as the computers were created by and programmed by us.
“Everything mathematical that can be applied to a computer, also applies to the universe, because a computer is part of the universe.”
That’s a terrible leap in logic. I would almost call it obtuse. You might as well say, “Everything that applies to a banana applies to a supermarket because a banana is in a supermarket.” You’ll find that statement to be wildly inaccurate after a short while.
“A falling object that accelerates due to gravity is expressing mathematics: The velocity is the integral of the acceleration and the position is the integral of the velocity. That’s the concept behind an analog computer.”
A falling object is DESCRIBED BY US using our CREATED LANGUAGE of mathematics. Mathematics was created, derived from observation and thought, it was not created by the universe.
“All things that obey the laws of physics express arithmetic. To be more precise, they express the laws of physics and so far as is known to science, all such behaviors are mathematical.”
We, as humans, would argue that all things that obey the laws of physics can be expressed by arithmetic. But that’s not what we were talking about, even by leaps and bounds. We were talking about formal mathematical systems that can express elementary arithmetic. For example, Finite Mathematics. Finite math uses variables and symbols to express arithmetic functions within a closed system. Finite math depends on assumptions outside of it’s system to function. Hence finite math is incomplete. Although the fact that it is called finite should have been a clue.
But if you accept basic arithmetic as true (which we do), you can then use the basic arithemtic functions to attempt to describe things in the real world. To suggest that the universe itself somehow derived these higher functions of math, though, and is therefore incomplete is a huge leap in logic.
When we assign a symbolic meaning to states of a computer, the computer is formally understood to be doing arithmetic.
This is the essence of the Church-Turing Thesis:
“The three computational processes (recursion, ?-calculus, and Turing machine) were shown to be equivalent by Alonzo Church, Stephen Kleene, J.B. Rosser…Informally the Church–Turing thesis states that if an algorithm (a procedure that terminates) exists then there is an equivalent Turing machine, recursively-definable function, or applicable ?-function, for that algorithm. A more simplified but understandable expression of it is that “everything computable is computable by a Turing machine”.” Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis
The Church-Turing thesis means that formal mathematics can be expressed by physical devices as well by human beings.
Likewise, as soon as we assign a symbolic values to the acceleration and velocity of an object, the moving object can be formally understood to be doing arithmetic as well. There is no difference.
A well-accepted result of the Church-Turing thesis is that incompleteness applies to computation just as it does to pure mathematics. It makes no difference whether the symbol is imagined in your mind, written on a piece of paper, stored in a computer or represented by a physical object. Incompleteness applies to all four.
The Church-Turing thesis was the there is no difference in computation between humans and computers. Later it was postulated that there was a slight difference in the upper bounds of what a computor (with an o) is. Even so, the fact is that the computers are made by humans and are using human algorithms.
Computers are not naturally occurring. Further, nowhere in nature will you find an expression of elementary arithmetic. Suggesting that because we analyze the acceleration and velocity of an object, that object is expressing mathematical truths is sophistry of the highest order.
We are using math to describe the behavior of the object. It is observed. But it’s not as if the object suddenly derived a formula to allow you to prove simple addition. What exactly did you think “capable of expressing elementary arithmetic” meant? Definitely not “being describable by math.”
If you have nothing of further value to add, I will thank you for an engaging conversation. But I consider the matter at rest until and unless you can show me anything remotely related to a logical counterargument in terms that is actually based on reality and not the misapplication of a thesis.
The Thesis says:
“Every effectively calculable function is a computable function.” The words “effectively calculable” will mean “produced by any intuitively ‘effective’ means whatsoever” and “effectively computable” will mean “produced by a Turing-machine or equivalent mechanical device”
Thus the mechanical system is mathematically equivalent to the mentally produced system. This is a statement of equivalence, not sophistry.
The origin of the system is irrelevant, because both minds and mechanical systems are capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.
It doesn’t matter whether I’m counting 1′s and 0′s, apples or rocks, I can use all of the above to prove simple addition.
The origin of the device is highly relevant as WITHOUT HUMAN MANUFACTURE, NO DEVICE WOULD EXIST TO COMPUTE the apples or the 1s and 0s or what have you. There is no naturally occurring computer that is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. Suggesting that, because Turing machines and the human mind are semantically equivalent (or even if you say they ARE equivalent, it doesn’t matter) Turing machines are naturally occurring is simply wrong and other avenues get nowhere once you realize that humans are the impetus for the device.
The universe is not capable of naturally expressing elementary arithmetic. That is a function of human construct, language, philosophy etc. The universe itself DOES nothing, it just is.
You’re continuing to ignore the wording of the Church-Turing Thesis. It says that a physical system expresses arithmetic just as legitimately as a mind does. An object accelerating due to gravity is computationally equivalent to human mathematical integration. The only difference is that a human is conscious of it and the physical system is not.
Gravity causes unsupported objects to fall, does it not? The motion of a falling of an object exhibits mathematical properties. This is true regardless of what labels humans assign to those properties. It appears to me that the universe does more than ‘nothing’.
I’m not ignoring the wording of the thesis. You’re misinterpreting it and misapplying it.
“A Turing machine is a theoretical device that manipulates symbols contained on a strip of tape. Despite its simplicity, a Turing machine can be adapted to simulate the logic of any computer algorithm, and is particularly useful in explaining the functions of a CPU inside of a computer…Turing machines are not intended as a practical computing technology, but rather as a thought experiment representing a computing machine. They help computer scientists understand the limits of mechanical computation.”
A Turing machine that can compute anything is called a Universal Turing Machine. “A more mathematically-oriented definition with a similar “universal” nature was introduced by Alonzo Church, whose work on lambda calculus intertwined with Turing’s in a formal theory of computation known as the Church–Turing thesis. The thesis states that Turing machines indeed capture the informal notion of effective method in logic and mathematics, and provide a precise definition of an algorithm or ‘mechanical procedure’.”
So the Church-Turing thesis says that a Turing machine (which is a specific thing, by the way, and not ANYTHING that can be expressed mathematically like your physical example of falling) computes effectively and, further, that there is no effective computer that is substantively more powerful (more effective). Other computers may work faster or more efficiently. They may be faster or have fewer instructions, but they are not more effective.
But Turing machines do not occur naturally. They consist of a Tape that is broken into cells with a finite alphabet and a blank symbol, a head that can interpret the tape, an action table, and a state register.
Gravity does not have a tape, a finite alphabet, a blank symbol, a head, or a state register.
In any case, neither Turing nor Church argued that a computer occurred naturally and expressed elementary arithmetic. They said that a proper Turing machine effectively proves an algorithm.
Again, the fact that gravity can be expressed mathematically doesn’t mean that gravity itself is expressing math, and certainly, gravity is not a Turing machine and is beyond the bounds of your incorrect assertion.
1. Calculus, differential equations, algebra and trigonometry apply to mathematical models of falling objects.
2. Therefore Calculus, differential equations, algebra and trigonometry accurately describe falling objects.
By the same reasoning:
1. Incompleteness applies to all mathematical models of the physical world.
2. Therefore incompleteness accurately describes the physical world.
To date no one has discovered an exception where mathematical reasoning fails to also apply to the laws of physics. Until someone finds an exception to this the only logical inference we can make is that the universe, like mathematics, is incomplete.
“1. Incompleteness applies to all mathematical models of the physical world.”
No it does not. It only applies to formal mathematical theories that can express and derive elementary arithmetic. The universe is not a formal mathematical theory. Theories are used to describe the universe, not vice versa.
That’s why we had that whole tangent about Turing machines and natural computers. You are wrong and every argument you have brought up has been flawed in some fundamental way. When that happens, you shift the goal posts or engage in a fallacy of relevance. If those prove ineffective, you resort to a burden of negative proof. When that proved ineffective you just restated your initial position with no regard to any of the problems that you failed entirely to address.
This will be my last post as it’s clear that you simply believe what you believe and no amount of logic, mathematics, philosophy or education makes a difference to you. Fine. You’re welcome to believe what you like, but everyone who has read the entirety of the comments is aware of how very very wrong you are.
Arthur,
As you have seen I cannot assert that the universe IS a formal mathematical system. I can only demonstrate that it exactly obeys mathematical laws. In other words it behaves like one.
You stated that the universe doesn’t do anything, it just “IS.” I replied that it exhibits lots of behaviors. And that if we assign symbols to it, it performs computation. And I cited the Church-Turing thesis in stating that even a purely mechanical system can perform arithmetic.
The salient issue here is that the universe exhibits mathematical behavior. And that mathematical descriptions and calculations give us true statements about the universe.
So for example we can posit an electrical filter (LC circuit), mechanical filter (Mass/Spring) and acoustical filter (helmholtz resonator) and the three are isomorphic. All three oscillate. Each is described by an identical differential equation. The math equation itself is isomorphic to the three systems. The mathematical system, the idealized electrical system, the mechanical system and acoustical system are all conceptually identical.
To solve the equation we can use any number of mathematical devices and there are many choices. We have integration, laplace transforms, numerical methods – and they will ALL accurately predict the behavior of the system. They all give us the same answer.
We have all kinds of mathematical operations that apply to nontrivial arithmetical theories: differentiation, integration, algebra, matrix theory, differential equations, set theory, and ALL of them apply to the universe. Mathematical theories are used to understand the universe and theories about the universe are used to understand math. Knowledge travels in both directions.
Therefore I don’t see how anyone can reasonably say, “But wait a minute, Gödel’s theorem is an exception. Sure, all that other stuff applies to the universe, but Gödel doesn’t.” That makes no sense. I can only suspect that the reason you insist on this exception is that it contradicts your religious views.
I cannot mathematically PROVE that Gödel applies to the universe. But I do have 100% inference, based on all the other properties of mathematics that do apply to the universe. Thus I have the full authority of science in postulating that the universe is incomplete. Because science assumes that the universe is logical and mathematical.
Are you unconditionally committed to the atheist worldview or are you willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads?
“As you have seen I cannot assert that the universe IS a formal mathematical system. I can only demonstrate that it exactly obeys mathematical laws.”
Obeying laws doesn’t make something a formal mathematical theory or system. It’s a large leap in logic to go from one to the other, especially when a formal mathematical theory has such a specific form.
“You stated that the universe doesn’t do anything, it just “IS.” I replied that it exhibits lots of behaviors. And that if we assign symbols to it, it performs computation. And I cited the Church-Turing thesis in stating that even a purely mechanical system can perform arithmetic.”
The Church-Turing thesis doesn’t say that, though. It says that a Turing Machine performs arithmetic in a way that is not substantively different or less effective than a human. But as I said, a Turing machine is a specific thing which was created by human beings with that particular goal in mind. The universe is not a Turing Machine by the formal definition of a Turing Machine. The universe doesn’t perform arithmetic just because it can be described by it.
You can argue that the universe “does” things by using language such as: Gravity acts on an object; but it’s a far cry from rephrasing, “We’ve noticed the following effects and we’ll call them gravity” for brevity, to suggesting that gravity is a system that derives its own formulae.
“The salient issue here is that the universe exhibits mathematical behavior. And that mathematical descriptions and calculations give us true statements about the universe…
We have all kinds of mathematical operations that apply to nontrivial arithmetical theories: differentiation, integration, algebra, matrix theory, differential equations, set theory, and ALL of them apply to the universe. Mathematical theories are used to understand the universe and theories about the universe are used to understand math. Knowledge travels in both directions.
Therefore I don’t see how anyone can reasonably say, “But wait a minute, Gödel’s theorem is an exception. Sure, all that other stuff applies to the universe, but Gödel doesn’t.” That makes no sense. I can only suspect that the reason you insist on this exception is that it contradicts your religious views.”
Because Gödel isn’t a system of calculation or a tool to solve or any of those other things you described. Gödel’s theorem is a philosophical truth about formal systems of math that derive and express elementary arithmetic. Nothing more. It’s only because you don’t believe that that you insist it applies to something else. But you’re wrong. It does not and it was never meant to. As to my religious views, I’m not an atheist, so nice assumption. I’m a theistic person. This avenue of “proof” is just wrong, though.
“I cannot mathematically PROVE that Gödel applies to the universe. But I do have 100% inference, based on all the other properties of mathematics that do apply to the universe. Thus I have the full authority of science in postulating that the universe is incomplete. Because science assumes that the universe is logical and mathematical.”
You do not have 100% inference because you still don’t understand Gödel. He himself didn’t use his theorem to postulate God. He used an ontological argument. He himself was fully aware that his theorem was true and useful, but that it didn’t apply to everything. Science assumes that the universe is complete and consistent, too, so Gödel wouldn’t apply.
“Are you unconditionally committed to the atheist worldview or are you willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads?”
I believe in God and I think I do him a better service by actually accepting knowledge and evidence as opposed to continually positing my own misguided views about something. But thank you for getting defensive and doing so much of what I said you do in my last post. Have a nice life.
Please accept my apology for assuming you were an atheist. I confused you with another person in this thread who was.
Hello all,
I’ve refined this further since my previous post.
Gödel’s theorem says: Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.
The Church-Turing Thesis says: A computer (Turing Machine) is also considered “effectively generated” and expresses elementary arithmetic. Mechanical computation is likewise incomplete.
Postulate:
All physical systems subjected to measurement express elementary arithmetic.
Examples:
1. Children add and subtract with their fingers.
2. An abacus performs addition and subtraction.
3. A bucket of water & spigot does integration
4. A vibrating string solves differential equations in real time.
In all the above examples the observer or measurement device did not do the arithmetic, the physical system did.
Therefore incompleteness applies to all physical systems just as it does to mathematics.
Hi, is an assumption that conciousness is quantifiable made? By assuming that conciousness exists then god can be proved (according to your reasoning), but what if it doesn’t? The human brain and what we assign as being concious is only a complicated series of chemical reactions, giving the illusion of conciousness which allows people can go about their daily business without going mad. In essense the human brain is no different from a computer with an added element of randomness generated by interaction with surroundings. Would be interested to see what you make of this.
Many philosophers believe that consciousness is not quantifiable. If you’re aware of yourself then consciousness exists: “I think therefore I am.”
If a brain was just a computer with an added element of randomness, then we’d add elements of randomness to computers and they would be able to think.
You are assuming that the universe is the grandest scheme available and there is nothing beyond it capable of having a circle drawn around it. Basically you are assuming that the universe is finite, and while it is true that what we can currently perceive of the universe is finite that does not mean that there isn’t more to it.
If the universe were infinite Godel’s theorem would be true but there would be no necessity for some indivisible god. The process of drawing a circle is to limit the contents of the circle to a finite amount, no matter how large that amount is. But if the universe were infinite then by definition to take any finite amount of it would leave an infinite amount of something, however unimaginable, outside of amount defined by the circle. That would not mean that this infinity is indivisible, the opposite actually it is infinitely divisible, but no matter how you divide it there are still more larger “circles” that could be defined containing the previous circle.
Even if you could theoretically make a circle that can contain infinity, infinity contains infinite infinities. pardon my overuse of the word but i dont know any other way of putting it.
anyways those are just my thoughts after reading your article and some of the discussion. I hope the way i put it makes sense if not i could try rephrasing it.
I do not feel educated enough to make any real contribution to this arguement. Perry if you have effectively proved that God exists while reason and logic holds would publishing this finding in a scientific journal not be more worthwile than arguing with people on the internet? If you have already done this i apologise.
That’s a perfectly legitimate question. People like Arthur are helping me pound the slag off this argument (thank you Arthur) and that’s where the Gödel argument is for me right now.
My DNA / information theory argument which you can find at “If you can read this, I can prove God exists” – http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm is advanced far beyond that point and is in a stage where it is truly ready for academic publication.
However the current state of scientific journals is that it is EXTREMELY politically incorrect to connect science and theology. Sternberg got thrown out of the Smithsonian for publishing just this sort of paper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy
The peer review process is normally a good thing but it is *highly* resistant to new paradigms – in fact it is designed to reject them. So I’m not taking that route, I’m going to the public with it. So for example I believe in evolution but I think the Darwinian theory is woefully inadequate and in fact blatantly and demonstrably wrong on major points. The general public knows that and there is no lack of books from even atheist biologists detailing the problems with Darwinism.
I’m taking a similar path – the court of public opinion. With that in mind, don’t let journal committees do your thinking for you. Think for yourself.
Hello Perry,
I don’t think it was Gödel’s intention that the undefined and unproveable rest outside the circle is called “god”. Most readers will associate many things (values, traditions,…) with this term and therefore it’s missplaced in this text.
Besides you described a theorem but it actually seems that you take it as a law (with religious intentions?). That made me distrustful.
Tim
Gödel most certainly believed in God. Regardless of what his views on God were, the theorem is not subject to the intentions of the person who discovered it. The theorem is subject to the extent of its logical applications. Everything I have said here follows perfectly from the premises: Something immaterial, boundless, conscious and outside of space and time is a required axiom for the universe to exist.
If you feel distrustful towards religion I’m OK with that. I just invite you to carefully comb through the logic and see whether this conclusion makes sense.
I appreciate your valiant attempt to invoke Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (actually two theorems) as a proof of God’s existence. You state, “He [Gödel] proved that any statement requires an external observer.” I believe others may have already pointed this out, but simply put the proposition that you claim to be proving is, “God exists,” and therefore must be included in your formal system of axioms and rules which would allow you to make such a statement, and, in turn, should your system meet the necessary conditions of a “formal” system, would be subject to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.
Gödel, as you aver, was a mathematical genius. He was also expressly interested in proving the existence of God. Don’t you think, if he could have figured out a way to use his Incompleteness Theorem to prove God’s existence, he would have done so? Instead, he pursued an ontological argument similar to that proposed by St. Anselm. Although it is rumored that he thought he was close to a proof, he apparently was never quite satisfied, and as a result we have no record of his efforts in this regard.
By the way, I want to thank you for recommending to your readers Rebecca Goldstein’s scholarly and entertaining book, “The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel.” The irony of your recommendation cannot be missed as Ms. Goldstein is an atheist. For those interested, I would also recommend her recent novel, “36 Arguments for The Existence of God,” in which she satirically plumbs the contentious nature of faith and reason.
The statement “God exists” is subject to incompleteness because it refers to something outside of itself. But God is not subject to incompleteness if God is indivisible, timeless and boundless. Logically, to avoid infinite regress, something has to be both complete and consistent and the only thing that can fit that definition is something that resembles God.
Why didn’t Gödel use his theorem to prove God exists? I can only speculate. But I think it’s because you cannot formally prove that the universe is consistent, you can only assume or infer it. Pure mathematicians are never comfortable with this. The Church-Turing thesis is a thesis not a proof for example. I can also speculate that Gödel would have faced a wall of political correctness. Goldstein’s book describes how intensely political Princeton was and is. Academics are categorically among the pettiest people in the professional world. The Dean of Journalism at the University of Nebraska once told me that national politics was a cakewalk compared to what goes on with a university faculty. Gödel might have paid a heavy price for publishing a proof of God. Guillermo Gonzalez, author of The Privileged Planet, sure did.
But I’ve been quite clear all along that while I cannot prove God. And I do not have the full authority of mathematics, I do have the full authority of science. Because the universe does computation, and the entire Western notion of science assumes that the universe is consistent. To assume anything else literally forces us to suspend reason and logic.
So to the extent that math and science together can prove anything (which is 100% inference) we can be certain that the universe is incomplete.
I am aware that Rebecca Goldstein is an atheist and she’s welcome to come here and comment. Her book is absolutely outstanding and both informative and entertaining. If Ms. Goldstein drops by, I want her to know I greatly admire her work.
It’s 4010 and scientists have discovered and formalized all knowable laws of physics. Yet to your delight, you can still apply Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and exclaim, “athiests are irrational.” It’s a small consulation, but I’m not sure anyone will be listening. Good luck on fine tuning your theories.
It sounds as though you think history has been on a long path of marching towards the elimination of God. I would suggest to you that this is a very myopic view. Science itself rests on belief that the universe operates according to fixed discoverable laws (which is unprovable – an axiom precisely of the Gödel sort). Most people don’t know this idea first came from Christian theology. I talk about this further at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq/#christian
The idea that science and faith are inherently in conflict is mostly driven by Young Earth Creationists and Atheist Fundamentalists. In the history of science it’s a relatively recent development. The list of scientists and mathematicians who regard their work as somehow providing insight into the mind of God is long indeed, from Galileo to Newton to Einstein to Stephen Hawking.
And yes, atheists are irrational. I have just demonstrated the same with straightforward airtight logic in this thread.
What I was suggesting with the 4010 example is that even if science does create a formal system of all the “knowable” laws of physics, one can still appeal to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and claim that we don’t know everything. For some this may be a problem, but for me it opens a world of possibilities of free inquiry and liberal discourse unfettered by the “airtight” dogmatism of any ilk; religious, political, or even scientific. What you have demonstrated is the beauty of mathematics not only concerning questions of the physical world but also of the metaphysical. As you state above, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies to the metaphysical statement “God exists” and by extension, I would add, “God is indivisible.” There is a delightful infinite regress in pursuing this course, which is something you feel is necessary to avoid although I think simply demonstrates the power and beauty of mathematics. Way back in the 6th century BC the Pythagoreans postulated that God is not a mathematician, mathematics is God. Your fascination with Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem may lead you to the same conclusion. By the way, I would like to recommend to your readers Mario Levio’s book, “Is God a Mathematician?” It touches on many of the discussion points throughout this thread.
Perry
Can I ask is it the christian god you believe in? because I see some flaws with your argument (though I am not adverse to your basic premises) In believing in the Trinity you have drawn circles around three distinct identies and surely godels thoerum would then imply incompleteness..no?
I have heard the explaination that the trinity are distinct parts of the same entity and equal, but biblical texts would seem to contradict in many places some examples.
john 14:28 If you loved me, you would be glad that I’m going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.
mathew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
How do you metaphorically square this.
Hans,
Whether this makes sense or not depends on how carefully you examine the Christian theology of the Trinity. Christian theology says Father, Son and Holy Spirit are indivisible and of one singe essence. They are never in disagreement or misunderstanding.
At the same time they exist separately such that love exists between them and that they do manifest themselves in different forms. God the Father is the source of will, the Son is the expression of His will, the Holy Spirit is the understanding of his will. I liken this to a communication system at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/video5 in the video titled “Information, Communication, and the Trinitarian Concept of God”.
A communication system has 3 separate elements – encoder, code and decoder but all three are necessary for communication to exist and all three must be in harmony. I see an analogy here as I describe in the video.
In Mathematical terms I would say that the Trinity is plural but is not a system. Godel’s theorem says:
“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.” Where “effectively generated” means “not trivially simple.”
In other words the three expressions of God are not an expression of elementary arithmetic. Tentatively (I could be wrong about this, still thinking about it) I’m reminded me of Arthur’s example of a system of simple addition being both consistent and complete at the same time. The reason it can be so is that it is trivial, i.e. it does not fully express elementary arithmetic. It does addition but it doesn’t do division or multiplication. The same can also be said of the Trinity because the Trinity cannot be divided.
To newcomers the Trinity appears to be some crazy theory until you realize that you cannot say “God is Love” as an identity statement if God is simply unitary because love is always in relation between one and another. For God to be love, God must be plural. But because God is love, God is also indivisible.
Which is another way of saying: LOVE IS BOTH CONSISTENT AND COMPLETE. If you understand love, you understand God and you understand how the infinite is the source of all things finite.
This doesn’t mean that when the spirit of God is one with a human being (as was the case with Jesus) that Jesus the physical person knew everything that God knew. Scripture says “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” He set aside all his divine rights out of love for mankind. He really did have to learn to talk and he really did have to get potty trained. But even when he said, “My God My God why hast thou forsaken me?” that was the anguish of dying flesh. But he was always in essence God. God knows what it is like to experience death just as we do – because he loves us.
To all the people who say that this article is intended, or in some way attempts, to prove the existence of God: it does not. It simply says that by applying Godel’s theory, the people who believe in God have a logical reason for doing so. They have merely specified what they think is “outside the circle”. They may have taken this idea to certain extremes, but the basic tenet is logical. Any other belief that says the universe was caused by something outside the universe is equally logical. Not only that, but you cannot logically DISprove God, and while that doesn’t mean he exists, it means that you can’t say for sure that he doesn’t exist. Basically, people should believe what they need to believe to understand the universe and their own existence, as long as it is not harmful to other people, and belief in itself is not harmful. Taking that belief to extremes and inferring things from it like “anyone who doesn’t believe this should die” is simply human error. And I apologize for this not being organized, but I addressed the issues as I thought of them.
JM,
The article goes further than that. Materialism says
“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”
This article shows that materialistic atheism violates the laws of logic and thus cannot be true.
And it also makes a number of logical conclusions as to what the thing outside the universe is and is not. Is conscious and is immaterial, and is outside of space and time.
A professor of mine told us, “You throw enough s__ up and some of it is bound to stick.” You make an awful lot of assertions so I’m wondering if you could simply state for your readers the one “airtight” proposition that you claim follows from Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. If you’re interested in advancing your argument, I suggest this might be a way of staying on track.
Could you also provide the source for your initial quote, “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove” and also, if you could, a citation for your statement that “He [Gödel] proved that any statement requires an external observer.” I find the “circle” and “external observer” analogies curiously provocative and would like to understand these quotes in their original context.
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove” is my own plain-English rendering of Godel’s theorem. The formal version of the theorem says:
“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”
The “circle” I refer to is the boundary between what is “in the theory” and what is outside of the theory. My plain-English rendering is sufficiently accurate, but you can use the formal version if you prefer.
Regardless of which version you use, what it means is that if the universe is capable of computing arithmetic and if the universe is consistent (i.e. logical) then the universe is therefore incomplete.
The external observer refers to the fact that when a person says “I am lying” (liar’s paradox) only an external agent can verify the truth or falsehood of that statement.
If you wish to be taken seriously, you shouldn’t ascribe to Gödel something he never said. It’s, of course, dishonest, quotation marks and all, and hardly a minor point. It’s the difference between what Gödel wrote and your interpretation of what he wrote. Others in this thread have strongly disagreed with your interpretation of Gödel’s Theorem, but your use of the “circle” and “external observer” metaphors, which, I believe, are in their very nature an expression of your belief, have rolled through the discussion thread. When you denude your argument of these images, you’re left with the reality of Gödel’s theorem and how do you get from it to your proposition: “if the universe is capable of computing arithmetic and if the universe is consistent (i.e. logical) then the universe is therefore incomplete.“ The connection is not at all clear as you have a herculean, if not impossible, task in defining your terms. For example, what do you mean by “universe? and what do you mean “capable of computing arithmetic?” Throughout history, these terms or concepts have confounded the most brilliant minds, which, in turn, have produced and continue to produce a diverse range of scholarly opinions, the depth and breadth of which takes my breath away. Even if you could climb this mountain, Gödel’s Proof would be there to tell you that you don’t know everything. Your use of “circles” and “external observers” are unacceptable shortcuts to the difficult task of climbing the mountain. You would do yourself and your readers a service by honestly stating your belief, which, in this regard, is simply that the universe is such that you can draw a circle around it and what’s outside the circle is God. You don’t need Gödel or the “authority” of science to make this statement. It’s your belief.
Defining Universe: Look it up in a dictionary. All known matter, energy, space and time. The same universe that the big bang physicists like Stephen Hawking write about. This is very well defined.
Computing Arithmetic: Read the Church-Turing thesis. Or Godel’s paper for that matter.
External observer: Ostensibly necessary to judge the truth or falsehood of the statement “I am lying.”
I have stated my entire argument here on this thread. If there is a flaw in my logic you are invited to point it out.
If you actually cared to consider what others and I have said, you would have to concede you have no argument. But astonishingly your argument is also based on a lie – not some incidental or vague lie but a deliberately calculated one in bold colored lettering with quotation marks around it. A lie that you repeatedly come back to in various guises in your article and throughout the thread – the word “circle” appears over 100 times. This lie has nothing to do with Gödel or scientific inquiry, but is the very foundation of your theological beliefs, which, at this point, I’m sorry to report, couldn’t stand up to a good wind.
Godel’s theorems are explicitly about that which is “inside the theory” as opposed to that which is “outside the theory.” Any time there is an inside and an outside, there is a boundary. My usage of the word circle is appropriate.
If you wish to show a fault in my logic based on Godel’s formal statement then you are invited to use that approach.
Perry
Having taken much time and effort to read and watch all of your work and cross referenced them with my own experiences. I find myself at odds with certain assumptions and conclusions that you reach. I suspect that this may well be my last corespondence with you but (and this sums it up both metaphorically and literally) anything is posible.
As you try to reconcile logic and the acceptance of an uncaused eternal god I wish you good luck. I personally believe now that far from being irational atheists have a perfectly rational basis for their stance. Providing that the laws of physics at points in this universe can be “irational”
Main Entry: ir·ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation: ir-’ra-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
: not rational: not governed by reason, mental clarity, or >>>understanding<<<
there will be at some scale or point where they will "appear" rational. We know so little about the universe from our tiny point of existence that even the circle you seek to draw around it is ireconcilable to its radius from here to the edge if it exists. without accepting irationality and taking an aproximation.
From any point on the circumference to a central point we cannot even reconcile the smallest circle (Pi x r^2) where pi is a non recursive number. To reach that central point exactly is imposible we would have to start drawing a line and at some point slow down and down untill the line to all intense and purposes had reached that centre. But magnify it; and we would see we have a little further to go (or we had gone too far!) at some point we would reach a quantum level at which point we see all sorts of "irational" behaviour. time itself starts to interact with matter and vice versa. We may start to see particles which are split and are able to convey information of change even though they have no longer any known physical relationship/connection to each other.
To state that DNA is too complex to have developed without a creator and even that this same creator must have created the universe we observe is an example of Dunning-Kruger effect. (which I fully accept I also am guilty of) We simply do not yet have enough information or the tools to be able to state catagoricaly that an omniscient, omnipotent being does or does not exist. I think that it is fair to infer it as part of our exploration into our own consciousness but to state it as fact, is like saying a+b=G it can have no proof untill all the atributes of a and b can catagorically be stated as complete.
Thank you for the time you have taken to answer my corespondences and good luck in your quest for the "unknowable"
Yours in Ignorance,
Hans
Hans,
I think you are confusing two different meanings of irrationality. An irrational number is not illogical. And even if it takes us an infinite number of calculations to reach the center of a circle, do we not still know with absolute certainty that the center exists?
Is it rational to believe that the universe appeared, caused by nothing and for no reason at all, as atheists do?
Based on what we do know so far, is it rational to believe that a highly efficient modular redundant optimized self-repairing digital code occurred by accident?
Based on what we do know, is it rational to believe that the fine tuning of the universe (ie the expansion of the big bang is fine tuned to at least 120 decimal places of precision) is just happenstance?
Is there anything I have said regarding incompleteness that is illogical?
Are you sure it is rational to say that the existence of God is unknowable?
Is there any argument I have made regarding Incompleteness that is irrational?
Also I’m curious, what was the result of the recording of the person speaking in tongues?
Perry
P.S.: Logic can infer but it cannot truly prove. So I believe that in your search for the truth, there is a point where you need to say, “OK God if you’re here, please show me.” And in your heart you need to be willing to put yourself in that place of emotional risk. It is a place of listening and watching and being open. It is a scary and rewarding place – I know. Ultimately though it is more rewarding than scary.
Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. 9″Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
Matthew 13:45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.”
Your “circle” requires evidence or a proof. Then we can talk about the merits of your argument. Lying about what Gödel says and then jumping from his proof regarding formal systems to the universe, I’m sorry, doesn’t count. Maybe you could find some other scientist, of the caliber of Stephen Hawking, who has used the circle metaphor to describe the universe – I wouldn’t bet on it. The Wikipedia’s discussion on the universe, which most people would say is just the tip of the iceberg, is eighteen pages long, 8,500 words, 72 citations, and there’s NOT ONE single reference to an “encircled” universe. However, I bet there are some religious sources that use this analogy, but as I understand it that’s not how you want to develop your argument. By the way, on your insistence that the universe is capable of computing arithmetic, I’d like to refer you to Sir Michael Atiyah, one of the greatest mathematician of the 20th century, who argues that a concept as basic as that of natural numbers was created by man. I mention this only to assure you that this issue is far from settled as you would like people to believe.
If you wish to hypothesize that the universe is infinitely large or massive then that’s up to you. I am referring to the universe that is known and observable to science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Size
Space itself is of finite size, that is a direct consequence of Einstein’s space-time theorems. It has finite mass and spans finite time. If the universe is finite then it has some outer boundary.
If you wish to say that arithmetic is a human construction, that’s fine. This still has no consequence to the truth of Godel’s statement. Mathematics is incomplete and if the universe is mathematical then the universe too is incomplete.
It is not necessary for me to invoke circles to prove my point. We can go to Godel’s original statement.
Godel’s theorem says:
“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”
The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.
Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.
Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.
Although I think your argument has been completely demolished, and ironically I think you should be happy for that, there’s just one last nail I’d like to hammer into its coffin. Let’s assume that somehow you can pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat and prove that the universe is such that you can draw a circle around it, formalize all of its laws (past, present, and future), apply Gödel’s proof, find the universe consistent, but not complete, and conclude “there could be a God.” What I think you should find frightening about this scenario, is that in the process you would have created a completely formal, rational, mechanistic, universe – the very universe that you eschew – a universe in which miracles are no longer possible – Christ’s birth and resurrection explained away. You’re left with the possibility that there might be a God. You may want to be careful of what you wish for.
You’re telling me that my circle analogy is invalid… then in the same breath saying it’s impossible to draw a circle around the universe because the universe is infinite.
If you think the circle analogy is invalid, why are you using it to build your own argument?
Mathematics is incomplete. The universe is mathematical. Therefore if the universe is consistent it is necessarily incomplete as well.
Miracles are possible for the same reason coded information is possible – because the universe can be acted upon by an outside intelligence.
If free will exists in the universe (free will by definition not being mathematical, mechanistic or deterministic) then that either means:
(1) human free will is irrational, or
(2) human free will has a metaphysical or spiritual origin.
You’re free to embrace #1 and believe in an irrational universe. An irrational universe can be complete, freeing you from the necessity to believe in God. However there is no foundation for scientific or logical thought in an irrational universe.
I choose (2) which allows me to embrace scientific belief in a rational universe. (This set of choices has come up earlier in this thread.)
You can embrace a 3rd option, which is that our choices are deterministic, determined by mere physics and chemistry, and that human free will is an illusion. In that scenario, the universe is still incomplete.
Godel’s Theorem says there exists statements that are TRUE but unprovable within a system. It also states that there are statements that are FALSE but unprovable within a system. Therefore, the assumption that the universe has a cause may be TRUE or FALSE.
The Containment Principle in cosmology states that the universe contains everything that is real and nothing else. Should a cause for the universe be proven that cause becomes part of the universe. Now there is a need for a cause for the cause, causing a infinite regression. See the book “Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid” by Douglas R. Hofstadter for a full explanation.
Andy,
The fact that there are false statements unprovable in the system is the trivial case. By definition it is impossible to prove ANY false statement, whether inside or outside any system.
Gödel’s theorem says that there are true statements unprovable in the system. The statement “the universe contains everything that is real” directly contradicts Gödel’s theorem because if the universe is consistent there are true statements that are not part of the universe. Thus the Containment Principle violates the laws of mathematics.
If you read the prior comments you’ll see that one of my primary concerns is to not invoke infinite regress. The existence of an uncaused immaterial agent outside of space and time satisfies this requirement.
Perry
“The very idea of human rights is a faith statement. It is not scientifically provable. It can’t be derived from Darwinism. It comes from a belief not only in God but God’s relation to mankind.
These things matter a lot.
A counterexample would be the abuses of communism in the 20th century. Is it merely a coincidence that the governments who killed more than 100 million people just happened to be officially atheistic? Atheist regimes killed more people in one century than religious wars killed in all centuries put together. Could that really be just a happy accident?
Is it merely a coincidence that many of the men involved in the killing of more than 100 million people had mustaches?
Yes, the answer is yes, and the same goes for their being “atheistic”–which, by the way, although they were officially considered “atheistic” (except for Hitler, who was a Catholic. Woops!) the leaders themselves are shrouded in gigantic cults of personality. Effectively, the leaders themselves are treated as gods, and followed by faith alone.
The fact that we have a concept of human rights has nothing to do with faith. They’re completely arbitrary. They reflect the atmosphere of philosophy and morality that was popular around the time of their creation. Morality is entirely relative and fluctuates over time. According to the first half of the Bible, written in the Bronze age, it’s moral to own slaves, kill women and children under certain circumstances, etc. According to the same book, it’s entirely immoral to eat shellfish, wear clothing made of two different kinds of fabrics, etc. Obviously, things have changed since then. And who knows–maybe in 2000 more years, people will look back at our Constitution and be appalled that we left out things they find to be morally necessary, or laugh at us for deeming immoral things that are irrelevant to them.
And another thing: I don’t have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I don’t have faith that if I drop a weight, it will fall to the ground. I don’t have faith that I have an ancestor in common with the rest of the primates.
I have a reasonable expectation of all of those things.
No, you can’t ‘prove’ scientific theories–they aren’t meant to be proven. That doesn’t mean they’re just guesses, or random hypotheses. We have considerably evidence suggesting that things like a heliocentric planetary system, gravity, and evolution are true.
The God hypothesis, however, has no evidence for it. The closest thing you have to ‘proof’ (and I use that term extremely loosely) is that if you see everything as being faith-based, then God is plausible.
However, not many things ARE faith-based, no matter how many times you try to say they are.
Additionally, I love the way this argument (both the original post and your replies to comments) turned out to be like every argument I’ve read regarding ‘proofs’ of god:
“There are some things we just don’t know and can’t know! Like God! …but for some reason, we know that he’s compassionate, he gave us morals, etc!”
Is killing 100 million people right, wrong, or relative?
some food for thought.
if you tilt your head, does the world around you appear to tilt as well?
Doesn’t the universe we know relate directly to what we see, or sense?
Godel claims the universe is conscious.
Are we not conscious?
to think that all that we observe is materialized first in our own heads
picture an apple. now picture yourself touching the apple.
you can feel it, cant you? maybe not with your eyes open, but i was born with my eyes closed.
You are again taking what I said and stretching it out beyond the meanings I originally provided. I described the universe as being infinite, I made no reference to anything being ‘outside’ of the universe, since there is no logical reason to have an ‘outside’. And the reason there doesn’t need to be an ‘outside’ was explained in my original post. That’s why conclusions about the universe do not require faith, it is self contained. We can theoretically measure everything about the universe because we are within the universe, like the goldfish in it’s bowl. Even the question of where and why spacetime began can be theoretically answered, we simply lack the technology to do so.
btw: faith has nothing to do with inductive reasoning. From encarta – Faith, belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof; inductive, logic, reaching conclusion based on observation; reasoning, the use of logical thinking in order to find results or draw conclusions
What does belief and devotion expecially without logical proof have to do with logical thinking to draw conclusions based on observations?
Anyway, thanks for your time. It’s been a fun debate.
Greg,
Einstein’s spacetime theorems indicate that even space itself is finite and has a definite outer boundary, which is expanding. Modern science only knows of a finite amount of matter and energy. To speak of an infinite universe is to go far beyond the realm of known science. If you wish to say the universe is infinite then you are making a blind faith statement.
Based on the encarta’s definition of faith, Christian faith at many points does not conform to this definition. Christian theology is based on inductive logic and experience, not belief without logical proof. In Christian theology some characteristics of God are known through the order of creation (Romans 1). God has made himself known by raising his Son from the dead (Acts 17) and the resurrection of Jesus is still in fact the most parsimonious explanation for the explosive growth of the early church and the known facts at hand. Case in point: There is no 2nd theory that has gained consensus.
Dozens of precise prophesies have come true regarding the Messiah etc as the dead sea scrolls definitively prove that Isaiah for example was written well before Christ fulfilled the prophesies in it.
So what I am saying is that Christian faith is much closer to inductive reasoning than what you have assumed faith to be. No one is asking you to believe Christianity out of blind belief and devotion. My sites http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com and http://www.coffeehousetheology.com have extensive articles relating to these topics. Christian theology is not about blind belief at all. It is about reaching conclusions based on observation; reasoning, the use of logical thinking in order to find results or draw conclusions. Faith has everything to do with inductive reasoning.
It is no coincidence therefore that modern science emerged from Christian Europe and not from Islam, China, Greece, Rome or Egypt. All those cultures had promising beginnings of scientific development but all stalled. Only in a theology that was based on inductive reasoning and experience could science develop as it has in the West.
Again, either you are misunderstanding me, or you completely refuse to even listen to anything I have to say.
First of all, I never said our current spacetime was infinite. I said that if what existed before the big bag did not include time, then that form of our universe would have been infinite, since time would have no meaning when our universe was in that form. After the big bang, we have our current laws of the universe, which include a finite space.
Yes, it is true that our weakness, as human beings, is that we are constantly relying on ‘proof’ for God’s existence. That does not define faith, that only defines belief. You can believe in God, but lack faith in God. There is a distinct difference. If you are trying to redefine faith to your own purposes than our discussion may as well end because it is pointless to discuss anything with someone who insists on personal meanings rather than actual definitions. You have to understand, without concrete definition we cannot communicate, I could never know what you are actually talking about, and vice versa.
btw: at the following link http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm , if you will notice the letter by Dr. Brown clearly states that Jesus did not fulfill Jewish messianic prophecy regarding his descendency, and that his descendency was historicized. If you read the full context of this website it would seem that this is the position of the Catholic Church. So again, logic and reasoning used to support a perspective.
Like I said, nothing wrong with wanting to believe in God, but logic and reasoning has no place in that belief system. It is much better to just have faith.
Earlier you said “I described the universe as being infinite, I made no reference to anything being ‘outside’ of the universe, since there is no logical reason to have an ‘outside’. ”
So you seem to be defining both our current spacetime which is finite and what existed before the big bang which is infinite as the same universe.
universe
–noun
1.
the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
I am defining our current spacetime as the universe. This is consistent with the dictionary and all modern scientific usage of the term and it’s consistent with everything I have said on the subject.
If something is outside of time then it does not have any of the usual properties of matter, i.e. electrons orbiting atoms. And if it is outside of space then again it cannot be matter as we understand it, i.e. electrons orbiting atoms. I don’t see how one could define what was before our current spacetime as being the same.
faith
–noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
8.
Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
The Christian theology understanding and definition of faith is distinctly different from yours.
If you believe that it is the position of the Catholic church that Jesus did not fulfill Jewish messianic prophecy then you are using highly selective information sources to arrive at your conclusions. Any reasonably informed person knows that this is not the position of the Catholic church.
And finally, you are using reason and logic to show that Dr. Brown, the Catholic Church and other theologians use reason and logic to form conclusions about Christian beliefs, including examples of reason and logic used within the Bible itself. Then you are somehow concluding that reason and logic have no place in Christian belief. You’re contradicting yourself every step of the way.
Let’s take a step back. When I stated:
“I described the universe as being infinite, I made no reference to anything being ‘outside’ of the universe, since there is no logical reason to have an ‘outside’. ”
I was reasserting my earlier comment, quoted below, because you were twisting my words around (which you are doing again):
“Second, there is no theory that currently even tries to explain what existed before the big bang. However, since “time itself” was created with the big bang, than by ‘reason and logic’ whatever form the universe existed in before than (singularity for example) would have existed outside of time, and the only way to even remotely explain that is to use the term ‘infinite’.”
So yes, I can have both a finite and “infinite” universe (note the quotes, since there is no better term to use) because, according to what we ‘know’ about our universe, time began with the big bang. If you have a better way of describing the universe sans time, then I’m open to suggestions, until then, “infinite” is as good as it gets. There is nothing in the definition you provided that contradicts my statements as long as you accept that spacetime and the big bang are both associated with the universe.
But, to put it more simply, I’m not trying to define what existed before the big bang. I’m only pointing out what is possible, and that the possibility excludes the need for an ‘outside’ and therefore excludes the need for a God.
Again, nothing in your definitions of faith contradicts what I’ve said. Your first definition is circular, the second reiterates what I said, since the third uses the term trust, and trust relies on confidence and confidence relies on faith, again, we have circular reasoning. So the only true definition you have is the exact one I gave you. You can’t pick and choose your definitions, you have to find the one that makes sense. (There’s a lot of definitions for trust, before you list them all, please make sure you’ve thought them through, I already have).
What I’m saying is that the Catholic Church recognizes that Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecy to the letter, but that that the fullfillment of those prophecies was bestowed upon him historically through the faith of his followers. That is the position of the Catholic Church. Just like that Catholic Church recognizes that the universe was not created in 7 days. It was pretty clear by that letter what stance the Catholic Church was taking on the position of certain messianic prophecies.
Finally, yes, Dr. Brown uses reason and logic to form conclusions regarding belief. This has nothing to do with truth, fact, or faith, only belief.
You are defining an immaterial timeless infinity before the big bang and the finite material universe after the big bang as the same universe. I don’t know how you can transform the infinite into the finite and call it the same thing. The former is metaphysical and the latter is physical. I don’t see your description as being all that different from pantheism or perhaps panentheism.
The kind of faith that I personally espouse is akin to inductive reasoning and based on personal experience, reason and logic, not blind belief. If you choose not to believe me that is your decision.
Dr. Brown’s faxes are not official documents of the Catholic church and they certainly do not reflect what the church actually says it believes.
The universe, pre-big bang, be it a singularity or the collapse of a previous universe, was still all there was, just in another form. To reiterate, our current scientific theories state that spacetime was created with the big bang. That doesn’t mean that what existed pre-big bang was metaphysical, it’s just beyond what our current theories can predict. All I’ve said, and keep saying, is that if whatever form the universe existed in (singularity for example) did not include time (since that was created at the big bang) than the “best” way to define it is to use the term “infinite”, only because there is no time scale. This in no way implies a metaphysical universe. This is also based on what our current theories regarding the universe suggest. I understand that it is difficult to grasp a concept as bizarre as the existence of a universe without time. However, that is precisly predicted as what would happen to you by Einstein’s theories of relativity should you travel at the speed of light; time, in the universe, would stop ticking, from your perspective. So time is malleable, and a universe without time is theoretically possible, if difficult to comprehend.
Now, as to your ‘faith’. I certainly believe what you espouse to; I just don’t see it as ‘faith’ but instead as ‘belief’. But, we can agree to disagree on this point since it is getting nowhere.
As to Dr. Brown; all I can attest to is what is on the website. Accordingly, the website states that Dr. Brown’s position is officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church. When the authors of the website went to the Catholic Church for answers to their questions, they were referred to Dr. Brown, the logical conclusion is that Dr. Brown’s position and the Catholic Church’s position are one and the same.
You are taking something (infinite, uncaused, outside of space and time) that has no resemblance to the universe we know (finite, inside of time, bound by cause and effect) and calling them the same thing. It seems to me you are just avoiding the metaphysical by conflating the definition of the physical and the metaphysical.
meta·phys·i·cal
Pronunciation: \-?fi-zi-k?l\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to metaphysics
2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : supernatural
3 : highly abstract or abstruse; also : theoretical
Let’s draw a circle around Godel’s theorem.
Something outside this circle must be assumed to prove this theorem. That is, of course, assuming this theorem is true in the act of drawing the circle.
Oh wait.
Outside this theorem’s circle…is this theorem?
That doesn’t make any sense.
Godel’s theorem is based on paeno arithmetic, which contains unprovable axioms. Those axioms are consistent but not complete.
If we assume those axioms are true then Godel’s proof is valid.
In other words Godel’s theorem is self validating.
So, let me get this straight:
Gödel’s thereom can be self-validating but the universe can’t? Great. Way to dismiss that out of hand.
Another thing, you accepted your premise in your proof. “Whatever is outside the universe must be boundless which means you can’t draw a circle around it.” Uh…wrong? The universe itself is boundless in the sense that it contains EVERYTHING and it is EXPANDING. Before you try to postulate anything, try explaining what it’s expanding into.
I realize that’s a silly question with an assumed answer, but the point is that you’ve taken a leap and you’ve justified it with language as opposed to logic. It’s like that silly joke people tell about three guys who each pay $10 for a room. Once they pay, the owner says there’s a deal of 3 rooms for $25 so he hands the bellboy a fiver to give back to the guys.
Now the bellboy does some quick thinking and says, “5 doesn’t go into 3, so I’ll keep 2 bucks and give them each 1.”
The guys each paid $10 and get $1 back so effectively they’ve paid $9 apiece. The bellboy has $2. But wait, 3 x 9 = 27 and the bellboy has 2, where’s the other dollar? Did it magically disappear?
Of course not. Obfuscatory language doesn’t change the facts. There are a lot of unknowns, Gödel depends on something outside of itself which depends on something outside itself and even if there’s something beyond the universe, if Gödel’s theorem is a law, as you’re purporting, (as in, ALWAYS true) then whatever is outside the universe depends on something outside itself. And lest you think that’s not possible in the terms by which you defined whatever that thing is, let me assure you that just because it’s outside our purview, it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Anna,
Gödel’s theorem relies on Peano arithmetic, which is universally accepted as valid but which does have axioms which cannot be proven. To the extent that mathematics can prove anything, Gödel is proven. But yes it still relies on axioms.
Similarly the universe is incomplete, just as mathematics is incomplete.
Please explain to me how the fact that the universe is expanding makes it boundless. Sure seems to me that the fact that it has an outer boundary is hard proof that it is finite. Maybe you can explain your POV to me again.
It’s clear to me that you have not understood what I have said: You cannot have an infinite regression of incomplete entities. Something has to be complete and that something by definition is infinite, boundless. If you go back and read my article I think I have made this sufficiently clear.
You wrote:
“Similarly the universe is incomplete, just as mathematics is incomplete.”
I am baffled by this statement, what do you mean the universe is incomplete?
Also:
“Please explain to me how the fact that the universe is expanding makes it boundless. Sure seems to me that the fact that it has an outer boundary is hard proof that it is finite.”
According to current scientific observations and theories, the universe is finite and boundless. In other words, it is finite because there is a specific amount of mass in the universe. But it is boundless because there is no edge to the universe.
Just wanted to help with some clarification.
I mean that the universe cannot explain itself, just like your fish cannot explain itself. It has to come from something. It is not self-existent.
So far as is knowable to modern science, time itself began with the big bang. Einstein’s spacetime theorems indicate that if there is no space, there is no time.
Time is not infinite and never at any measurable point will become infinite. Time is finite. There is a finite number of seconds in the past and that will always be the case in any rational system of time measurement.
And yes there most certainly in an edge to the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_universe
Everything we know about the universe indicates that everything about it is finite.
Perry,
As a student of philosophy, I found this article to be very interesting. Your explanation of Godel’s theorem is clear enough for the layman, and the direction you take it is wonderful.
However, I do have one criticism with regards to your conclusion that Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem can be used to explore the existence of God, or sumsuch being (pardon me if this has shown up earlier in the comments).
Going back to the theorem, so we can get a clear picture of it, we cannot prove anything to be true or false outside of the axiomatic system. This is to say, in order for a logical system to be fully consistent, it must sacrifice completeness. To me, this sounds an awful lot like the conclusions Immanuel Kant gives in his Critique of Pure Reason: because of the finite, limited nature of the mind, we cannot extend our knowledge to the things-in-themselves, to the noumenal reality.
This is to say, while the mind is entirely rational (consistent), as it operates in the realm of reason with a priori concepts, what Kant terms the Transcendental Categories of Understanding, these categories, the mind itself, cannot discover knowledge of anything outside of possible experience (it is non-complete, as it were). The consequences of this is that, as Kant claims, we cannot discover the existence or nature of God, the origin or first cause of the universe, or the nature of the soul, as these objects are outside of possible experience.
This is not to say that there is no God, or that there is no first cause to the universe. What Kant argues is that we cannot determine the validity of these claims: God may or may not exist, but we simply cannot determine which is the case, giving the nature of our rational minds as being fundamentally limited.
Similarly with Godel’s theorem, whatever is outside the circle, so to speak, we cannot prove exists. So to speculate as you do that what is outside the universe is immaterial, that the information within the universe was designed by some sort of intelligence, is purely unprovable. You may be right, but you may also be very far off the mark.
In short, all we may conclude from the application of Kant’s transcendental philosophy or Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem to religious issues, and if we take these philosophies seriously, is the position of religious agnosticism.
Nevertheless, despite my criticism, I enjoyed the article.
Best,
Nick Palmer
You’re not the first to point out that this lines up with Kant’s writings. It also lines up with the Christian assertion that human understanding of God must come through the grace of God revealing Himself. It also lines up with Aquinas’ Via Negativa.
Note that we cannot *prove* the information within the universe was designed by some sort of intelligence, just as you said. However you cannot formulate a coherent explanation of the universe without it. When I infer that what is outside the universe is uncaused, infinite, conscious and outside of space and time, my description is 100% logical and consistent with everything we know. I have yet to see anyone propose an alternative explanation that is logical.
What this does is lend complete validity to the idea that there is something transcendent. And it shows that the atheist point of view is irrational. So religious agnosticism is a rational starting point.
But then when we incorporate information theory and biology into our understanding – everything we know about the nature of codes infers a conscious intelligent decision. All that we do know decisively takes us beyond agnosticism to a transcendent being who has intervened in the history of the world at least once.
I’m sorry I don’t have more to contribute here, but I must thank you for writing this out. It has truly opened my mind (as an atheist) to more possibilities than I had previously conceived. I had known of Godel in some respect, but not in the manner in which you have described his ideas. Curiosity sparked…
Glad to hear it. I’ve got some comments in the queue I haven’t had time to respond to. Nice to know thoughts are being provoked here.
“You are taking something (infinite, uncaused, outside of space and time)”
No, I am taking what science says about the big bang (that all matter, energy and Time were created at that moment) and extrapolating what would have been beforehand. Hence, sans Time, the best word to use would be infinite. That’s all. Our current Universe, as far as we know, is infinite along the Time scale, it will go on and on forever, there is no evidence to contradict that theory.
“that has no resemblance to the universe we know (finite, inside of time, bound by cause and effect)”
Of course not, I was extrapolating a state of the Universe, pre-big bang.
“and calling them the same thing.”
Be it pre-big bang or post-big bang it’s still our Universe, that’s all I was saying. Sorry to confuse you.
“It seems to me you are just avoiding the metaphysical by conflating the definition of the physical and the metaphysical.”
Nothing metaphysical about any of this.
Anyway, what happened to the fish in the fishbowl. That fish still doesn’t need an outside to exist, so why are we arguing about pre- and post- big bang Universe descriptions when the question of the fish was never answered?
btw: good job on coding the website, hit submit comment before entering my name/email info and even though it took me to another page and I had to hit the back button I didn’t lose the comment I typed up as a lot of forms tend to do
Greg,
The proposition that time will continue to go forward interrupted does not make our universe infinite. Case in point is the care mathematicians take to say things like “limit of y as x goes towards infinity” rather than “y when x is infinite.”
By all normal definitions, pre Big Bang is most emphatically not our universe. I am not confused about any of this.
You appear to be losing sight of my original statement which was Gödel’s theorem.
It says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”
The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.
Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.
Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.
If the universe is incomplete then there is something outside the universe. The finite is contingent on the infinite. The fish does need something on the outside to exist. Is that not fairly obvious?
“The proposition that time will continue to go forward interrupted does not make our universe infinite. Case in point is the care mathematicians take to say things like “limit of y as x goes towards infinity” rather than “y when x is infinite.””
You can’t apply that equation to Time. In your example it would also be possible for x to have a negative number, yet Time does not go backward, ever. Time is unique. So yes, Time, as far as we know, will be infinite.
“By all normal definitions, pre Big Bang is most emphatically not our universe. I am not confused about any of this.”
Fine, the pre-big bang state of our Universe will now be defined as La-La Land. La-La Land, in theory, did not contain Time, it was, in theory, a singularity of infinite mass and energy; or, it was the collapse of one Universe only to form another Universe; or whatever other theory is out there about the Pre-Bang state of existence. By the way, since you can pick and choose definitions, here’s webster’s: the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated. Key word, postulated. So La-La Land, by my postulation, IS part of our Universe. I’ve already explained why.
Let’s put it the simplest and most foolish way. You draw a circle around the Universe and outside of that is God. I draw a circle around God. Outside of that is what? And drawing a circle around that other thing, outside of that is what? I can always draw more circles and therefore, replace your God with a higher level of existence.
The most basic form of addition is both complete and provable. If I have 2 apples and you give me 2 apples I now have 4 apples. If I eat 1 apple I now have 3 apples. Nothing unprovable about that. Once you start thinking there is more to the world than your 2 apples worth, you start to confuse things by trying to over complicate them.
According to all observations I’m familiar with, mass, energy and space are all finite. As for time, far we’re at 13.7 billion years and counting. In my book, that’s finite. I’m not seeing anything in the universe that’s inifinite. Tell me – at what precise time in the future does time become infinite?
You said:
“Let’s put it the simplest and most foolish way. You draw a circle around the Universe and outside of that is God. I draw a circle around God. Outside of that is what?”
If you’re even asking that at all, then you haven’t read anything I’ve written in the article above. Please go to the top and read the article.
Addition all by itself (with no multiplication or division or other operations) is what mathematicians classify as a “trivially simple system.” When Godel stipulates “effectively generated” he means not trivially simple. From Wikipedia:
“Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is the name given to two theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931. They are about limitations in all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest. The theorems are very important for the philosophy of mathematics. Most people think they show that Hilbert’s program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible. This would give a negative answer to Hilbert’s second problem.”
“at what precise time in the future does time become infinite?”
Only Time will tell.
“Please go to the top and read the article.”
I read it, when I wrote the first time. That’s been a while now. I’ll take those comments back if they have already been addressed within your article.
“Addition all by itself (with no multiplication or division or other operations)”
What is multiplication and division except simplified ways of doing addition and subtraction. And isn’t that true for all mathematical formula’s? In the end, all formula’s can be done as a form of addition and subtraction, it may be difficult and crazy to do it that way, but it is possible.
What is very clear though, beyond anything else, is no matter what anyone says in any post, you will never accept any argument but one that awknowledges your belief in god. Do you find that to be a true statement? I believe it is.
Greg,
I will accept any and all statements that are logical. I have yet to encounter an atheist who could produce a logical response to the direct implication of Godel’s theorem that the universe necessarily has an infinite metaphysical source.
Let me know exactly when “Time will tell”.
You have not at any stage in this discussion dealt with the logic of Godel’s incompleteness theorem. When you are willing to do so you are welcome to present your arguments.
Moot points all, that I read anyway. You’re making a huge leap by saying that the origin of life is the origin of information. Then go on with inductive reasoning to say that it takes intelligence to create information therefor god must exist. Energy, matter, time and it’s different configs, including a clump of atoms or what we perceive to be thought, are merely configurations of our universe. Why must people be so vain as to believe that our intelligence is supreme and personify this into a being in order to explain those things that are outside the circle? This theory states, along with many modern day improvements, that we will never know everything. That’s all. Although, assuming god exists this theory also says he will also never know everything. So now this god isn’t god anymore.
Perry, you’re reaching buddy, but whatever makes you happy.
Just read some more. Many good responses you’ve very clumsily ignored. Don’t walk around under your guise of logic please. That is how religion hurts people.
You ask me to use logic and in the very same statement reject inductive reasoning.
If you have an argument or evidence to present, present it.
Well said. It is the arrogance of man to place himself in such a position of superiority to actually believe that his thinking being is in any way significant within the Universe. Does the Sun, our solar system, our galaxy, etc… care at all that this insignificant creature on an insignificant little planet swam out of some primordial ooze, learned to crawl, then to walk, and finally had some neurons happen to shoot off in specific sequences to produce logic?
Is man arrogant simply because he believes he’s important?
Or could it be that the definition of arrogance is to assert that the force that gave birth to the universe is mindless, is less personal, less intentional and less intelligent than ourselves?
What is arrogant is to assume that intelligence holds any value in the greater scheme of things. Even evolutionarily speaking, it is the simpler forms of life that are more successful in the long term. Intelligence just happens to be successful right now, but humans have been around for a blink of an eye in the timescale of the cosmos. Therefore, if intelligence holds little value in the cosmos, then what value is there in having a supremely intelligent being. That’s like saying I am the most uselessly talented individual out of a group of uselessly talented individuals.
That’s pretty misanthropic view of humanity, isn’t it?
An insulting way of seeing yourself, Greg.
You’re more than that. You’re better than that. The fact that you are using your intelligence to discuss an important question is by itself proof that your intelligence is worth more than the above sentence gives you credit for.
You are talented, you are USEFULLY talented and all of us are useful and talented and valuable in the eyes of God.
Perry Marshall
I am not insulting in my view of humanity, I am simply humbled by the vast universe around me and recognize how fragile and insignificant my life is in comparison to that universe. I do not stand on top of a mountain of arrogance and proclaim my greatness, especially not when I see how foolish I, and the rest of humanity is on a regular basis.
And I’m not talking about how we waste our planet, I’m talking about regular every day foolishness, white lies, silly games, attitudes towards each other, prejudices (non-racial or religious), etc… Not one of us is a perfect human being towards his fellow human beings yet most of us know how we should act towards each other, but we still don’t. Our intelligence can’t even overcome basic instincts and fears. Many of us still need to believe in an almighty creator because we are afraid of the unknown and unexplainable things in the world. Because we are afraid of death.
Greg,
The value of intelligence itself and the moral failures of man are two different things. I fully acknowledge everything you are saying, but I do not devalue intelligence or wisdom because all of us lack it. Is not intelligence required to judge that this or that action is foolish?
Perhaps some of us believe in an almighty creator because we sense that if so much is wrong – and yes, we do somehow *know* in our very bones that it is wrong – that somewhere there must be something greater that is right.
2nd comment, might seem peripheral but it’s directly related.
I completely embrace an evolutionary framework, but I do so from the perspective of a communications engineer. In other words, evolution most definitely happened, and I understand that evolution is a process of modifying digital code.
Neo-darwinism says that random copying errors of that code, filtered by natural selection, is responsible for all that we see. That’s a bottom-up materialistic framework. In communications engineering there is no principle whatsoever to support he idea that this could be true. Digital codes only evolve as a function of discrete modular re-arrangements. Not copying errors. In digital communication theory there is no such thing as a % of the time that noise or a copying error is beneficial. It is *always* damaging, never helpful.
Therefore, for evolution to happen it has to be designed to happen. It cannot happen accidentally. Nowhere in any of the massive volumes of scientific literature is there so much as a single paper that demonstrates that the path between species A and species B is random. Believe me, I know, I have tried very hard to find even one such paper. I have challenged people for 5 years to produce one and no one has ever produced it.
On the other hand there are enormous volumes of literature that show that evolution DOES proceed by non-random, episodic re-arrangements of DNA. Genome doubling, transposition, symbiogenesis. These are incredibly orderly and beautifully elegant and sophisticated. Furthermore they are governed by a “fractal checksum matrix” that Jean-Claude Perez describes in his French book “Codex Biogenesis” where every re-arrangement follows very specific linguistic rules that are tied to the Fibonacci sequence..
As a communications engineer, I know that information is always created and organized top-down, not bottom up. This is prima facie evidence that living things and evolution itself are both proof of a designer. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/new-theory-of-evolution/ On the site http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com I have defended this thesis for 5 years, including the largest atheist discussion forum in the world (www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infidels) and no one has produced any evidence to the contrary.
There is no way that the random copying errors, materialistic paradigm of biology will survive the 21st century. 21st century DNA research has already demolished neo-Darwinism; the only problem is, it’s taking some time for the rest of the world to hear about it.
I submit to you that yes, we have evolved, and the fact that such a thing is even possible without additional outside input from new programmers only serves to show that the original design was profoundly ingenious. If DOS 1.0 evolved into Windows 7 in 30 years or even 3 billion years with no programmers necessary, you’d want to talk to the guy who designed the original program. You’d definitely have some questions.
And I submit to you that our moral failures and disasters serve to show that we are not nearly as wise as our creator. Yes, there is merit to being humbled in the face of the universe; but outside of earth, your own body is more complex than the whole rest of the universe, combined. But most of all we must be humble before the one who set the physical constants and fine tuned the big bang to 120 decimal places. http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/big-bang-precisely-planned/
You said something about belief in a creator being needed because we are afraid of death. Well yes that is true. But belief in a creator is also necessary to explain the extraordinary ingeniousness of the genetic code and the existence of a self-modifying digital program. And, as I explain here on this page, the very incompleteness of the universe itself.
I felt it time to write again, having followed the various threads wither they have lead. And have taken time to read more in various forums and academic papers. Not sure it has made any more impact as proof of a devine creator. But I do now accept that Goedel would seem to hold true for all “curently observable” quantfyable systems however I tried to put into words in a previous post the problem which i now know to be ireducible complexity and the idea of the halting probability omega and the fact that some mathematical proofs are true by accident http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/mjm.pdf. (As humans we are bound by our language and understanding for my lack of understanding of the English language and ignorance I apologise) We place the bounds of the axiomatic system and say that is all there is within that system, but as we look forwad to discoveries in QM and QED we may yet find that we know less than we imagined. I think that you should conscider that the universe may hold surprises and pockets of irationality that balance the scales. To understand all that can be known that is a gift we may never achieve. and so Godels curse may never be lifted.
Now I didn’t read every single thread going all the way down, but I did read a great deal of them. The point people are missing, even though you continuously restate it, is that your construct is based on the preconception that everything is orderly. You abhor the idea that there is such a thing as randomness. You believe everything to be pre-coded by God in some logical fashion. If you continue to believe this you just won’t be keeping up with the modern science that is Quantum Mechanics. You’re stuck on Einsteinian science that is, frankly, incomplete.
Your flaw is that you believe the universe cannot work logically with any sort of randomness in the system. The problem is that the universe does work this way. We can predict that randomness will be present, we can predict how much the processes inherent randomness can possibly affect the end result, and therefore we can create a functional theory as to what the end result of any process might be. Unfortunately, as you try to theorize as to the end result of a highly complicated process that randomness compounds upon itself yielding more and more unpredictable results.
We’re left with an infinite string of If Then statements that are far to complicated to fully grasp. We can work with them, but only if the circumstances are right.
We associate randomness with disorder but the existence of randomness is not the same as saying something is illogical. Quantum states are statistical which means they still exhibit predictability and regularity, as any physics professor can assure you. The light from the sun is full of random fluctuations but it still adheres to very definite patterns.
If I were to apply your statement generally to science, I might conclude that it’s impossible to construct a coherent set of physical laws. But we know that nothing could be further from the truth.
The whole point of this is that the string of if-then statements is not infinite, it’s finite.
The problem is not with QM or randomness. The problem is that you are dealing with an Intelligent Design proponent who, contrary to what he says, will never awknowledge any proofs or arguments that disagree with his belief system.
Just look at his reasoning on drawing circles around things, it’s convenient to be able to say that the universe is the biggest thing to draw a circle around and that outside that circle it is boundless. How do we know it is? Says who? It’s a belief system, but he will never accept it as only a belief system. He wants you to believe in it as if he has found some holy grail, but he doesn’t provide proof, and he doesn’t provide any reasonable logic to sustain his arguments.
Unfortunately, this is what you have to deal with when you come across Intelligent Design proponents. They pretend they are open minded to other ideas when all they really are interested in doing is pounding away at you with their belief system. And, you cannot win; they know their arguments better then you do; they can dance circles around you because they are fanatical while you and me, and the other skeptics who have reached this site, are just here as casual observers.
And by the way, I have nothing against Godel’s mathematical proofs, I only had a problem with the way the logic was being presented to reinforce a belief in a supreme being. Because that is just plain silly.
Greg,
You sound as though you haven’t attempted to present any proofs or arguments, or as though I have just dismissed them. I have responded to everything you have said and in every case your argument has had a hole in it. Even to the point of you trying to argue that time is infinite because at some infinite point in the future, an infinite amount of time will have passed.
If you have a legitimate argument to present then go ahead and present it. But don’t pretend I haven’t responded to opposing arguments. Everyone here is free to read every single post in this thread and see for themselves that I have.
Your basic logical argument is (of many):
“You can draw a circle around a bicycle but the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.”
I showed you a perfect example of a fish in a fishbowl that can explain itself. It can measure it’s entire existence, and no outside elements are necessary. This was to draw a parellel with our own existence; that we can ourselves measure our existence without needing to have anything “outside” of our universe to explain our universe. You’ve never responded with any arguments to contradict this example. The only thing you did was state that Godel’s proof has never been proven wrong. Mathematically, that’s saying one thing, trying to translate that into logic to prove your God theory is completely different. This is the fallacy of Intelligent Design. However, this is also why this discussion is pointless. As I stated in my previous post, it’s a losing battle. It doesn’t matter what I say, you will always have something to disallow my argument in favor of yours because you have no interest in listening to anybody else.
As for time being infinite; until further notice, in other words, until time stops and the universe comes to a screeching halt, time, as far as we can tell, has been and will continue to run indefinitely. Hence, time is infinite. Unless you have some proof to the contrary, this is the case for now.
Let me ask you, can you even imagine a Godless universe? Is it possible for you to do so? What would that universe look like? What would existence be like in that universe? What would intelligent life be like in that universe? Lacking a God, would the intelligent beings still develop religion and a belief in an almighty creator? Can you honestly ask yourself any of these questions?
Greg,
I have a question for you. There’s a fish in the fishbowl. Where did the fish come from? Does the fish have parents?
Are you telling me that the fish explains itself?
Thus far in the history of the universe, an infinite amount of time has not gone by. As of any definable point in the future, an infinite amount of time still has not gone by. Therefore time is finite.
You are welcome to demonstrate that time is infinite in whatever way you choose. You have not thus far but I await your response.
Can I imagine a godless universe? Yes I most certainly can. About 7 years ago I seriously, seriously entertained the possibility that God did not exist. To the point of seriously asking myself, what new set of propositions and presuppositions would have to be true in order for that to make logical sense? I put on the atheist hat and shoes and took them for a walk for an extended period of time.
I seriously evaluated the Darwinian evolutionary model. I asked: since DNA is digital code, is there a principle in communications engineering that’s equivalent to random mutation + natural selection = evolution?
The answer to that question is a resounding NO. Nowhere in information theory is there any such thing as the % of the time that noise improves a signal.
I asked other hard questions. I saw that there is no such thing as a statistical model anywhere in the literature that supports evolution by random chance. Evolution has to be programmed in order to happen at all. I found that most atheists get spitting mad as soon as you start talking about math, statistics and probabilities. They are trained by their leaders to give an evasive explanation as to why probabilities do not matter when discussing evolutionary theories.
That was when I finally saw that atheism simply fails to obey the laws of reason and logic, cause and effect.
I saw that coded information always and without exception originates from consciousness. No known exceptions. (see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/proof for extensive discussion of this). I found that evolution is indeed true but I saw that evolution is not random but algorithmic.
I continued to explore and saw that atheism as defined on the Infidels website violates the very laws of mathematics and Godel’s theorem. If the universe is a closed system there has to be something outside of it.
Here we are with 260 comments on this thread and nobody has exposed a flaw in my logic.
So Greg this is my question for you: Have you ever examined the logic of a godless universe?
So far you have tried to tell me that time is infinite when it is clearly not. So far you have tried to tell me that a fish in a fish bowl can explain itself. Please explain.
So far your approach is the same as many other atheists: You start to lose ground and then launch personal attacks and accusations that I am not listening, that I have no imagination, etc.
I will leave it to the others following this thread to judge for themselves who is listening and who is not; who has an argument and who does not.
“I have a question for you. There’s a fish in the fishbowl. Where did the fish come from? Does the fish have parents?
Are you telling me that the fish explains itself?”
Yes, the fish can explain itself, just as we can explain ourselves. It’s called evolution. Just because we haven’t cracked all the nuts yet, doesn’t mean we won’t. And I won’t even go into all the evolutionary mistakes that go on that prove evolution is random, or are two heads really meant as an evolutionary advantage.
“Thus far in the history of the universe, an infinite amount of time has not gone by.”
How do you know how far back time goes? Says who?
“As of any definable point in the future, an infinite amount of time still has not gone by.”
Unless you have a valid argument that says there is a reason for time to stop in the distant future, time will continue indefinitely. Why is this so hard to grasp? Pose the argument that time, and therefore the universe, will stop at some point in the future for some specified reason. Unless you can do that, there is no logical reason to believe that time will not continue indefinitely. Sure, I can look at my watch tomorrow and say, nope, time isn’t infinite today, but my argument is clearly not about any definable point in the future, but about a continuous flow of time into an indefinite future. The point being is you can define a point in the future but there will always be a point in time after that, hence, infinity + 1.
“since DNA is digital code”
What?
“random mutation + natural selection = evolution?”
You do know that random mutations and natural selection leading to evolution has been proven in many labratory experiments and has also been observed in nature.
“trained by their leaders to give an evasive explanation as to why probabilities do not matter when discussing evolutionary theories.”
How can you possibly offer probabilities? I’m not an evolutionary biologist, but even I can see the flaw in that logic. You’re asking me what the probability is that a random mutation will occur in a given population. That’s crazy. It could be 1 in 1 million, it could be a freak population that experience 50% population mutation, most of which would probably be unsuccessful traits.
“That was when I finally saw that atheism simply fails to obey the laws of reason and logic, cause and effect.”
Because you looked at things from an Intelligent Design perspective and found exactly what you were hoping to find. Don’t blame evolutionary biology, you never cared to find the truth anyway. You want a good read on Evolution, read Stephen Gould’s books, dry reading, but truly informational.
“Here we are with 260 comments on this thread and nobody has exposed a flaw in my logic.”
Based on your rose colored glasses, of course not.
“So Greg this is my question for you: Have you ever examined the logic of a godless universe?”
Of course. It’s the only way the universe makes any sense whatsoever.
“So far you have tried to tell me that time is infinite when it is clearly not.”
Your opinion. I’ve offered a final explanation, perhaps that will lay this one discussion to rest.
“So far you have tried to tell me that a fish in a fish bowl can explain itself. Please explain.”
Same as us, evolution.
“So far your approach is the same as many other atheists: You start to lose ground and then launch personal attacks and accusations that I am not listening, that I have no imagination, etc.”
Start to lose ground? I never had any ground to stand on with you. You’re still twisting the fishbowl argument to get any bits you can onto your side. When I referred to the pre-bang state of the universe as part of our universe I was forced to defend that statement for several posts until I finally gave you an official definition that allowed me my wording.
So am I launching a personal attack when I call you an Intelligent Design proponent, only if that wasn’t the truth. Am I personally attacking you when I say you are not listening; well, if I have to defend a single word for several posts just to get a simple point across, then no, I am not making a personal attack, you in fact do not listen. Do you lack imagination? Now, don’t go putting words in my mouth, I never said you lack imagination. In fact, I think you have a vibrant imagination. I think you are close-minded when it comes to your belief system, but your imagination within that belief system is very strong.
The fish has parents. Thus the fish does not explain itself, it’s contingent on what has come before.
The fish has not even begun to explain itself until the origin of life question is solved. Show me one successful origin of life experiment.
Which still doesn’t explain the origin of the matter & energy that the fish is made of.
The fish doesn’t explain itself, Greg.
DNA is a digital code. Look up “genetic code” on Google, wikipedia or the dictionary.
Nowhere in any of the biological literature is there any such thing as a paper that demonstrates that positive evolutionary changes come from random mutation. If you disagree, then give me a link to a paper that proves that any known evolutionary path was generated by random DNA copying errors.
“Many ways to induce mutations are known but none lead to new organisms. Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues… Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally induced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change.”
-Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, “Acquiring Genomes”
The changes that cause positive evolutionary progress are structured reordering of genes through transposition, symbiogenesis, genome doubling and horizontal gene transfer. Not randomness.
Greg, show me one statistical model that shows evolution by random mutation is likely. Show me some math, my friend. Not a hand waving description of some freak population. Science please, not wild speculation.
Here, read a little about what evolution really is:
http://evolgen.blogspot.com/2005/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_19
Unfortunately, I’m not about to go on a hunt for scientific research, just like you knew I wouldn’t. I don’t have the time or energy to do so. I believe they exist because I believe the scientists. On the other hand, give me a link to any peer reviewed scientific paper that proves there is a God. I know that nothing like that exists, because again, I believe the scientists.
Once you understand what you are talking about when it comes to evolution we can get back to the discussion. Until then I’m done.
And as for DNA being a digital code; seems like the ID community is really behind the theory. That’s great Perry, back up ID ideologies with ID idiologies and idiologists.
Greg,
Where do any of these articles offer any form of demonstration or proof that random mutations create positive change in DNA? Please cite literature that supports your claim. These websites assert but do not demonstrate. They just offer another hand-waving description with no backing evidence to support the hypothesis.
If you believe that only ID people believe that DNA is a code then ostensibly you’ve never studied DNA, you’ve never studied the history of the discovery of the genetic code, you’ve never inquired as to why it is called “the genetic code” or studied in the field of genetics. Again that is your decision. But the information in question is readily available in any biology book and on literally 1,000 secular websites. If you refuse to read scientific literature then there is nothing I can do to help you.
Greg, I extend an invitation you to start to think for yourself rather than letting “them” think for you.
“Nowhere in any of the biological literature is there any such thing as a paper that demonstrates that positive evolutionary changes come from random mutation.” – You
I think this is what you “were” looking for (when you wore your atheist hat and shoes) but didn’t find.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
“Many ways to induce mutations are known but none lead to new organisms. Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues… Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally induced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change.”
-Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, “Acquiring Genomes”
Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species.
“show me one statistical model that shows evolution by random mutation is likely” – You
again – http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair
Also, here is a reply to your proposition that DNA cannot have formed naturally…
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/proof-that-mutations-can-create-information/
I also uploaded this book for you to read.
http://www.easy-share.com/1911269188/The Intelligibility of Nature.pdf
Chris,
I completely and fully agree that evolution happens and that the experiments with e coli are documented evidence of evolution.
But nowhere does this site demonstrate that the evolutionary changes are a random walk.
Nowhere in ANY biological literature has it ever been proven that evolutionary progress comes from random mutation. I know you think that it has and I know that you think I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I’m not convinced you even understand the question to begin with.
You did not read what I wrote before, therefore you are trying to make an argument that is irrelevant to what I am saying. You think I am denying the existence of evolution. No I am not. I completely agree that evolution happened. I am denying that it is random. Evolution is driven by the following processes:
Mobile Genetic Elements
Transposition
Horizontal Gene Transfer
Symbiogenesis
Genome Doubling
not random copying errors.
Your “proof that mutations can create information” isn’t any kind of proof at all. It’s a made-up “let’s suppose” scenario with optimistic assumptions.
Your tinyfrog website has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of DNA. It starts with the assumption that DNA is already there and has 90 nucleotides. Did you actually read this article? Did you read any of the questions that I raised? You are wasting our time with irrelevant links and arguments.
When you have apprised yourself of the content of this conversation you are welcome to join it. The first place to start is to go to wikipedia and to the scientific literature and study the 5 different evolutionary mechanisms I listed above and form an understanding that cells re-arrange their own DNA in an exactly ordered fashion. The second thing to understand is that cells militantly guard against random copying errors: See James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf
PS Oh, and I forgot one other major non-random evolutionary mechanism: epigenetics.
PPS The article says: “It’s important to understand that when biologists say the mutational process is random, we mean that it is not directed. There is nothing determining definitively that a mutation will occur at a particular nucleotide.”
This is utterly and completely false. Every one of the six mechanisms I just described is well known. Some of them have been known for 50-80 years. Boris Kozo-Polyansky described symbiogenesis in the 1920′s. Barbara McClintock described Mobile Genetic Elements in the 1950′s. An unfathomable disservice has been done to you, telling you that these forces are undirected. If your article was telling the truth it would say:
It’s important to understand that when biologists say the mutational process is non-random, we mean that it is directed. There are many mechanisms that definitively determine that a mutation will occur at a particular nucleotide or group of nucleotides – or even large portions of chromosomes being cut/pasted or copy/pasted to other regions of the genome.
Again, read the literature for yourself. It’s all there.
You’ve been lied to, my friend. This is pure atheist dogma. And it’s scientific fraud. But don’t trust me. Search out the truth for yourself. Read the secular peer reviewed scientific literature such as Shapiro’s paper above, and see with your own eyes that I’m speaking the truth. Wasn’t it Jesus himself who said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” ?
1. Terao, Y., Miyamoto, K., & Ohta, H. (2006). Improvement of the activity of arylmalonate decarboxylase by random mutagenesis. Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology, 73(3), 647-653. doi:10.1007/s00253-006-0518-z.
2. Mark T. Stanek; Tim F. Cooper; Richard E., L. (n.d). Identification and dynamics of a beneficial mutation in a long-term evolution experiment with Escherichia coli.(Research article). BMC Evolutionary Biology, (9), 302. Retrieved from Gale: Academic OneFile (PowerSearch) database.
3. Ananthaswamy, A. (2002). Random noise gave vital boost to primitive life. New Scientist, 176(2370), 19. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Good articles for discussion. Comments on your (1), (2) and (3) respectively:
#1. In this experiment the researchers are using “site directed mutagenesis.” I quote:
“saturation site-directed mutagenesis was performed with the same kit. The sequences of the oligonucleotide of the mutated parts are shown as the underlined position: 5?-GCCCTTCATTGCNNKCGGGCTGGGGCTG-3? and 5?-CAGCCCCAGCCCGMNNGCAATGAAGGGC-3? (N: A,T,C, or G; K:G or T; M: C or A). The mutant was identified by DNA sequencing of the plasmid.”
“Based on these suppositions on the reaction mechanism, we expected that changing the location of the key cysteine residue might bring about the inversion of the enantiose- lectivity of AMDase. Thus, we introduced two mutations, i.e., cysteine instead of glycine74 and serine instead of cysteine188. As expected, the….”
Site directed mutagenesis, if it is random, is selecting very specific sections of DNA and randomly mutating them. The procedure is described at http://escience.ws/b572/L4/L4.htm
To use an English analogy, it is like taking a sentence
the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
and choosing one word, for example the word “brown” and randomly mutating it – WHILE KEEPING ALL THE OTHER LETTERS THE SAME.
Obviously it wouldn’t take very long before “brown” became “blown” or “grown” or “growl” or who knows what else. Undoubtedly you could form other valid English sentences this way. This works just fine if you’re isolating a very small section of the code and keeping the rest the same – which is what the author described in my quote above.
Biologists do this to produce novel protein structures that prove useful in various circumstances. This experiment had the objective of increasing the production of an enzyme.
(Along the same lines, there’s another paper from Caltech that describes something pretty similar, it’s called “Why High-error-rate Random Mutagenesis Libraries are Enriched in Functional and Improved Proteins.”
http://www.che.caltech.edu/groups/fha/drummondJMB2005.pdf )
The Caltech paper discusses the statistical distribution of mutations generated by PCR mutagenesis and how often the resulting protein turns out to be useful. First of all they discuss that as mutation rates increase the usefulness of the mutation drops exponentially, and they show the math for those computations.
Furthermore they conclude:
“Exploration of distant regions of sequence space by random mutation alone appears highly inefficient, reinforcing the role of other search processes such as homologous recombination in creating sequence diversity.”
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homologous_recombination – it’s similar to the structured mutation processes I described – horizontal gene transfer and transposition.)
They note that the method of mutation used by the researcher greatly affects the results.
Greg, neither of these scenarios is a reasonable representation of neo-Darwinism. They produce useful results, but from a Darwinian perspective they’re cheating. They’re inserting specific human-engineered selectivity into the experiment.
Yes, if you restrict the random activity to just a certain section of the genome you can get it to work. Of course you can. But if the mutations are operating indiscriminately across 1 million or 1 billion base pairs in the genome then it’s just like the random mutation generator:
TEe q6ick brown fGx jumped over the lyzybdog
Not useful. Especially if your sentence is 1 million characters long instead of 65. You have to focus the mutations in order for them to be useful. That’s not what Neo Darwinism theorizes. These experiments reinforce the design hypothesis, not the Darwinian hypothesis.
#2. Show me where in this article does the author prove that the mutations in question were random and not a function of transposition or horizontal gene transfer.
#3. “When life began in the hostile conditions of early Earth, so many random mutations and errors would have plagued the first molecules struggling to copy themselves that explaining how longer or more complex forms ever evolved has been tough. But it seems that the right combination of random events or “biological noise” counteracted the high mutation rate, speeding up evolution.”
This is entirely speculation. I don’t see any proof of randomness here.
Good effort. But your #1 reinforces my thesis that productive mutations are from cellular engineering and not random copying errors of DNA; your #2 and #3 do not reinforce your thesis. None of these papers demonstrates that the path from one species to another is a random walk. Rather, they show that you can create interesting new proteins, very inefficiently, by selectively randomizing very small sections of the genome.
Remember what the article said that was posted yesterday? “It’s important to understand that when biologists say the mutational process is random, we mean that it is not directed. There is nothing determining definitively that a mutation will occur at a particular nucleotide.” Mutagenesis of specific regions of DNA doesn’t match that description.
First off, stop using an english sentence like:
“The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.”
and changing it to:
“TEe q6ick brown fGx jumped over the lyzybdog”
and saying this is the same as random mutation. It is not. This is where you are either deceiving yourself, or trying desperately to deceive your readers. That is why I added my previous link to explain what random mutation really is. Here is the link again:
http://evolgen.blogspot.com/2005/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html
As the article clearly defines, random mutation occurs when a sequence such as:
GCCCTTCATTGCNNKCGGGCTGGGGCTG
randomly mutates to something like:
ACCCTTCATTGCNNKCGGGCTGGGGCTG
that would be a random mutation in the DNA strand. That random mutation may do something positive, negative, or nothing at all. Usually it is negative and gets corrected or dies off, sometimes it does nothing and ends up dormant, other times it is positive and ends up providing a positive evolutionary step through natural selection.
Here is a final article.
Sniegowski, P., & Lenski, R. (1995). MUTATION AND ADAPTATION: The Directed Mutation Controversy in Evolutionary Perspective. Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 26553-578. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Greg,
I cannot discern from anything that you’ve said, that you actually read and understood the papers you quoted. I read this paper. Did you?
Greg, what is the difference between
Xhe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
and
ACCCTTCATTGCNNKCGGGCTGGGGCTG
Are not both a random mutation of one letter? The former has a 26 letter alphabet, the latter has a 4 letter alphabet.
If you feel like 26 letters is too many and you want to convert the English sentence to binary and randomly mutate one bit, then that’s still random mutation of one character. Or you can convert English to a quaternary alphabet and mutate. Either way, it’s a point mutation.
Nowhere in the biological literature is there a paper that shows that the path from one species to another is undirected random copying errors of DNA. Research now shows that it’s block re-arrangements of genes and chromosomes.
Now, to Lenski’s paper: “The Directed Mutation Controversy and Neo-Darwinism.”
Summary of his argument:
-There are many peer reviewed papers that document directed mutation
-He questions their methods and conclusions
-He doesn’t find the evidence persuasive
-No one understands the operations of the alleged mechanism that drives directed mutations
-The idea of directed mutations directly contradicts the anti-teleological position of neo darwinism
-He happens to think that randomness is still an adequate explanation
Here are the problems with this paper:
1. This argument is out of date. It’s 17 years old and there’s an entire genre of new papers that thoroughly document directed mutation. I already gave you a link to one, from 2005: James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf. If you want a whole bunch more, just read the footnotes in this paper. All you could ever ask for.
2. Lenski’s paper doesn’t breathe a single word about transposition or mobile genetic elements, even though Barbara McClintock won the Nobel Prize for discovering these things in 1983. Her research was done in the 1950′s. So even when it was written it was ignoring 40 years of peer reviewed work. This is an inexcusable omission.
3. Epigenetics firmly establishes Lamarckian ideas as having validity. This is possible because of the enormous amount of human genome research today, which was not available in 1993 when this paper was written.
4. Lenski is still insisting mutations are random in the following paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899 even though his own research within this very paper shows bacteria making the same adaptation multiple times. I discuss this with another reader at http://www.perrymarshall.com/3118/10-predictions-2010/#comment-21274.
5. I went to a lecture at Fermilab in Batavia Illinois in January 2010. The speaker was James Shapiro, a biologist at the university of Chicago. In the Q&A a guy was asking Shapiro if mutations are random. Shapiro said “No, because when we starve bacteria their mutations rates go up by a factor of 10,000.”
He described how repeatable and reliable this is. Shapiro’s research firmly addresses the questions that are unanswered at the end of Lenski’s paper. He has exhaustively documented the genomic re-arrangements bacteria make in order to adapt to stress. They are non random. They’re algorithmic.
6. An algorithm hypothesis is an inherently more scientific theory than a randomness hypothesis. Why? Because science is the presumption of underlying order. Any time you can offer a systematic explanation instead of random accident, that’s pro-science and pro-progress. Any time you resist systematic explanations tooth and nail and prefer random accident, that’s letting your personal emotional preferences and religious prejudices block the progress of science.
7. In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve debated this topic a few times before. I consistently observe how vehemently opposed atheists are to the idea that evolution is non-random. They HATE this idea. Even though it’s a beautiful, well supported scientific theory. Why?
You know why. I don’t have to tell you.
As I said before, check it out for yourself: Mobile Genetic Elements, Transposition, Horizontal Gene Transfer, Symbiogenesis, Epigenetics. All non-random, all documented mechanisms of macro-evolution.
I don’t know why I even bothered answering your post again. You’ll just pick some 1 or 2 sentences out of the article I provided and you’ll say “see” it means this and not random mutation after all. It’s what ID proponents do. You do it every day of your life. You could care less that the article is supported by many other research articles. You could care less that this is accepted by scientists and biologists because IT IS proven in laboratory expirements all the time. All you care about is your ID ideology which teaches you how to pick apart arguments 1 sentence at a time until people get so frustrated with you they just walk away. And then you think you’ve won. You haven’t won anything but a first prize in your own little world. You’re not open minded at all, you are deceitful when you suggest that you are. I’m tired, and I’m done. Go on to your next victim.
Greg,
You’re only a victim if you choose to be. In any case you’re not a victim of me, you’re a victim of fraudulent atheist dogma which is parroted constantly yet unsupported by empirical evidence. As I said, nowhere in the entire body of scientific literature is there a single experiment that proves that the path from one species to another is random. Quite the opposite.
What’s most intriguing of all is that in mathematics there exists no formula that can prove that a sequence of letters or numbers is random.
In other words, the central claim of neo Darwinism – that random mutations and natural selection drive evolution – is inherently unprovable because randomness is unprovable. So neo Darwinism itself is mathematically unprovable and therefore inherently unscientific.
It is, however, possible to show high probability that a sequence of letters or numbers is NOT random. The sequence aaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAbbbbbbbbbBBBBBBBBBB is obviously not random and it’s easy to statistically show that the odds that those letters were generated by a specific pattern is 99.9999%.
For identical reasons, we know that the modular re-arrangements of DNA are non-random.
Read the literature, my friend. Think for yourself. Walk away from your victim status. The truth will set you free.
I wish you the best in your journey.
“As I said, nowhere in the entire body of scientific literature is there a single experiment that proves that the path from one species to another is random. Quite the opposite.
What’s most intriguing of all is that in mathematics there exists no formula that can prove that a sequence of letters or numbers is random.
In other words, the central claim of neo Darwinism – that random mutations and natural selection drive evolution – is inherently unprovable because randomness is unprovable. So neo Darwinism itself is mathematically unprovable and therefore inherently unscientific.
It is, however, possible to show high probability that a sequence of letters or numbers is NOT random. The sequence aaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAbbbbbbbbbBBBBBBBBBB is obviously not random and it’s easy to statistically show that the odds that those letters were generated by a specific pattern is 99.9999%.”
The theory of evolution isn’t “randomness = new species! Hooray!” and it’s a lot more like “chaos + environmental feedback = gradual change and adaptation”
No one said that DNA sequences were random. Obviously even if someone believed that small, random changes added up over time in DNA, the sequences would still be in a non-random pattern that worked. That’s the best thing about evolution is that evolution does NOT equal abiogenesis. Evolution has been observed and proven, the origins of life are definitely up for debate simply due to lack of possible knowledge if nothing else.
But what IS accepted, and indeed, proven, is whether or not there are precursors for mutation (as in your case) the MUTATION is the random bit. And there are ideopathic mutations, as well that lend credence to randomness. What you seem to be missing is that randomness is not the only mechanism. The most important mechanism is environmental feedback (as in the E.Coli + Citrine study). There exists a PREPONDERANCE of literature dealing with this.
Another problem that you have is that you are treating several things as either/or suppositions when they can easily be both or, some synergy of both. You look at evolution as occurring through five or six specific mechanisms which is fair since those are the driving, visible force for evolution. How those mechanisms themselves are predicated is something that you haven’t addressed. Stimulus = response over and over again. That’s very true for genetics as well. Response to a particular stimulus in individuals is not the same as a group’s response or adaptation to the same stimulus over time.
Horizontal Gene Transfer, for example, is obviously predicated upon external influence and reaction therein. It’s a confluence of factors that lead to the situation wherein HGT might happen, but if maybe 2% of the population has a predisposition to HGT in this specific case, and further, that the HGT allows them to be more resilient in their environment and further, that this allows them to have an appreciable advantage over their fellows (statistically significant), then, over time, assuming the stimulus continues, the 2% population with the MUTATION that predisposed them to this HGT will thrive over their fellows.
And your bit about your random generator doesn’t hold weight either because it’s a mischaracterisation in the extreme. With DNA you’re not substituting sequences with one of 44 characters trying to write a new sentence. You’re having stimuli act on pre-existing chemical reactions and random substitution and rearranging of small parts of DNA. It’s like take-a-penny-leave-a-penny: if you take a penny or leave a penny, it doesn’t really affect your net-worth, but if you did it a couple thousand times a day and it was random whether you took or left the pennies, you would either become rich or broke, live or die, you might say.
The environmental factors are what determine whether you’re taking a penny or leaving a penny (and sometimes both) and that’s feedback. And scientists don’t think it’s “random” random. Scientists just aren’t aware of every mechanism and every equation to every reaction/mutation that’s ever been and most consider it (when this comes up) practically unknowable, or random. Similar to how people try to predict how gusts of wind will cause ripples in the leaves of a tree. It’s an ongoing problem.
If you open the typical evolution book and find the explanation of how it works, here’s what you’ll find:
“Mutations are the random changes in genes that constitute the raw material for evolution by non-random selection.”
-Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, 2009
“Mutations are Random. The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.”
-University of California-Berkeley “Evolution 101” web page, March 2010, Evolution.Berkeley.edu
“On the basis of many laboratory experiments, scientists have concluded that mutations occur randomly. The term “random” here has a specific meaning that is often misunderstood, even by biologists. What this means is that mutations occur regardless of whether they would be useful to the individual. Mutations are simply errors in DNA replication. Most of them are harmful or neutral, but a few can turn out to be useful. The useful ones are the raw material for evolution. But there is no known biological way to jack up the probability that a mutation will meet the current adaptive needs of the organism.”
-Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True, 2009
That’s just 3 easy examples. Most of the atheist books parrot this dogma and it is simply not true. Randomness only destroys information. I’m a communication engineer, I wrote an Ethernet book, I know digital codes cold, and there is no principle in information technology that would suggest that anything these 3 sources said is actually true. Random mutation is noise and noise always degrades a signal.
The truth is: Evolutionary mutations are systematic and algorithmic, not random.
My random mutation generator does to English precisely what Dawkins, UC Berkeley and Coyne are saying happens to DNA – random substitutions of letters. Nope. That’s not what drives evolution. It’s systematic re-arrangements of genes, in response to inputs from the environment.
You are definitely right when you say “scientists don’t think it’s “random”. Real biologists who do real research and understand this at a deep level know that mutations are directed. This is all over the 21st century literature. But Dawkins and Coyne and even UC Berkeley aren’t giving you real science. They’re giving you a Dick and Jane version of evolution that’s not true. They’re giving you the version that matches their anti-teleological philosophy.
Yes, environmental feedback changes organisms. And that’s not random. It’s systemic and it’s called epigenetics.
My point was that random mutation is accepted as playing a role in evolution. In the HGT example, the bacteria with the random mutation that made them more susceptible to HGT, (provided the HGT produced some advantage/resilience and didn’t preclude reproduction) would be the successful group and, over time, would replace the previous group (provided the non-HGT group suffered as a result of lacking advantage/resilience).
A small random mutation, all else aside, is often the deciding factor of species variegation and change. You’re a communication engineer so you’re educated, but you mistake yourself if you think that randomness is the same across all fields of “communication.”
Reason number 1: In communications, you don’t WANT change. You have your perfect signal and you want it to remain that way. Feedback is bad. Maintenance the only goal.
In biology, feedback, adaptation and change are the greatest predicators of survival whether through gene transfer, successful mutation random or not, loss of a predator or any of the other myriad of things that can produce change and/or success.
The reason your random generator doesn’t work is because of the nature of change in biology as opposed to what you’re doing. Biological change doesn’t occur in a 1-for-1 substitution of information for information. Missing information due to random mutation or mutation that yields a benefit happens all the time. The LPL Ser447-Stop mutation, for example, has a shielding effect against the development of atherosclerosis and subsequent CAD. That’s an ideopathic mutation from normal functioning in humans that produces a beneficial effect.
Anna,
Please show me a peer reviewed scientific paper that demonstrates that a small random mutation, all else aside, is often the deciding factor of species variegation and change. I maintain that such a paper does not exist. In 5 years no one has ever demonstrated otherwise. You are welcome to be the first.
Digital communication is digital communication and an accumulation of random mutations is an accumulation of errors. The idea that random mutations drive evolution is the biggest lie in the history of science. It does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Again you are openly invited to show me a peer reviewed scientific paper that documents new organs and new species being generated by accumulated random mutations. Many papers assume it but none demonstrate it is so.
In both engineered systems and biology, feedback is systematic not random.
There are random mutations that are accidentally beneficial such as sickle cell anemia which protects people from Malaria. But there’s a reason sickle cell anemia is classified as a genetic disease.
There are all kinds of control systems where you DO want change. Those systems are categorized as stochastic state space control systems and the positive change does not come from the stochastic element. The stochastic element is the enemy of better performance not the friend.
Hi Perry,
I agree with much of what you are saying here, but I think there are a few gaps in your logic. For example, you say the universe is just as incomplete as mathematics, but they aren’t in the same class. Mathematics is a language and has things to say and using that language you can deduce things, describe things, prove things, etc. However, the universe says nothing, deduces nothing, describes nothing and proves nothing.
Your idea that God uses math to describe the universe doesn’t exactly ring true for me because God created the universe by words and not by numbers.
I’m totally on board with you regarding proving God exists because of DNA and that, undoubtedly, God speaks through the universe in terms of beauty and truth and goodness.
I also don’t really get the idea that you have that the universe is either complete or not complete. Aren’t these mathematical terms? Is a rock complete or incomplete? Well, it would reason to say that it depends on the observer describing the rock. If a chunk of a crystal is broken then you would say it’s an incomplete crystal, but is a rock with a part broken off not a rock? It’s still a rock. Not to split hairs on this, but the answer as to whether the crystal is a crystal with a part missing or if a rock is a rock if part of the rock is chipped away is a matter of the speaker’s expression and interpretation of facts. Logic can prove statements to be true or not, but they also do not leave room for interpretation and that is why math is profound and art is profound. Art and interpretation give the sense of complete or incomplete without the need for either to be true; either can be true depending on the observer.
Great conversation. And thanks for your responses.
Joseph,
The universe does not say anything in the formal sense of communication theory. As for deduces, describes and proves I disagree.
Any physical system subjected to measurement does computation. The Church-Turing thesis says a great deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing_thesis . The universe performs computation and logical operations. It solves mathematical problems for which no formal mathematical solution exists. Countless mathematical solutions and formulations have been derived from problems posed by physical systems.
The universe describes the laws of physics. And as it does logic, yes it does prove something. The fact that two atoms cannot occupy the same space at the same time proves that it’s either one or the other, not both.
My conclusion that incompleteness applies to the universe and mathematics equally is a natural consequence of the Church-Turing thesis.
You’re on to something very significant in your recognition that the universe is not linguistic but that living things are. I think the correspondence to John 1:1 is not accidental.
Incompleteness isn’t about broken pieces of matter, it’s about contingency. If you believe in cause and effect (which is a necessary condition of assuming a logical universe) then you believe that something had to cause the rock. If you believe that the rock is consistent (i.e. logical, obeys mathematical rules) then the rock is also incomplete, i.e. something outside of that rock has to be invoked in order to ultimately judge that consistency. Just as with the Liar’s Paradox, somewhere there has to be a higher external standard to judge its truth.
Finally, even the universe is subject to interpretation. And so is logic, because in logic you can never prove everything. But even in the apparent subjectivity of that, there is the implied truth that there is an external, objective truth that we are attempting to grasp.
Thank you, sir, for participating in this conversation.
Hi Perry,
Thanks for the fast response. I didn’t pick this up until tonight.
I follow part of what you are saying, but I’m kinda lost on some of it. For example, where you say that the universe deduces, describes and proves things, I don’t quite get that. What are some examples of this?
If you mean that because the events of deducing, describing and proving are inside the universe and thus the universe is the actor, then I can understand that because there isn’t anything outside the universe doing it, but I’m not sure how even that fits into what you are saying.
Pardon me for being so dense, but if deducing, describing and proving are things that can only be done inside of language, then how does it happen independent of observers or actors who are carrying out these activities?
When you say the universe describes the laws of physics, then I think you mean for me to understand that it is the observer as well as the observed that is implicitly involved? Well, science does bear out that an object is affected by the observer, but I don’t quite get the it’s both the observer and the observed that are doing the describing unless you are saying that they are one-in-the-same and that one cannot happen without the other.
This goes back to what I was saying about the universe not being linguistic because language is not something the universe needs to simply be. Language arises as a necessity but the universe doesn’t need it in the way that the people who speak it do.
On going back to the issue of incompleteness, I think I get what you are saying in that, like Gödel describing mathematical concepts, you can always draw a bigger circle around the universe, but I’m not really sure what this observation creates. Maybe you can provide some examples of what it is that you feel that this insight can illuminate? I’m sorry I feel very dense about this.
Great conservation, though.
Joseph,
Physical objects can do all kinds of incredibly complex math for you and all you need to do is be able to count. You don’t have to know anything about how to do the computations. Why? Because the universe obeys mathematical rules. And when subjected to measurement (counting), the universe expresses mathematics.
Water flowing into a bucket is doing real-time integration. No different than a person doing calculus with symbols. Both can give you the same answer. Back before computers they used to build analog computers which would solve math problems with analog circuitry, ie resistors and capacitors.
Gödel says any system that does non-trivial computation is incomplete, ie it is contingent on something outside the system.
The Church-Turing thesis acknowledges what I just said above, which is that a physical system can express mathematics.
So physical systems are also incomplete.
Physical objects do not ask these questions, but we do as observers. Without an observer there would be no symbolic mathematics, only the expression of mathematical laws within physical objects. We use reason and logic to infer that our symbolic systems for manipulating mathematics are incomplete and the same logic applied to the universe says it’s incomplete too.
Again it goes back to contingency. The universe is contingent on something. The something could be a regression of prior universes. But eventually you have to get back to one Original cause and there can’t be two because two is a system which is then contingent on some other system. Eventually you get back to one original indivisible source.
What is an example of a computation that a rock can do? I’m just trying to understand this from my own literal sense of words. Is this literal or is this anthropomorphism?
A rock flies through space. Any alteration to its velocity is the integral of accelerations due to outside forces and F=MA.
Any alteration to its temperature is the sum total of received and dissipated heat. All of its behavior with respect to velocity, position, acceleration, momentum, temperature, blackbody radiation is all a dynamic expression of fixed mathematical laws.
Whatever it does obeys mathematical laws and whatever measurements you make is a consequence of the initial conditions and the behavior of those natural laws.
Hey Perry,
I think I’m getting what you are saying now.
It’s not like you are making the universe anthropomorphic and giving it attributes that make it a person.
In Eastern philosophy, the universe is everything and that is the only equivalent to what we call God. If you read the Tao Te Ching, it says the same thing as the Bible: the universe was created by the word.
In the Western world, we see God as some gigantic man in the sky who throws dice or plays chess or sits around a ring of clouds looking down on the earth like one big Greek god. Paintings depict a powerful gray-haired man as God. This is one of the reasons why atheists have so much ammunition to use against the idea that there is A god or that God exists.
But getting back to what you were saying, if I understand you correctly, the universe does prove these things as you were saying that a rock proves laws of thermodynamics and motion and such but isn’t there something more to it?
Scientists say that it’s very likely that in other locations in the universe (and much of this depends on if the universe is open or closed) that the same rock does not prove the same thing as it would here. The “laws” are written differently. Does that support what you are saying? Perhaps the universe is proving the idea that the laws are different in other places if that is what we can prove with math?
And, by the way, scientists have been trying to prove if the universe is incomplete for some time now by trying to figure out if it is open or closed. If it’s closed then it will eventually collapse back upon itself and probably will have another Big Bang right after and all the rules may or may not be rewritten. If it is open then it keeps expanding forever and there would be infinite varieties of laws that could be shown to be true and different in different locations.
So, here’s the interesting thing. If it’s open and you know the shape of it and can measure it, then you draw a circle around it and–OOPS–it has expanded beyond your circle! You then recalculate that and–OOPS–it has grown beyond your circle!
The same expanding boundary applies for a closed universe where it is in expansion mode.
But if it’s closed and it’s shrinking then you can draw a circle around it and–WAIT!–there isn’t anything THERE where you draw that circle any more. The universe has shrunk just a tiny bit.
And I think maybe there is a problem with the idea of drawing a circle somewhere around the universe if there is “no there” there–no “somewhere” to draw the circle. I think Godel meant that you can only draw a circle if there is somewhere TO draw the circle–either it’s a hypothetical or simply mathematical theorem but it may not apply to space-time where there is no space-time yet.
Or does the universe expand once we chart a place outside the edge of the universe which would fit with much that we know about quantum mechanics for the “observer-role” phenomenon?
You’re right, I’m not making some anthropomorphism with the universe.
The “God depicted as old man with beard” image is funny in a far side cartoon but in any serious context, Jews and Christians consider it blasphemous. The atheist depiction of God is straw man.
*Some* scientists speculate that the laws of physics are different elsewhere, but *most* scientists assume they are the same everywhere. It’s the only way to build a coherent model. If they are different elsewhere, there has to be a systematic explanation behind that – otherwise it implies an inconsistent and illogical universe. The bedrock of science is the predictability of physical laws.
This is actually crucial to what I am saying. If the universe is illogical or inconsistent, then according to Gödel that means it could also be complete, ie there is nothing else outside of it.
In my mind the expansion or contraction of the universe is irrelevant to the “size” of the circle because I’m not really talking about diameters here; I’m talking in broad conceptual terms about the boundaries of a system. Even if the universe is expanding it has an outer boundary. Gödel’s theorem speaks of “within” the system and “outside” the system so I use a circle simply as a visualizing device.
I have not thought carefully enough about the observer-role phenomenon in quantum mechanics to comment on that.
Glad having you in the conversation.
Please show your argument, instead of pointing to anonymous “philosophers”.
“God is simply defined that way” is an argument from authority at best.
Why would it make any difference whether god is called “inside” or “outside” the world? The moment you try to prove his existence, you have to assume he is something, or else you have to show how something that is not something can be reasonably said to exist. In both cases, you will have to show how god can exist without being caused. Simply going “na na, I define it this way” is hardly going to do the trick.
Vijeno,
What caused the universe is necessarily outside of the universe because of Gödel’s statement:
“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”
When we’re talking about the universe, there is a logical statement that is true, but not provable in the universe. The universe depends on an axiom outside of itself. In this case the distinction between what is inside the universe and what is outside the universe is vital.
Logically, *something* has to exist without being caused, and that something is not the universe. Gödel’s theorem says that – and the Big Bang says that too. If you believe in cause and effect then the universe has a cause which is not itself.
My point is that we are forced to assume, and yes, cannot prove, that God is uncaused.
“Logically something has to exist without being caused.” I can see no reason for that. You didn’t provide any.
Two obvious problems with your argument:
1. While an infinite regress does pose obvious problems, you would have to show why we should stop asking for the cause at some random point (e.g., the universe, or god). If you already go one step outside the universe to show that god exists, then you cannot simply stop there. There is no reason for not asking who or what caused god. We cannot dismiss infinite regress only because it makes us uncomfortable.
2. God does not solve any problem. With infinite regress, nothing is ultimately determined – neither does a first cause determine anything, since it’s completely undetermined itself. The result is exactly the same, and since we cannot determine any point at which to stop asking for the next cause behind that point, this solution is to be favoured.
What problem does infinite regress solve? Some peoples’ discomfort with the idea of God, maybe?
Infinite regress does not solve any problem. Please, please don’t try to shift the burden of proof. You are trying to prove god, therefore you need to show that the proof is solid. That’s the rules. I didn’t invent them.
God doesn’t solve any problems either:
If there is a first cause, this means that this first cause is totally free, not bound to logic and reason. Therefore, any effect following that first cause is just as arbitrary as with an infinite regress, and nothing is ultimately determined.
It is exactly the same dilemma as with an infinite regress – only with the additional disadvantage that you now have set an arbitrary endpoint of causes, totally up to your own whim. The only reason you say that god is the first cause is because you define god that way – that is circular logic.
I can’t reply to your other posting, there seems to be some limit to the levels of replies, so: Another problem is that causation will never reach the universe – something inside the universe is caused by something else inside the universe, but there will never be any point where something inside the universe is caused by the universe itself; and therefore, since we always have to start with some effect inside the universe, no chain of causation can ever lead us to god.
OK, let’s talk about burden of proof.
You are misquoting me. This is what I said:
“God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.”
I have backed up every statement I have made.
Now let’s talk about you.
You have said there is an infinite regress.
An infinite regress of…. what?
Where is this infinite series of things you speak of?
Do you have pictures of them?
Do you have evidence of any kind?
Is there anything about your infinite regress of causes that is NOT arbitrary? You’re trying to tell me “since we always have to start with some effect inside the universe” — where did you get that rule? Did you just make it up?
You said, “If there is a first cause, this means that this first cause is totally free, not bound to logic and reason.”
Hold on just a second, my friend. You are now making theological statements. Before you go down that road, you might want to respectfully read what others have said.
I’m going to expect you to back up everything you say, just like I do. And please do not misquote me.
Please show how you can create a coherent system using a first cause. Please show how a first cause would be determined, so as not to make the effect of that cause, and the effect after that, and so on, completely arbitrary. Please explain why you want to stop asking for the previous cause exactly one step outside of “the universe”. (Not using the words “it’s in the definition”). Please show how a chain of causes inside the universe does suddenly hit “the universe itself”, so that it can then move on one step further back. Please show how a system that has a first cause is more coherent than a system that has an infinite regress.
By the way, IIRC I was not the one who brought up the term “infinite regress” in this discussion.
If you’re not trying to prove god, then what exactly do you mean by “whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being”? Whom are you referring to?
I have not proven God. Rather I have shown that God is a necessary assumption to posit a logically coherent universe.
Your refusal to answer ANY of my questions is telling. You’re still asking me why infinite regress is unacceptable. I have answered this question three times. If you refuse to read then you will have to argue this point elsewhere.
You ask: “Please show how a chain of causes inside the universe does suddenly hit “the universe itself”, so that it can then move on one step further back.” I refer you to the big bang itself, which is the ignition point of matter, energy, space and time. I’ve already said this and I’m not going to say it again.
Fair enough. I didn’t answer your questions starting with “An infinite regress of what” because they strike me as a joke. I didn’t think I would have to explain tose basic concepts to someone who is so used to working with concepts such as mathematical proofs and the causation of the universe – but okay, here you are: philosophy 101. I will take you step by step, and I won’t let go of your hand, so you don’t have to be afraid of tripping and falling.
So:
I am assuming that when I start wit my typing this as the most current effect, and move back to its cause, and go all the way back to the big bang, I arrive at “the universe”, and can then go back one more step. (I doubt that, but it seems you’re supposing it, and it’s not the point now.)
1. Either there is causation, or there isn’t.
Do you agree so far?
1.1. If there is no causation, then we can stop talking because we cannot convince each other of anything. Still agree?
1.2. So – either there is an ultimate cause, or there isn’t.
Agreed?
1.3. If there is an ultimate cause, this cause is uncaused.
Can you see that?
1.4. If it is uncaused, then it is undetermined.
Are you able to concur?
1.5. If the ultimate cause is undetermined, then every effect of that cause is just as undetermined, because its cause was undetermined.
Do you follow?
1.6. Therefore, if there is an ultimate cause, the universe and everything in it is undetermined. We still don’t know why the world exists, because, in christian terms, there was no reason for god to cause the world.
Can you see that?
Let’s examine the other road:
2. The universe is caused, that cause is the effect of another cause, and so on infinitely. Since you asked, that is the definition of an infinite regress. Now you know.
Have you learned something now?
2.1. If that is the case, obviously no cause is ultimately determined.
Do you agree?
2.2. Therefore, if there is an ultimate cause, the universe and everything in it is undetermined. We still don’t know why the world exists, because, in christian terms, there is no god who could have had a reason to cause the world.
Can you see that?
It might have occurred to you… 1.6. and 2.2. look surprisingly similar.
Do you agree?
So, if you were able to follow so far, I am now asking the question you never answered (and therefore, I was never obliged to answer any of your questions): Why would we favour one over the other?
Oh wait, I know – because in case 2, we could not do science.
However, I think I have shown that that’s not really a good reason, since the same problem occurs in both cases. The ultimate cause doesn’t help us. So why favour it?
So if that is the case, how is it not special pleading to simply define god as the ultimate cause and leave it at that?
That is the first of many, many issues with your argument which you never properly addressed. Instead, you have given me “Look it up on wikipedia”, “Most philosophers disagree, so you’re wrong” and “You don’t want to go into theology, buddy, so leave it”. Can you agree that this is not the way to have a proper discussion?
So please, if you want to have a discussion among adults, explain to me how the uncaused cause solves anything, or where you see a flaw in my logic.
And no, I don’t want your free mini-course.
You invoked an infinite regress of causes. Where did you get the idea that you are excused from describing the previous cause, and the previous one, and so on? You have not answered a single question about this.
1.5 does not follow from 1.4.
I do not agree with 2.1. It’s a non-sequitur.
“in christian terms, there is no god who could have had a reason to cause the world.” Where did you get that idea? Did you make it up?
It is the position of infinite regress that is anti-science because it gives us no way to drive a stake in the ground about anything that is past. Modern science was born out of theology in Western Europe 500-1000 years ago.
Science got started in ancient China; in ancient Egypt and Greece and Rome; and in Islam. But it never went anywhere. In those cultures, it sputtered and coughed and died.
Why?
Because those cultures did not have a theology to support it.
I think it is especially interesting that science was obviously not born in atheism.
Science rests on faith that the universe is governed by fixed, discoverable laws. That it operates without the need for constant intervention by the creator and that the creation has a degree of freedom to follow its own course.
Islam does not teach this; Greek and Roman mythology did not teach this, and neither did the Egyptian or Eastern religions.
Wisdom of Solomon 11:21, which was written 3,000 years ago, says, “Thou hast ordered all things in weight and number and measure.” This is found in the apocrypha, i.e. the books of the Catholic Bible. This is the first statement of its kind in ancient literature. If you like science, thank a theologian.
There are two issues here:
1. When you follow the rule of causation, you will never actually arrive at “the universe”. It is purely an abstraction – an invention even, perhaps. I was caused by my parents which were caused by theirs…. caused by some dinosaur… caused by the beginning of the earth… the sun…. back to big bang. (At which point we currently cannot say anything reasonable.) But saying that “the universe” was caused is, strictly speaking, nonsense. Causation only ever leads to things that are inside the realm of being, i.e., the universe.
2. You cannot show why whatever might be “outside the universe” is supposed to be the ultimate cause. You can always ask what caused it, and there is no reason why you should stop here, (and not, say, at the big bang or at the dinosaurs). It is purely a decision you make to rescue monotheism.
The universe is just an abstraction?
What does that mean?
Just an invention?
By who?
Why is saying the universe was caused nonsense? What part of cause and effect do you not agree with?
Perry,
I think it’s a really assumption on your part that the Western idea that God is outside the universe.
What if God WERE the universe as it is understood in Eastern culture?
Or are you also saying that God is incomplete? Certainly, if God is outside the universe then we must be able to draw a circle around Him?
It could be instead that what we call God is, just as the universe is, intelligent, ever-expanding, self-creating, etc. and that WE are created in His image: intelligent, ever-expanding, self-creating, etc.
Understand that the universe is what it is and that what we call God is ascribable to the universe makes perfect sense even to an atheist. Atheists don’t believe that if God exists that he is some man in the sky. Believing that God is a man or human or humanoid is like believing Santa Claus. For God to create the universe, he would have to create it from something, yes? Where did all that mass and energy come from? Did he reach into his pocket? It just makes more sense that God IS the universe and is a self-created intelligence and that we recognize that God is everywhere, inside us as well, and that we see Him for who He is: everywhere but not outside of the observable universe.
Godel’s theorem supports the idea that what the universe is contingent upon is outside the universe. Logically (go to the top & read my article) whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless and infinite and not contained within the circle. Logically, God is not the universe because the universe is caused. We are not self-creating, we are all created. All of us came into existence at a point in time.
By the way, God was depicted by Michelangelo on the Sistene Chapel, so maybe the idea of an old man with a flowing beard is really not as blasphemous as you say?
Point taken.
I’m not so sure that Godel’s theorem supports this idea that the universe is contingent upon something outside the universe. He says that a system is contingent on something outside of itself; someone who designed it and built the system or at least created it as an idea/theorem/law is. This is certainly true. It is even more true that without someone (the builder or the creator) that it never would have existed. This is a tautology, yes? It’s perfectly logical. Everything about it is true and not disputed.
However, to say that the universe is contingent upon something outside itself assumes that there is nothing outside the universe. Godel doesn’t say this (as far as I know he never explicity said this but it would be interesting to know his thoughts on this), so we can’t assume that his theorem supports this idea. I understand that it is your conjecture that if Godel’s Theorem is true and that the universe was created by God and that God is outside the universe that this is all true, but again, it is an assumption to say that God is outside the universe. Where is He then? Why does he have to be outside the universe? If he were outside the universe, then how can He hear my prayers? How can He have any influence on anyone’s life or assist in creating miracles if he weren’t everywhere? If He is everywhere, then why isn’t it possible that He isn’t outside the universe?
It’s also a big assumption on the part of Westerners to think that God is a man but not a woman and that he is white and not black. After all, if you saw Jesus walking down the street as he looked thousands of years ago you would say he looks Arab or black but he would definitely not be white. But why does he have to have skin color at all? Why can’t he be in the monitor? In the air around you? In your finger on the mouse? Why can’t he be someone other than outside the universe?
Now, as far as people not being self-created, I am saying that, just as God is “I am ‘THE’ I AM” as He is, there is a point in everyone’s life where they understand they are alive, they have responsibilities and they can hurt people or help people and that is when they “ARE that they ARE” and they are created in this, which is in God’s image. We are just as God but we don’t have the power to create the universe from more than one perspective. Certainly, I can create a universe in my writing (e.g., Gene Roddenberry) and people can create that same (Star Trek) universe for themselves but I can’t physically create one from more than my own perspective. If we aren’t self-created after we are born and have self-awareness then we are just as animals and what makes us separate from animals is language and the ability to cry “I AM!” [the chair is silent on this one].
I think it would be far more logical and less problematic to form a mathematical and physics-based understanding of things with God inside the universe to consider that, as far as what is measurable and provable, that the universe is what produces the energy necessary to create the universe and the God is the intelligence behind the intelligence we see occur naturally (DNA, for example). There doesn’t need to be something outside the universe for there to be a perfectly logical understanding. Godel’s theory regarding closed systems is accurate, but who said that the universe is a closed system? What proof is there of that? What if, as scientists have pretty much proven, that if the universe is infinite that you can simply not measure one end of it to the other without it continuing to expand beyond those points after you measure it? It’s just like an electron where you can’t know both the speed and the location at the same time but once you know one of these then neither is true any longer.
I hope to answer a few of your questions here.
If the thing that created the universe is boundless, then it is not subject to the boundary of the edges of the universe. So God can be inside the universe as well.
There could be all kinds of other universes and things outside the universe. But those things also have boundaries and are systems. And if they are rational they are also incomplete.
Your 2nd to last paragraph touches on something that I’m surprised more people haven’t mentioned. Which is that a conscious being with free will is not subject to the laws of logic. On both a micro and macro scale, a free being can do irrational things. Which is another way of saying that consciousness is an entirely different category of thing than anything that’s purely physical. It reinforces what the philosophers and theologians have been saying for thousands of years, which is that human beings are wholly different and distinct from inert objects.
We cannot rationally say that the universe is the thing that produces its own energy. It has to have a starting point and it does – the big bang, the beginning of matter energy space and time. We have no reason to believe it created itself.
The current scientific consensus is that matter, energy, space and time are all finite.
I am asserting that in the grand scheme of things, the universe is not a closed system. The materialist view says it is a closed system and that there’s nothing outside of it. The materialist view contradicts Godel, contradicts our notions of cause and effect and has no ability to explain consciousness or free will.
Again, more interesting ideas.
I think we’re both kidding ourselves if we think we have all the answers, but I really like interesting questions as an access to coming up with new answers rather than trying to be right that my view is the only one that can be true.
I contract the Eastern and Western views of God merely because it yields interesting answers to questions with more variables and thus can yield answers that haven’t been thought before and, in turn, could be answers that make more sense logically than if the questions hadn’t been asked.
I question the notion that the universe is not all there is and I ask why it is that God isn’t all that there is as well. It’s just a question, but what an idea! And with quantum physics and other branches of theoretical math applying string theory to the real world, they say that parallel universes (and it’s interesting that they come in many magnitudes of parallel or likeness to our own), that it is more likely that there is only one universe which may become part of parallel universes once we can observe and detect parallel universes: we will truly not be alone. There will be more than one Perry Marshall. If there was ever a chance that Perry Marshall would have dropped out of high school or had become a doctor, then there would be parallel universes where one dropped out and the other became a doctor. It’s all based on probability.
And there is always a place for God in all this because, if anyone would know everything, He would know what you are doing in those parallel universes and would certainly know you more than you know yourself.
I’m not asserting that the universe is closed, but in the view of quantum mechanics and applied string theory that it’s very likely that it is infinite and that it is also infinite in its variety. This is proven, which is nice.
But I wonder what Godel says about this. If a model exists with infinite variety exists in infinite parallel universes, then how do you draw a circle around that?
This comes back to the definition of infinity. You could say it’s N+1 where N is any number you can imagine (Godel, right?). But you could also say that it’s a property rather than a number because it’s not a number. N+1 isn’t a number!! It’s a variable equation; plug in the variable and you can solve it. However, that defeats the purpose of an infinite property. If I drive from LA to Chicago, then it is 1 trip and I have an infinite variety of ways to get there including going around the moon, to Alpha Centauri and back, etc., but it’s still 1 distance.
In the same way, there may only be one God and one universe and each has an infinite variety, infinite expression, infinite size, etc.
Even if the edge of the universe increases and then decreases and eventually collapses on itself and then explodes again (which is one of two prevailing models as I mentioned before in a closed universe), it will still explode again with all the information wiped like a hard drive but the intelligence of God is still there.
I just think this idea of God outside the universe watching us is just the same as saying that God lives in the sky watching us. He doesn’t have to watch you, He is IN YOU because HE is the energy/matter and the intelligence that organizes and destroys as well. He survives just as we survive because our souls arrive and they go back to where they came, which is IN HIM. (I really am getting tired of saying He and Him. So boring and sexist, really. The universe doesn’t have a penis and neither does God, so why the Hell and we saying HE and HIM anyway?)
Really, if there is no place that God is not then why would he need to be outside of anything if he is in everything?
Well, it’s an interesting conversation, Perry!
No conclusions here. I’m pretty comfortable with my logic and wanted to share it with you. I appreciate yours and where it comes from. Thanks!!
There is no such thing as an incomplete universe, just incomplete models for that system. Godel is describing models (such as certain maths) and how they fall short of self-contained description. It’s sort of like the whole paradox with Zeno and his “half, but half first, but half of that first” reduction when describing how it should be technically impossible for anyone to get anywhere, having to first go halfway. What Zeno and Godel pointed out, and what all paradoxes point out ,in fact, is that our models and conceptions of the universe are limited. It’s an illustration of the folly of certainty. Using a paradox of any kind to PROVE something is to completely lose the point. But certainty seems to be something you need, so please: continue with the post-hoc . . .
Daniel,
Why isn’t a statement like “There is no such thing as an incomplete universe” itself an example of the “folly of certainty”?
Even if it were a folly, the point stands that incompleteness of the model can never imply incompleteness of reality.
Good point. I think you’re right: that could be seen as on over-certain statement. I guess what I was getting at was that the universe needs no explanation.It is complete, because it exists. We, the curious people are the ones who would like to superimpose an explanation onto it. The quest of science has not been to nail down a loose and wiggly universe with declaration of fact so much as to bring an already crisp and functioning reality into a more lucid framework that our minds can more easily conceive of. Science just brings us more accurate descriptions of what already is;what is real in spite of us. (right?)
When we start using logic to make predictions, we’ve gained a pretty powerful lever. It works quite well, most of the time. But what’s nice about semantic paradoxes or mathematical leaks is that they illustrate for us that our logic is not perfectly sound. Our logic is like a program that we’ve written. Things like the Liar’s Paradox and the Incompleteness Theorem show us screwy output, so we know that there’s a bug in the program – faulty logic. We’ve missed a detail.
Saying that we can draw a circle around everything that we know, and then infer that there must be something outside of it that is necessary for explanation is true (enough). It’s a beautifully eloquent way of illustrating an idea. The idea that it seems to represent though, is not that there must be a god, but that we’ve not yet learned how to draw our circles large enough. It is a commentary on the limits of our computation. Paradoxes, logical absurdities, mathematical impossibility, etc: these tell us more about the yardstick than the yard.
Daniel, you said:
“The universe needs no explanation”
This has to be one of the most anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, anti-free-inquiry statements I’ve heard in a long time. This notion sorely deserves to be challenged. My friend, the universe DEMANDS an explanation.
It’s like you’re saying “Hey there, logic is useful and all but let’s not suppose that God exists or anything like that, folks. Everybody go home, nothing else to see here. Run along, run along…”
Are you an atheist?
Is atheism killing your curiosity?
Truly the universe is just as unknown as God is. We can only observe what we say is the universe or God. Are you so sure that these unknowns are not the same unknowns? Why does one have to be outside the other?
And is there such a thing as a place where God is NOT? If so, then where is that place? It’s kinda hard to argue that it’s somewhere outside the universe if we don’t know that there is such a thing as outside the universe.
Try this:
God and the universe are the same.
The universe came into existence 13 billion years ago.
Therefore God came into existence 13 billion years ago too.
So what caused God and the universe to come into existence?
Hey Perry,
Thanks for replying back on that previous comment. You raise an interesting question and I’m not sure you’re going to like my answer.
I’m completely borrowing this from the Tao Te Ching and also from Genesis in the truth that things are created in language. In other words, things don’t exist unless they are created in language. For example, road rage didn’t exist as a thing until someone first said it exists and then others heard about it and now when we see someone jumping out of their car waving a golf club we go “road rage” to ourselves.
The same is true for every single word out there. Now this is not to say that the sky wasn’t there before someone said, “This is the sky.” In fact, the bible even says that Adam named the animals and the animals were certainly there before he named them, but again, man named the animals.
God created the universe using the word (or by using language).
Now it would be really un-Christian of me to say that God only exists by virtue of people saying that there is this almighty, all-knowing power called God and he doesn’t really exist but we say he does. No, I say that there is this thing we call the universe and all that is God is the body of the universe and we call the universe God because God is everywhere the universe is and so that must be his body. The mind of God is in the details, the DNA, the spark of life, the soul of the child just conceived, the soul of the man who died of cancer just now and so on; surely all knowledge is in all things and not somewhere else.
To test this idea, consider what would happen if every last human died tomorrow on Wednesday. Would God still exist if we are the only intelligent form of life in the universe? Where would he exist? What is the difference between the existence of God with people saying he exists and without anyone around to say he exists? It doesn’t change God either way, does it?
Now, I’m going to take this back to your idea about Gödel because it is very important in this discussion. It is what started this long string of ideas.
Gödel’s language he is speaking in is math, true? Math is a representational language. There aren’t ones and twos and threes growing on trees because these things represent the number of things. I can hold up two fingers and say “two” to my daughter who is two-years-old, in fact, but she looks at it and says “one” or “four” because she doesn’t know what these numbers represent.
In other words, because math is a representational language, just as we know that the word “chair” is just the sound we make when we describe a seat with legs, what if there is just simply a difference between what God is and the word “God” as a representation. What if it’s just not realistic to have something knowable that we say is “God” because the word simply can’t prepare us for what it is that we are invoking when we say “God” because we are not prepared as human beings to describe God in complete terms; some would argue that we can’t scratch the surface. If you speak with some who say that it is blasphemous just to write the word “God” and that if you must it has to be spelled G-d then there is a reverence for something that must not be contained inside of a mere word. It is to say that God cannot be represented by the utterings or scribblings of humans because we are so far away from understanding God that we must show some reverence.
What if Gödel is speaking in representational terms and saying that math is incomplete because it is a representational language? Maybe he is saying in non-representational terms that the representation is not the thing itself and is incomplete without the representation. The representation 4 is incomplete without the thing it describes; it is dependent on something real for it to have any truth.
In the same way, the word “God” is incomplete because it doesn’t represent “God” because “God” is not knowable. “God” is not incomplete because “God” doesn’t rely on something to function. The universe may certainly be incomplete because it may rely on something to function, but I don’t think we’ll know definitively until the universe is understood better. Perhaps when we discover if it has boundaries and not walls/membranes that it is either infinite or finite with just nothing outside of it. But we won’t know that in my lifetime as far as I can tell.
So, what caused God and the universe to come into existence? Since you are asking in a representational language, I would say that representational language is what gave us the word “God” and “universe” and until then they were just mysteries that needed to be understood. God created the universe, yes, but it was only because of representational language that we can say that or agree or disagree.
If we could ask this question without representational words or language or math then we would have the best answer. It would sound like God is “the I am that I am.”
Godel’s theorem is not about the limitations of symbols, or the difference between the territory and the map. It’s about the relationships between symbols and the logic that governs their behavior.
Math is more than a representational language. It has an existence independent of physical things. That’s why we can have mathematical constructs that so far have no known correspondence to the physical world.
Christian theology actually deals with unknowability (hidden-ness and mystery) of God and the representation and expression of God. This is done through the Trinity:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
This verse indicates that the very laws of physics and the structure of the universe are held together by the command of Jesus Christ.
God exists in three beings: Father / Son / Holy Spirit. This is alluded to in Genesis 1 where God says “Let us make man in our image.” Even most non-Christian Jewish theologians affirm that God is one, yet plural.
Father is the will, the essence, not knowable apart from the Son, which is the WORD, the expression of His Nature. The WORD in turn is not understandable apart from the Holy Spirit which is the manifestation of understanding, the fulfillment of His Nature.
“No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3)
This is curiously analogous to encoder / code / decoder in information theory, which I talk about extensively at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com.
And isn’t it interesting that the following conversation transpired between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in John 8, where Jesus echoes the words of God to Moses at the burning bush:
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Sorry I didn’t know you had replied to my last post.
Yes, if God and the Universe are the same then what created them is the phenomenon of language. They did not have names until we gave them names. They weren’t even things until someone said they are things.
Language creates everything. There was nothing (the Void) before anything was created. This is basically Chinese philosophy (according to the Tao Te Ching) and it’s fundamental as well. If you have no language, then there can be nothing that exists as things; you would just be babbling goo-goo at the pretty lights and shapes and objects until you know what those things are.
Words and language precede all creative acts. The universe did not create language. Language created the universe. “In the beginning was the WORD.”
The answer, however you put it, is plain and simply: We do not know.
It is only a few cults that try to hide that fact by claiming some supernatural knowledge.
But everyone who can think straight, is actually enabled to see through those lies.
What did I lie about?
Can you tell me what is wrong with using inferential reasoning in science?
Do you have evidence supporting any answer other than design?
Where exactly did I say that you lie?
Of course, I could easily borrow your logic regarding DNA: All self-proclaimed internet marketing gurus are scam artists, you are a self-proclaimed internet marketing guru, therefore you are a scam artist.
Or maybe: All proponents of ID are idiots; you are a proponent of ID; therefore you are an idiot.
The answer regarding design still is: You claim an intelligent designer for DNA. You cannot show any evidence. Case settled.
You said, “But everyone who can think straight, is actually enabled to see through those lies.”
I do not claim physical evidence for a designer. I claim 100% inference to one.
I’ll leave it to others to comment on the truth or falsehood of the statements “All self-proclaimed internet marketing gurus are scam artists” and “All proponents of ID are idiots.”
So you see yourself as a cult member?
You use witty words to cover up the fact that
1) you can’t fathom how science works
2) you have not a shroud of evidence for a designer
As I said, internet scammer is as internet scammer does.
Interesting stuff here. Sadly, I’m not mathematician enough, but since god is true, the proof must be solid.
most of this seems to be working towards the first cause argument. good stuff.
the statement “The universe needs no explanation” looks a bit like an axiom: a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.
to assume something outside of the universe hinges upon no known knowledge. it only requires an imagination.
The fundamental flaw in your so called ‘proof’ of a god is the assumption that traditional logic, entropy, and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem apply outside of the universe. For all we know, logic works differently or not at all outside of our universe. Perhaps the laws of logic stem from a fundamental property of the Universe. Entropy could also be a phenomenon that arises from other mechanisms present only in our Universe. Who is to say that, outside of the universe, matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed? Maybe they can. Maybe this is how the universe came into being, through a spontaneous creation of matter due to a lack of laws preventing its occurrence. There simply isn’t and cannot be enough information to prove this.
You’re right.
In fact we could speculate endlessly about what’s outside the universe. We could make up pretty much anything we want to, and just assume it’s true. We could assume that outside the universe, 3+3=5 or that matter and other universes are endlessly created.
My question for you is: Is there anything we DO know that actively supports any of those assumptions?
Is there anything I have said here that contradicts *known* facts?
Note that I have not claimed to prove God here; I have inferred based on the available facts.
Hi Perry,
I have only recently began looking into the use, by Christian apologists, of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem as a way of trying to demonstrate the existence of ‘God’. I am an atheist, but I enjoyed your article, and the debate that has ensued in the comments section has been VERY insightful. I have definitely learnt a lot (from both sides).
Please keep it up, Perry & everyone.
I don’t have a problem with some sort of “prime cause” of the physical universe which somehow lies outside the universe and was responsible for the universe. But I am really struggling to equate that idea with the testosterone-filled chest thumping alpha male tribal control freak described in the Old Testament and the Quran. “God” as described by Mohammed and Moses is obviously a social god. Such a god is definitely responsible for the creation of the “tribe’s universe”. The idea of linking such a tribal god (who is obviously just an abstract social construct) with the god who brought about the big bang is where I have a problem. Within each of us lies our very own personal (immanent) creator of our personal universe…the heart.
I would encourage you to read the book of John in its entirety which I think gives a more nuanced understanding of the Christian ideas about God.
“Until someone can successfully demonstrate a naturally occurring code, the only scientific inference we can make about the origin of the genetic code is that it’s designed.”
You can only get by with making these wild claims because you’ve arbitrarily excluded DNA itself from being representative of a “naturally occurring code”. Your only justification for this seems to be to state that since every OTHER “code” is the result of intelligence, therefore DNA must have been engineered by some intelligent agent as well. Hate to bust your bubble, but this represents nothing more than a hasty generalization. Even if we accept your proposition that every OTHER source of “information” and “code” is the product of intelligent engineering, it certainly does NOT follow that the genetic code necessarily must be as well. That must be established through independent lines of inquiry and evidence. And to claim that it must be because no one currently knows for CERTAIN how DNA developed is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
Everything we know about digital communication indicates that a deliberate conscious process is always involved in developing the rules of a communication protocol. This is positive knowledge.
Do you have any positive evidence to present to the contrary?
Why is your position not an argument from ignorance and mine is?
Even if we allow for the poor analogy and accept that is not just somewhat similar to a “digital communication protocol”, but actually IS one; that doesn’t by default mean that it therefore must be the invention of some intelligent agent as well. Even if we could absolutely, positively, without a DOUBT know that there are no OTHER sources of “code” or “information” naturally occurring in the entirety of the universe, that doesn’t by default mean that DNA could not be the only example in existence.
Yours is an argument from ignorance because that is the gap in our knowledge in which you arbitrarily choose to insert interference by an intelligent entity. Mine is not because I’m simply pointing out a fundamental flaw in your reasoning, not making any positive claims of my own. I’m readily admitting my own ignorance; I can’t elucidate the exact process by which DNA in it’s present form could develop naturally, the data to satisfy your rather lofty demands simply does not exist yet. The fact remains however, that this does not justify the claim that because every OTHER source of “information” (however you choose to define it) comes from an “intelligence”, DNA must have been “designed” as well. It could very well be that DNA is a “black swan” so to speak, and you know it.
It’s not a poor analogy; it’s not even an analogy in the casual sense of the word. The comparison between DNA code and computer codes is an isomorphism, which is a formal exact analogy. Definition: 2. Mathematics A one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets such that the result of an operation on elements of one set corresponds to the result of the analogous operation on their images in the other set.
My choice to insert intelligence is not arbitrary. It’s based on thousands of other codes. I am making an argument from knowledge. The naturalistic view, that it somehow emerged from the ‘soup’, is an argument from ignorance.
We have 100% inference to design and 0% inference to any other explanation. If you wish to claim another explanation, then you are welcome to present evidence.
…and the Old World presumption was that all swans must be white, because all of the existing historical records reported that all swans had white feathers. That is until 1697, when Vlamingh discovered black swans living in Australia.
The fact that a given number of observations have indicated “all codes we KNOW THE ORIGIN OF were created by intelligent agents”, does not mean the one we DON’T KNOW THE ORIGIN OF necessarily must as well. What you are (incorrectly) attempting to do, is establish a universal rule based on an incomplete set of instances.
“100% inference” does not equal “100% true”. The data regarding the development of the structure of DNA is incomplete, past observations do not necessarily predict the outcome of future events, and simply ignoring obvious errors in your reasoning, glossing over fundamental limitations like the most BASIC problem with inductive reasoning, doesn’t mean you are “successfully debating”. In fact, quite the opposite.
At what point did I say that 100% equals 100% true?
Besides induction, what other kind of reasoning do we have for establishing universal scientific laws?
What existing scientific law is NOT based on an incomplete set of instances?
You’re basically saying the following:
1. It walks like a duck and looks like a duck, therefore it is a duck.
2. Because it is a duck, it must quack.
It is pretty obvious why this does not work.
The answer is quite simple, really: It quacks when we hear it quack. Not a second before that.
I said you were trying to establish a universal rule (all “codes” come from conscious beings), not a scientific law. I have no interest in digressing into semantic games with you, so please restrain yourself from taking such liberties. But this once, I will indulge you.
Firstly, there are laws which are derived deductively, such as the Law of Detachment and Law of Noncontradiction.
There are no inductively derived “universal” scientific laws. Almost every single scientific law you could put forward has well known exceptions and only applies under certain conditions. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation for example, only applies in weak gravitational fields. We simply refer to something as a “law” if it has been observed to be true UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS enough times. Since we don’t know under what conditions DNA originally formed, we couldn’t say if a law that applied to things
we DO know were created under certain conditions even applied to it or not.
Your own statement that
“Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation for example, only applies in weak gravitational fields”
is derived inductively.
As are the laws of thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and almost every aspect of the theory of evolution. All of the “well known exceptions” to scientific laws are determined inductively.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science:
Biologist Stephen J. Gould maintained that certain philosophical propositions—i.e., 1) uniformity of law and 2) uniformity of processes across time and space—must first be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science. Gould summarized this view as follows:
“The assumption of spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws is by no means unique to geology since it amounts to a warrant for inductive inference which, as Bacon showed nearly four hundred years ago, is the basic mode of reasoning in empirical science. Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore, no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations.”
Induction is the basis of nearly all scientific knowledge. If you reject induction then you reject the scientific method itself.
In all conditions that are known and documented, codes are designed.
I propose to you that in scientific matters the best course we can chart is to accept the patterns and the inferences that are available to us and follow the evidence where it leads.
If we accept the origin of the genetic code as an act of design then that implies other inferences: For example the design paradigm is inherently resistant to ideas like “junk DNA.” “Junk DNA” was embraced for 30 years by people who reject the design hypothesis and in fact was used as “proof” that there is no design in nature. Then scientists began to study it anyway and it turns out that’s the part of DNA where all the most interesting stuff happens.
History thus shows us that a design paradigm is in some respects more conducive to scientific discovery than the materialistic paradigm. Science itself came from a belief that the universe operated according to fixed, discoverable laws and that was originally a theological proposition.
Nowhere did I even remotely imply that I rejected induction. You quite literally willfully ignored the entire point of my argument. And I’m going to completly ignore the rather woefully misinformed tirade on “junk DNA” for the time being as it seems to me to only serve to obfuscate the lack of any relevant content in your response.
The point, Perry, is that even if we accept the proposition that DNA is a “digital code” in the most literal sense, even if we further accept that all codes we know the origin of are the creation of intelligent agents, this does NOT logically extend to a code we DON’T know the origin of. This would only be accurate if we could demonstrate that DNA was “created” under the same conditions as every other code we DO know the origin of. But we CAN’T say that, can we?
How is your statement “this does NOT logically extend to a code we DON’T know the origin of” anything other than rejection of induction?
DNA has redundancy features, just like Ethernet and TCP/IP. And data repair mechanisms, nested data structures, modular components, and error detection and correction, just like Ethernet and TCP/IP.
All such things without exception are designed. By very smart people.
As I asked you earlier, what existing scientific law is NOT based on incomplete knowledge or an incomplete set of instances?
This is not a rejection of induction. As I just pointed out in my most recent post, the most induction allows you to say is that codes are the product of HUMAN intelligence. Perhaps if we allow for other types of language and codes found in the animal kingdom; we could allow for the more general statement, “all codes are the product of ANIMAL intelligence”.
Since the genetic code was created by neither of those things, it is an exception. A “black swan” event. Since DNA is the only code we know of that is not the product of animal intelligence, the inference does not apply. This is not a rejection of induction, merely pointing out it’s obvious limitations. Like it or not, in the case of DNA inductive logic alone gives us no reason to prefer one explanation over the other.
Therefore, Perry, you need to provide some line of reasoning or evidence that indicates DNA was created as the result of supernatural agency that DOESN’T generalize from other examples of codes. You need some sort of evidence BESIDES inductive reasoning to support your assertion.
So what other evidence do you have to support the notion that DNA was created by an invisible, supernatural, intelligent agent?
So… What happens when you draw your magic circle around any god(s)? Do they then need to base their existence on an even bigger god? And an even bigger one after that?
Where do you draw the line at infinite regress?
I invite you to read any one of the replies to the dozen other people who asked the same question.
I don’t really have time to wade through all of that, but I would point out a couple of things to do with this line of reasoning:
1. The only things we know of that are intelligent have differentiated, connected parts (ex. neurons, possibly computer hardware). (I’m basing this on our current knowledge. As soon as someone finds something intelligent that does not have connected parts, please let me know and I’ll revise this).
2. Whatever is outside the circle doesn’t have parts (#7).
3. Therefore whatever is outside the circle is not intelligent.
Or if you prefer:
1. In order to contain information a medium must have at least two distinguishable forms. (the simplest code we know of is binary which requires 1’s and 0’s to convey information).
2. Whatever is outside the circle has only one form (it is indivisible, has no parts and therefore is conceivably an infinite homogenous whole).
3. Therefore whatever is outside the circle contains no information.
This is by far one of the best arguments that has been advanced. Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Your logic is correct so far as what it does consider; what it doesn’t consider is where codes come from, which I have written about extensively here and elsewhere.
The creation of codes requires intelligence. To create a code with freely chosen symbols requires free will.
Syllogism:
1. Material objects obey the laws of physics.
2. Free will by definition extends beyond the laws of physics, because a “self” can choose to act. Choice is by definition behavior not dictated by laws.
3. Therefore free will is immaterial.
This is reinforced by the fact that living things have free will and inert objects do not. Free will is not a known property of matter or the laws of physics.
This is further reinforced by the fact that the laws of codes, the semantics of languages, and all the principles of mathematics are immaterial concepts, not physical objects.
The existence of information requires the existence of intelligence in the metaphysical plane.
To your second syllogism, I reply that since information and consciousness are immaterial, then this further confirms that whatever is outside the circle is likewise conscious and immaterial – in addition to being indivisible.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29 where the conclusions I reach via information theory and Gödel’s theorem are essentially identical to those of Descartes and much earlier thinkers.
To begin with, I would like to apologize if what I am about to say has already been mentioned. I found your article quite interesting, but I don’t have the time to make my way through all of the discussion.
I will now attempt to prove you wrong. (I would like to say however, that I personally do believe in a god, however, I just disagree with your method of proof. My belief in good is exactly that, a belief)
First, I would like to say that I do have a math background, and I did read through Godels proof. Needless to say, it is quite difficult and I only skimmed it, but, we will assume it is completely true since, as you say, it hasn’t been proven false for 80 years or so.
Firstly, you state that there has to be something outside the circle. This is not true. Godel does not show the existence of things outside of a system, rather, he showed that in a system, there will be things that you cannot prove.
Even if we do assume your interpretation is correct, which, i don’t see why it should be, then, a system with a god would still have things we cannot prove.
So, the notion of a god does not clear up those problems.
The next issue I have is with your notion that the universe as we know it is mathematical.
This is something that I must say I vastly disagree with. Look at the Banach-Tarski paradox. It says that we can take a sphere and, using only rotations and translations, create two spheres of equal size.
Obviously, this is not possible in our world, but, is possible in the mathematical world.
This leads us to conclude that our world is not mathematical. Mathematics is merely a model in which we can describe our universe. To say our universe follows the laws of mathematics however, is very very false.
However, let us now assume, for arguments sake, that your above arguments do in fact hold.
So, we now have a system which, from your conclusions has a god.
But, according to Godel, your system still has statements that cannot be proven.
So, your inclusion of a god does not actually fix any of the problems that arise form the incompleteness theorem in the way you applied it to the universe.
So, there is really no reason to conclude that a god exists.
All we can conclude is that we, as humans, will never be able to fully understand all there is to understand.
This doesn’t imply the existence of a greater being. It just states that our capacity to understand the universe is limited, or, that logic as we have created it, is flawed.
Anyway, I would love to hear what you have to say regarding what I have wrote as I find you do bring up some very good points.
Have a good evening!
I’m not convinced that the Banach-Tarski paradox means the universe is not mathematical. It just means that not all math has known application to the behavior of physical objects.
If you want to say the universe is non-mathematical, you need to show that the universe violates mathematical laws. The closest you can come to that is free will of human beings, which I believe is real and by definition is not law-like.
Yes, a system with a God still has things we cannot prove. However if you postulate the existence of God it is theoretically possible for God to be the only thing that is not ultimately provable.
Remember: If a system is complete, it cannot be consistent. If God does not exist then the universe is not logical. If God exists then it is possible for the universe to truly be logical. We can never ultimately prove that the universe is logical but positing God gives ground for that assumption.
I am not convinced that by letting god exist, it would be the only thing that is not ultimately provable.
Let us consider the logical system (set of axioms if you want) that encompasses our universe. Let us call this system S.
Clearly, you agree that, due to Godel’s theorem, there are statements in S that are unprovable. So, we now take our logical system and add a new axiom to it. This new axiom is the existence of God. We will call this axiom G.
So, we now have a logical system S + G. However, due to Godel’s theorem, in this new logical system, where we included the existence of God, there must still be things that cannot be proved.
So, I fail to see how including God in our universe solves our problem.
The value of assuming G lies in the virtue that there is nothing else outside of G.
The virtue lies also in the assumption that G itself is not a system. G is absolute and indivisible.
G gives ground to the unprovable assumption that the universe is logical and obeys rational laws. G allows us to assume that even things like induction are potentially reliable ways of determining truth. Note that David Hume, in his rejection of God, also concluded that induction was not a reliable method of reasoning.
The assumption of G leads to the smallest number of unprovable statements. Does not theology itself assume that God knows the reason for everything, even if humans don’t; and that if humans knew everything that God knows, there would be no unanswered questions? Thus belief in God not only allows but invites us to step outside of the limitations of our own perspective, and posits that there is an answer to everything.
From the perspective of G, everything could eventually be proven.
How can a rational person reject that proposition and still remain consistent with the aims of mathematics and the sciences?
Which are all things that we can elucidate in great detail the exact process and conditions under which they were designed. You can’t say the same for DNA.
Induction only allows for you to extend this reasoning to other things that you KNOW were created or developed under the same conditions. This is a LIMITATION of induction and acknowledging it as such is FAR from a rejection of it altogether.
I prefer inference to the best available explanation, following the evidence where it leads based on what we do know about codes. You are entirely free to come to no conclusion at all.
Isn’t the word ‘code’ in ‘genetic code’ ment as an illustrating metaphor?? Not the other meaning of the word, that is, human made code??
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
DNA wasn’t created like any ARTIFICIALLY developed code invented by mankind. It is a code that appears in the NATURAL WORLD and of UNKNOWN ORIGIN. That ISN’T inference to the best available explaination, but merely to your own personal preferences.
DNA has redundancy features, and it is optimized for error minimization to better than 1 million to one. Look up “Genetic code is one in a million” on Google, it’s a well known paper.
Based on what we do know, where do redundancy features in codes come from?
A: We have no evidence of other coding tables being tried by nature. The inference is this is from conscious choice based on examining the possibility of errors and trying to optimize the correction of errors.
DNA has a 4 symbol set with symbols grouped in threes, to make 64 characters. What is this similar to?
A: ASCII, which has a 2 symbol set with symbols grouped in sevens, to make 128 characters.
In pure physics and chemistry, does anything else like this exist?
A: No. “There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” – Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” (Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Do we have other examples of codes?
A: Of course we do. UTF. TCP/IP. HTML. The list is as endless as the number of file extensions in your own computer – RTF, TXT, DOC, XLS, MP3, etc.
How are such codes created?
A: By conscious decisions to match symbols and referents together for the purpose of efficiently communicating with language.
Did any of those other codes come from anything other than a conscious intelligent choice?
A: No.
If you deny that this suggests a conscious choice on the part of someone or some intelligent entity, what counter evidence do you have, Jason?
Can you show that your dismissal of these inferences is anything other than your own personal preferences?
@Perry
Error minimization in the genetic code is NOTHING at all like the redundancy/error-correcting features built into the symbolic arrangements of data in computer programing languages. Literally. Nothing. At. All. Alike. This is a false equivocation of the highest magnitude, a verbal bait-and-switch that serves only to highlight an EXTREME vacuity of knowledge in molecular genetics, or a blatant disregard for intellectual integrity and honesty.
Error correction in computer language is realized by detecting errors and establishing a means by which to reconstruct the original, error-free data (generally through ARQ, FEC, or hybridized schemes). With even a cursory knowledge of molecular genetics it is absolutely laughable, hilarious even, to think that this is in any way analogous to the manner in which biosynthetic relationships between amino acids affect the assignment of codons to reduce the effects of point mutations and mistranslations.
The mechanisms you are attempting to equivocate to error correction in computer science are in reality, as I said, nothing at all alike. There are molecular components that, due to their physical properties, exhibit certain chemical affinities for one another. Which in turn affects the manner in which they are distributed, which in turn tends to produce amino acids with properties very similar to the properties of the amino acid which WOULD have been produced had the error not occurred. Thereby reducing the phenotypic effects of the error.
You seem to have come about a very confounded state of knowledge, in which you have made a loose connection that they both have something to do with errors, but have completely ignored or glossed over the fact that each respective mechanism is in reality NOT the same AT ALL. Your analogous reasoning is very superficial, inaccurate, and misleading. Upon investigation these analogies fall apart at the seams, and serve only to expose the fundamental differences that highlight the absurdity of attempting to extend inferences about the development of computer codes to the development of the molecular structure of DNA.
I maintain, for the above reasons, that the process of inference does NOT extend from the development of computer codes to the development of DNA, and that this is nothing more than a grandiose and rigid display of personal preference. Repetition may make an uninformed, casual observer somewhat more likely to believe you, but it does not make you even remotely close to correct.
Jason,
The genetic code is 2/3rds redundant, mapping 64 combinations to 20 amino acids; ie GGA, GGG and GGC all code for Glycine. This is a form of Forward Error Correction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_error_correction. I quote from “Nanoscale Communication Networks” by Stephen F. Bush, p. 51: “…Forward error correction (FEC) techniques which are clearly used in biological systems such as DNA…”
DNA uses parity to detect errors as well. From the same book, further down in the page: “Each of the DNA bases has a sequence of three connecting structures, either hydrogen donors or hydrogen acceptors. Thus, each nucleotide base can be considered a sequence of three binary values. The fact that the base is either a pyrimidine or a purine appears to serve as the final parity bit.”
Another form of error detection found in DNA is checksums. In most chromosomes of single-stranded DNA, the total number of times each codon appears is controlled to within 0.1% by a checksum matrix. The cell adds up the total number of codons and checks for errors.
Each character in DNA occurs a precise number of times, and each has a twin. TTT and AAA are twins and appear the most often; they’re the DNA equivalent of the letter E.
This pattern creates a stair step of 32 frequencies, a specific frequency for each pair.
The number of triplets that begin with a T is precisely the same as the number of triplets that begin with A (to within 0.1%). The number of triplets that begin with a C is precisely the same as the number of triplets that begin with G.
This is discussed by Jean-Claude Perez in his 2010 paper “Codon Populations in Single-stranded Whole Human Genome DNA Are Fractal and Fine-tuned by the Golden Ratio 1.618? at http://metapress.com/content/f564350073g75444/fulltext.pdf I summarize the results of Perez’ research at
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/mathematics-of-dna/
Barbara McClintock discovered in the 1940′s that if she damaged the chromosomes in corn maize, the plant would copy sections of DNA from undamaged parts of the genome and repair the missing data. She won the Nobel Prize for her discovery of genetic transposition. This is a very sophisticated form of repair, much more advanced than Forward Error Correction.
This is well documented and is not unlike what your DVD player does when it encounters a smudge or scratch – it interpolates with an estimate of what it thinks the missing data might be, based on previous frames and the image content near the damaged area.
Quoting from “How repeated retroelements format genome function” by R. von Sternberg, J.A. Shapiro:
“As we increasingly apply computational metaphors to cellular function, we expect that a deeper understanding of retroelements and other repeats, the integrative fraction of cellular DNA, will lead to increased understanding of the logical architecture inherent to genome organization. In the era of biocomputing and systems biology, the study of cellular information processing promises to revolutionize not only the life sciences but also the information sciences. We anticipate learning powerful new computational paradigms as we come to understand how cells use myriad molecular components to regulate millions of biochemical events that occur every minute of every cell cycle. Our expectation is that, one day, we will think of what used to be called “junk DNA” as a critical component of truly “expert” cellular control regimes.”
I must take exception to your analysis. You said:
“There are molecular components that, due to their physical properties, exhibit certain chemical affinities for one another. Which in turn affects the manner in which they are distributed, which in turn tends to produce amino acids with properties very similar to the properties of the amino acid which WOULD have been produced had the error not occurred.”
This is incorrect. The reason it’s even possible to have a genetic code with 64 different codons is that none of the four base pairs ACGT has any particular chemical affinity for any one over the others. If they did, a code would be impossible.
It’s not a chemical bias that reduces phenotypic effects of errors, it’s the Forward Error Correction redundancy scheme, parity, checksums and cellular genetic engineering as described by McClintock and Shapiro – See James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf
You said, “Upon investigation these analogies fall apart at the seams, and serve only to expose the fundamental differences that highlight the absurdity of attempting to extend inferences about the development of computer codes to the development of the molecular structure of DNA.”
From Answers.com: bioinformatics n. The use of computer science, mathematics, and information theory to model and analyze biological systems
Science Dictionary bioinformatics information technology as applied to the life sciences, especially the technology used for the collection and analysis of genomic data.
“Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.” -Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, page 17
Jason,
I was raised a Christian but by nature I am the sort of person who questions everything. (Ask my wife.) I went through multiple phases of putting my beliefs on the chopping block between age 18 and mid-30′s. About 7 years ago I was entertaining serious doubts as my younger brother was teetering on the edge of atheism. He is one of the smartest people I’ve ever met and he had a master’s degree in theology from one of the most conservative seminaries on the West Coast. He was asking very penetrating questions.
I reached a point where I said, “I am willing to completely discard my belief in God if that gets me closer to the truth. I just want to know the truth. If God does not exist then what has to be true in biology in order for the world to make sense?”
One of the key planks of my investigation was biological evolution. I floundered for quite awhile reading all the familiar arguments, feeling like both sides made excellent points and that both sides also had their fingers in their ears.
I asked this question as a communications engineer who had written an Ethernet book in 2002. It’s called Industrial Ethernet and it’s in its 2nd edition. You can find it on Amazon. I had a major epiphany one day when I suddenly realized for the first time that because DNA was a digital code, nearly every concept in that book *potentially* applied to DNA. So I started trying to connect the dots. Sure enough, nearly everything in DNA had a direct parallel in digital communication theory.
In fact what I’ve told you so far about Forward Error Correction, checksums, parity and even more sophisticated error correction mechanisms only scratches the surface. Even the simplest bacteria is a treasure trove of digital communication techniques, mechanisms and elegant design concepts. The more you know about communication systems, the more impressive it is. And as Hubert Yockey says, these comparisons are not analogies because the word code in biology is not an analogy, it’s literal. The best thing the people who design your cell phone can do is study bacteria.
I would like you to notice that because of your atheist worldview, you are literally mocking me for making these observations. And instead you are claiming that everything DNA does is simply a function of naturally occurring chemical affinities. My friend, that is like saying the reason your computer recognizes your camera when you plug in the USB cable is that there are negative charges in the camera that are attracted to the positive charges in the computer, and that it’s just as simple as that.
No, the handshakes of the USB protocol go vastly deeper than hand-waving explanations of voltage on a wire. In fact most origin of life theories based on chemicals are saying the equivalent of “We discovered the origin of copper wire and plastic, therefore we have almost explained USB.” They don’t understand that the cable [i.e. the chemistry] is only the first, most shallow layer of the onion. It’s like failing to notice that an engineer also spent six months writing a software driver so the camera would recognize the computer when it got plugged in. That’s where all the big discoveries lie.
I have been debating this online for six years. This is the subject of the longest running most viewed thread on what was originally Infidels, the largest atheist discussion board in the world – see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infidels. And what you see there is dozens of atheists ridiculing a trade published engineering professional speaking within his field of expertise about the most fundamental, non-controversial discovery in biology, the genetic code.
I invite you to consider that the atheist worldview literally has FORBIDDEN you to see order and levels of organization that are right in front of your face, because of its refusal to acknowledge the possibility of a designer. When you become willing to follow the evidence where it leads, when you are willing to learn from any discipline that has something to teach you, a whole new layer of discovery awaits.
Please be reminded that in the history of the world, science got started about a half dozen times. In ancient Egypt, in China, in India, in Islam, and in Greece and Rome. It coughed and sputtered and died in all those places. Only in Western Europe did the match light a fire that continues to burn to this day. Why Europe and not the other places? Because Christianity had a theology to support the idea of a God who created a world that obeys fixed, discoverable laws. WIsdom of Solomon 11:21 says “Thou hast ordered all things in weight and number and measure”. This was written 3000 years ago and to my knowledge it’s the first such statement ever to be made. It’s the foundation of modern science.
The other cultures had no such presupposition. Obviously science wasn’t born in atheism either. It was born in Christianity. Notice how many hugely influential scientists were deeply religious.
Science has gotten so large now that you can divorce it from its original source and get lost in it and perhaps never reach its limitations. (Which is why atheism exists now yet had negligible influence prior to the 1700′s.) But when you get to the edges of scientific knowledge, in order to move forward you always have to assume there’s another yet-undiscovered level of order. Notice the parallel to Gödel here. This literally has to be taken on faith. It is perhaps the most rewarded hypothesis in the history of philosophy.
Earlier in this thread, you had been making fun of me for discovering order. I invite you to follow the evidence where it leads and reach a place where you too can begin to make these new discoveries. You will find that the edges of science are a frontier of great beauty.
What possible difference does it make that christianity made the assumption of a universe guided by laws first?
If the norse had done it first it would still be accurate and the norse religion would still be myth.
There is no ‘right by association’, 2+2=4 even if hitler was the first to discover it. Finding a fact does not give any credibillity to other aspects of the finder than that fact.
You’re right. Edison shouldn’t get credit for discovering the light bulb, Newton shouldn’t get credit for discovering gravity and calculus, Einstein shouldn’t get credit for discovering relativity and Alexander Graham Bell gets no accolades for inventing the telephone. And we certainly shouldn’t grant them any street cred for happening upon those discoveries.
Oh, and by the way not only was Solomon the first person in ancient history to say that every created thing is quantifiable, St. Paul was the first to say that men and women and all races of people are fully equal.
1. Wisdom of Solomon wasn’t written 3000 years ago. More like 2100.
2. Don’t reclaim jewish books for chrisitanity, it doesn’t go well with people who know better. If anything, judaism must get the credit here.
3. Are you saying that the ancient greeks, the hindus and the buddhists never thought of the universe as ordered?
4. Are you saying that Paul never said that everyone who was not of his opinion was an evil heretic who deserved to die?
5. “Test it and take what’s good”. We should apply that to christianity. And leave the rest.
Ellas,
1. You may very well be right about the dating of Wisdom of Solomon.
2. All Christians claim Jewish books for Christianity. It logically follows because Jesus was the Messiah.
3. You’re welcome to find a quote where any of the ancient Greeks, Hindus or Buddhists explicitly say, as Wisdom does, that all things in the cosmos are measurable, weighable and countable.
4. Paul said, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
He also said, in Romans 9:
2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.
He bitterly mourned their rejection of their Messiah, much as Jesus wept over Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Paul didn’t want anyone to die, and neither did Jesus. But Israel chose to drink the judgment of the all those who murdered the prophets, as Jesus says in Matthew 23:
34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.
All this came true in 70AD when Jerusalem was decimated by Vespasian.
In the next verse Jesus says:
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”
The research scientist asks, “How does this work?”
The engineer asks, “How can I make this work?”
The philosopher asks, “What is the significance of this working at all?”
The psychologist asks, “Why do you need to know?”
There is a problem with determining the “inference to the best available explanation” because four different mind-sets will likely require different kinds of explanatory power in order to infer with any confidence.
Everything Perry posits is perfectly coherent within a particular world-view.
However I must chide Jason for this rash assertion :”DNA wasn’t created like any ARTIFICIALLY developed code invented by mankind.”
Since you admit that the origin is unknown, you can’t even say what DNA isn’t, pal!
Perry is much closer to a process of understanding when he suggests that artificial, man-made codes look suspiciously like the codes/languages being discovered in DNA.
If you, Jason, prefer to think, like Matt Ridley, that DNA is a “simple molecule… a frozen accident”, the unknown exception, the mystery outside the circle, then you need to know that you are sounding a lot more like the “God-did-it” brigade than Perry.
@Richard Morgan
Inference is based on repeated observations and it’s “explanatory power” is rooted in the ability of it’s predictions to remain consistent with continual observation. This process of continued observation is primarily carried out through both observation and experimentation.
In simple terms, the fundamental problem with inference arises when we attempt to generalize from a given number of observations (a series of singular existential statements, such as that every swan observed thus far has been white), to a UNIVERSAL existential statement (such as that ALL swans are white).
The problem with “mind sets” is that they tend to project BIAS, it is NOT a problem within the framework of inductive reasoning. This is why the current system of exploring and uncovering truth and knowledge about nature (SCIENCE, you may have heard of it) implements a system of checks and balances to remove personal bias as much as possible.
Yes, everything Perry says is perfectly consistent within his worldview, THAT is how his personal preference to have a creator, rather than not have one, manifests itself as BIAS. It is not consistent with what we observe in REALITY, but only consistent within the limited framework he personally prefers.
Just because I can’t elucidate step-by-step the precise sequence of events and circumstances under which DNA developed, doesn’t mean I can’t say very confidently and accurately that DNA is NOT a computer code and WASN’T developed by humans. I can also say with equal confidence and accuracy that the process of inference does not extend from the development of computer programming languages to the development of DNA. I therefore must chide YOU, kind sir, for the arrogance in which you ‘chide’ others based on your own intellectual vacuity.
Perry is not closer to a “process of understanding”, he is vehemently and rigidly engaged in a process of denialism and irrationality that has never led to a better understanding anything, ever. If you, Richard, prefer to think that I think “like Matt Ridley” because it makes it easier for you to dismiss me with a wave of the hand and gloss over the glaring flaws in Perry’s reasoning, then you aren’t just sounding a lot like the “God-did-it” brigade; you, like Perry, are most likely part of it.
Jason – I am happy to note that there are many things about which we agree.
“DNA is NOT a computer code” (though I’m not sure why you felt the need to make this point, since nobody has claimed that DNA is a computer code. Still, if it makes you happy….)
“DNA WASN’T developed by humans.” Er, yes. Excellent point. (Though I suspect that most of us have already realized that.)
My “arrogance”. Yep. And you don’t know the half of it! Fortunately being arrogant doesn’t make me wrong, just unpleasant, and I can live with that as, clearly, you can.
“you aren’t just sounding a lot like the “God-did-it” brigade; you, like Perry, are most likely part of it.”
Allow me to confirm that I am, indeed, part of it. A fully paid-up member of the family of Christ. But even that doesn’t make me wrong, however much your own anti-God bias would make you want to believe that.
Now, I’m checking your post again to see where we disagree…
Ah, yes, “THAT is how his personal preference to have a creator, rather than not have one, manifests itself as BIAS.”
You’re wrong.
He does not have a “personal preference” to have a Creator any more than you have a personal preference for the force of gravity. We discover what is, and we act accordingly.
Your mind-reading abilities have let you down badly there, as far as Perry Marshall is concerned. You were a lot more accurate when you were talking about my intellectual vacuity.
Oh, and thank you for teaching me a new word – “SCIENCE”. I must try to slip it into my posts more frequently. I’ve noticed that atheists tend use it when they’ve run out of arguments. It’s called scientism, and reveals a certain, shall we say, BIAS?
How does your theory about the origins of DNA fare with this recent discovery?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120203102.html?hpid=topnews
This discovery does seem to be consistent with the idea that bacteria are smart and purposefully adapt to their environment. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/intelligent-bacteria/
“Our findings are a reminder that life-as-we-know-it could be much more flexible than we generally assume or can imagine,” said Felisa Wolfe-Simon, 33, the biochemist who led the effort.
Perry! You’ve been saying this for at least five years!
In fact I’ve noticed that real discoveries made by real science consistently confirm the basis of the your ideas.
Indeed truth and reality are not always politically correct, are they?
Design
Not
Allowed?
Hey, great article, first of all. was surprised at how easily it explained a theory as complex as Godel’s.
But I have three primary objections. You state in your above article that “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle.” You take this proof, and assume that, because you can draw a circle around the universe, that there must exist something outside of it. My first objection is your assumption that this “something” must be a divine creator. We’ve established already that the concept of “infinity” can exist in other contexts, such as an infinite progression of time, or a never-ending void. A creator only becomes necessary if the universe cannot present its own causality. (That’s my next point)
My second objection is the fact that you assume that the universe is not infinite, and that therefore an infinity must exist outside of it. This claim is certainly contestable. We have not yet seen the edge of the universe in any direction, and will most likely never do so (because it’s expanding faster than light can reach us). The universe may very well have existed for all eternity, as multiple theories (such as the big bounce, quantum fluctuation, multiple universes, and temporal isolationism) suggest. Each of the above postulate a continuous universe, in which a “reset” button is continually hit, or bursts of low entropy are continually created.
My last objection is that you state that Godel’s theorem applies to all things, but you then ignore what happens after we “draw a circle” around he universe. If existence is indeed based upon infinite regression, then what created god? On what does god owe himself? What defines him? This seems like a double bind for you. Either:
A) All things must be defined by a “larger circle,” or are at least subject to causality, and therefore there are infinitely more things than god, or
B) Inductive reasoning has its limits and can only apply to things that do not explain themselves. The consequence of this assumption is that, if we can provide an origin story for the universe, then god cannot exist.
I have already answered every one of these objections multiple times in this thread. Read the comments and you’ll easily find my responses to each point.
Perry,
I would like you to know that i stumbled upon this article and thread and have never had more thoughts in my mind solidified. I am twenty-four and have went through a college drug phase in my life. I have always been a thinker and analyzer and that was always at the forefront of my mind when using, I couldn’t help it. In my observations of the multiple times I have used the drug, Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), I began to see a trend. (This is in assistance to taking drug effects on the human body class at Western IL Univ, therefore Ive been educated on how these natural substances work) The basis of human thought and problem solving will revolve in a circle. To make more clear in what I experienced, I truly tried to discern what my thought consisted of. Every time I asked myself a question, I would begin to go through the process of answering it and I would arrive at the question. Everytime. This has happened in others as well. Closing of eyes and entering deep thought and eyes would rotate in circles without the subject being aware. Many times. Not the solid experiment by any means, but if you know of anything like this, I would be interested. We as humans take pride in our ability to think “outside the box” of creativity, but we are always in this circle. Whether we get creative with our cyclical thought or not, history continues to repeat itself and self actualization cannot be achieved. Seasons, migratory habits, planets rotation around the sun, air patterns, galaxies. I personally like to look at it as a sphere. There are multiple spheres, and everything in each sphere contains that of the smaller. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were 11 spheres in this model. I have read some in string-theory and believe in that theory. If that theory could support this theorem in some way, that could be be quite effective I would think.
haha. I appreciate your article and will continue to read up.
I want to thank you for responding to my comment in such a timely manner…
Hi, Perry
I’ve just come across your website (using the Google search terms “Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem” together with the word “multiverse”. (The relevant page from your website appeared as the second citation – very impressive – although, oddly, I couldn’t find the promised reference to “multiverse”.) I have to admit to you that, as a professional physicist, I started to read your discussion on Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem assuming that it would turn out to be just another site with jargon phrases connected by steps of questionable logic (sorry!). However, I was surprised – delighted, even – to see that your own thinking is very close to my own, as are the conclusions of your train of thought.
Like you, I deduce from Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem the existence of a higher system, outside of the one in which the original “Gödel sentence” is expressed. I was a little more obsessive (nerdy), perhaps, in defining the conditions for this to be applicable to our universe, and also to addressing the apparently infinite series of meta-universes that results upon continuing to apply the theorem at each higher level. I was astonished when it turned out that the series stops, however, because you get to a point where the increasingly sophisticated mathematics of each meta-universe is finally able to prove the Gödel sentence (which, of course, cannot be proved in the mathematics of our own universe). In addition, as you come to the end of the series of meta-universes, you find that you end up with a system that not only explains all the universes below it (including our own) but is also a complete explanation of itself! (In my website, somewhat irreverently, I have called this the God Equation.)
I realize by now that I sound a complete crackpot! However, please don’t judge me before you check out my website http://www.godel-universe.com where these ideas are explained more fully.
(How do you have time to do this with all of the other work you do for your business?)
Alan McKenzie
Bristol
England
Glad you found this! Fascinating discoveries you are making.
How could I not squeeze this between the business activities? This is the important stuff.
A pleasure to meet you, and best of success with your book.
Perry
“Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove”
is simply not true; and there’s many other things you wrote that are higly approximated or just false.
Articles like this one are dangerous as they spread pseudo-science.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is one of the most misunderstood ones though; and, unfortunately one of the most misused to prove just anything and its contrary.
Ex falso sequitur quodlibet
“simply not true”?
OK.
Maybe you would be good enough to enlighten us, Davide?
Thank you.
Perry,
For the sake of argument, I will concede that DNA carries out many of it’s error correcting functions in much the same way as codes that have been developed by humans. I regret even engaging you on this point because your knowledge in coding languages obviously allows you to elucidate the similarities between the two codes on a more technical level than my own limited knowledge of the subject will allow for. Because it is completely besides the point in the first place, the problem with your inference is much more fundamental, and I hope I can elaborate further at this time.
All known codes, except for DNA, were in fact created by…human minds. It seems to me to be very unlikely, to me at least, that DNA was created by a human mind as well. Therefore, it is the EXCEPTION. There aren’t any examples of non-human created codes other than DNA. It does not logically follow that because DNA wasn’t created by a human mind, it must have been created by an intelligent, invisible,
supernatural entity instead. “All codes are created by human minds” is the only conclusion we can arrive at with inductive logic based on our experience with codes, and DNA is the exception to it.
Based solely on inductive logic alone, there is nothing we can say about the origin of the genetic code, because DNA is the exception to the rule. Given the historical track record of supernatural explanations failing dismally to explain naturally occurring phenomena, it makes it all the more absurd to extend your inference beyond it’s logical boundaries.
What this means for you Perry, is that in order for your preferred explanation for the origins of DNA to hold, you need to offer up coherent evidence that explains why we should accept this explanation WITHOUT using this inference, since as we’ve established, DNA is the exception to the rule.
So my questions to you are: What evidence BESIDES inference can you provide that indicates DNA was created by an intelligent, supernatural agency? Why should we reject all possible natural explanations and prefer a supernatural one?
Jason,
Let’s not lose sight of the original question. The original question is:
“Does science give us reasons to believe that life is designed, or do purely naturalistic explanations do the job?”
No one is claiming or expecting to pull back the curtain and say “Hey look, there God is.” Everybody already understands that.
So what does science say?
DNA is a code, and all codes we know the origin of are designed. DNA has checksums and all checksums we know the origin of are designed. DNA has recursive programming and all recursive programs we know the origin of are designed.
Microsoft Windows Vista takes 25 Gigabytes of memory. The human genome compresses all the plans for a human body, along with its growth and development, into 0.75 Gigabytes of memory. And every cell fits that data in smaller physical space than any hard drive man has ever designed.
The human body is vastly superior to Windows Vista. The code in DNA is vastly superior to human code. Both in terms of data compression and storage mechanisms.
Therefore, to conclude that humans designed DNA would be utterly silly. Craig Venter’s lab designed a cell from mostly borrowed parts and it cost them $40 million. Something incomprehensibly greater than humans is directly and unambiguously implied.
“Evolution produces such a strong illusion of design it has fooled almost every human who ever lived.” -Richard Dawkins. Evolution itself requires code to exist first. So far as we know, code always requires design.
In science, is it valid to reject an inference because you have not directly observed the thing that was inferred?
How about dark energy and dark matter in the universe? We haven’t seen those things, but many scientists believe them. Why?
How about black holes? We haven’t seen those either.
How about string theory? Has anyone actually seen the strings?
How about our assumption that the laws of physics were the same 1 million years ago as they are now? Have we actually tested that?
Science relies on inference to the best explanation, does it not? Don’t we hypothesize dark matter and black holes because they best explain what we see?
If you accept the high probability of dark matter then why would you not also accept the high probability of God?
Jason, have you not had dozens of conversations with theists where you said, “Show me the evidence and I’ll believe you”? I am now showing you the evidence you demanded all along. Are you willing to follow scientific evidence where it leads?
You had been unwilling to consider the possibility that there was any kind of designer besides humans. Therefore you concluded that we could know nothing about the origin of DNA.
You reject inference of God = you know nothing.
I accept inference of God = I know something.
What do I know?
I know that DNA is a fabulously crafted code with fractal data compression and recursive programming. I know that it has an incredible checksum mechanism that is only barely understood at this time. I know there is no Junk DNA. (The atheists popularized that view. The ID people would never say something so slanderous and anti-scientific as that. How can you find order and organization in something you’ve declared to be junk?) The atheists tell us about vestigial organs. Those who are skeptical of atheist doctrines discover that those organs perform useful functions. The world must never be allowed to forget how much damage atheism has done to science in the 20th century.
The God hypothesis gives me ground for always expecting another layer of ORDER and REGULARITY in nature. And in the codes of DNA.
Why are so many atheists scientists not practicing real science? Why are they vandalizing it with anti-scientific claims such as “evolutionary mutations are driven by random copying errors”? Where’s the experimental evidence to back up that claim, Jason? Has anyone ever shown you an experiment where that turned out to be true?
Jason, belief in God has been in the very foundations of science since it began. Science didn’t grow out of atheism, it grew out of Christian Western Europe.
Christians don’t automatically assume that the finger of God is actively behind every whim of nature. Christians believe what Solomon said: “Thou hast ordered all things in weight and number and measure.” That the universe obeys rules, that it has lawlike behavior. Christians believed that long before Isaac Newton.
Consider 1 Kings 19 and what it implies about the relationship between God and nature:
The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.” Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.
I’ve been showing you the wonders of DNA and thus far you’ve been fighting my observations tooth and nail. Jason, you don’t have to fight anymore. You don’t have to embrace atheism anymore.
You don’t have to cling to this dogma of randomness and accident and purposelessness that has marred the practice of science for 200 years. Because today we have given you every reason you could ever ask for to infer, based on real scientific evidence, that the universe has a Designer.
“DNA is a code, and all codes we know the origin of are designed.”
The set of codes you describe refer to codes that were ‘designed’ by human beings. That is the fundamental qualifier in this dubious line of reasoning that you’ve conveniently left out. The conclusion does not follow from a valid induction, your induction leaves out a critical qualifier and is invalid as well.
The genetic code cannot be part of the set of codes you have defined as having been “designed” unless you also allow that they were “designed by human beings”. Codes that were designed by human intelligence are the only class of codes that you have defined as being part of this set. DNA clearly was not designed by human beings, and the class of codes you have defined only allows for codes that were designed by human beings. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use a class of codes that DNA is clearly not a part of to make an inference about the purposeful “design” of DNA. The “designed” codes you are referring have only been defined as those designed by human beings.
Perry, the class of codes you have defined includes only those “designed” by human beings. It does not extend to the genetic code because as you have agreed, the genetic code is not a code that was invented by human beings. Therefore, it does not follow by inference that the genetic code was “designed” at all, this is an inappropriate use of inductive reasoning because we can only generalize from codes that have been designed by humans.
Develop a model that shows how an intelligent entity that is not a human being can purposefully develop a functioning code. You cannot infer design without also inferring human design. Unless you can show how something besides a human can design a code, you have nothing significant to say about the genetic code at all.
Jason,
DNA is a communication with encoder, coded message and decoder according to Shannon’s definitions (1948) as described by Yockey (2005). See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/solve for a formal outline of these definitions and links to sources. None of the formal definitions of code specify a designer. It just happens that all codes we know the origin of are designed.
There are millions of communication systems. All but one were designed by humans. There is one that remains, DNA, and we do not know the origin of it. We are asking whether science provides us with good reasons for concluding that DNA was probably designed.
You said: “The genetic code cannot be part of the set of codes you have defined as having been “designed” unless you also allow that they were “designed by human beings”.”
We do have examples of genetic code designed by human beings: The cell recently engineered by Craig Venter and company. They got DNA to do something different, something that they wanted to do, by designing it and assembling the genes and chromosomes as they saw fit. We know of no other way to accomplish such a feat.
Thus we can construct the following logical statement:
1. DNA has every appearance of being designed
2. It cannot have been designed by human beings
3. Therefore it was designed by some other being or beings.
This is every bit as logical as the SETI project which searches for codes transmitted by some race of beings far across the cosmos. It is founded on the exact same line of reasoning.
Your own reasoning excludes, at the outset, the possibility of anything other than human intelligence. You’re trying to call foul but you have not given us any good reason to deny the possibility of non-human intelligence. I’m still waiting for you to offer a valid reason why such an inference is forbidden. The only way to forbid this inference is to declare the original question invalid. You have not provided any reason to do so.
Meanwhile not only have I inferred from information theory that DNA is designed, I’ve also shown that Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem infers an infinite, immaterial conscious being as a necessary axiom for a logical universe. The two conclusions match perfectly.
Jason, you and any and all of your atheist friends, I challenge you to come here and offer a logical, mathematical or scientific proof that God does not exist.
When you have done so, you can then forbid me from reaching this conclusion that you are so uncomfortable with.
Until you do that, I have the full backing of science in reaching this conclusion. We can be every bit as certain that DNA is designed as gravity, entropy and the laws of thermodynamics. Because the genetic code gives us 100% inference to design in biology and 0% inference to any other explanation.
Finally I saw your response to Richard about the difference between simple codes and complex codes. He said:
1. A simple form of intelligence can create a simple code;
2. A smart intelligence can create a smart code;
3. the intelligence that would have been required to produce the code in DNA is inordinately superior to any known human intelligence”
You said, “I will concede to none of this tripe.” Is Richard pushing your buttons?
I think we can all agree that a six year old can understand Morse code and create something similar. Morse code is a simple code.
I think we can likewise agree that it takes a team of Ph.D.’s to design TCP/IP. TCP/IP is a smart code. I’ve never seen a six year old do something like that. Have you?
DNA is vastly smarter than TCP/IP. Earlier in this thread you were mocking me for making statements like this. If you think what I’m saying is tripe, then demonstrate your credentials for discussing codes. Meanwhile I’ll make a prediction: We’ll be unraveling the wonders of the DNA protocol for hundreds of years to come. Remember, Windows is 25Gig and Human Genome is 0.75 Gig. Which actually contains more information? It’s so elegant it makes the PhD’s who designed TCP/IP look like orangutans with screwdrivers.
Jason, show me a code that’s not designed. All you need is one. Then you will have grounds for rejecting scientific inference.
“Jason, show me a code that’s not designed. All you need is one. Then you will have grounds for rejecting scientific inference.”
I have shown you a code that isn’t “designed” by the criteria you are putting forward. The criteria for design you have put forward only includes codes that were the invention of human intelligence. DNA cannot be said to have been “designed” at all, since human intelligence is the only intelligence in which we have observed this cognitive ability. This is not a “scientific inference”, in fact, it is not even an inference at all. As we’ve established, induction only allows us to extend this line of reasoning to codes designed by humans.
“Your own reasoning excludes, at the outset, the possibility of anything other than human intelligence.”
My reasoning does not exclude this possibility, and I’ve never stated as much. It simply asks that you provide convincing evidence for me to consider such a claim. If you propose that a non-human intelligence exists, awesome. Define what a “non-human intelligence” is. Describe how we can perform a test to distinguish it from human intelligence. Construct a model of this disembodied intelligence and use it to make accurate predictions about future observations and the results of experiments. If you have yet to put forward anything other than errantly applied logic, then there is no reason to consider such a thing.
“You’re trying to call foul but you have not given us any good reason to deny the possibility of non-human intelligence.”
I’m not asking you to deny it. I’m asking you to provide evidence for it.
“I’m still waiting for you to offer a valid reason why such an inference is forbidden.”
I’ve given you a valid reason, you’re free to strangle the logic to death if you feel that is “forbidding” it. I’ve explained why it is not a logically consistent application of inductive reasoning, in turn you’ve offered no valid reason why we should accept it.
“The only way to forbid this inference is to declare the original question invalid.”
The inference is invalid because it is not logically consistent. It relies on a set of codes to make a generalization about human intelligence, that human intelligence is required to make a code. To infer the existence of an immaterial, non-human intelligence in the particular instance of a code that was not the product of human intelligence is absurd unless you can show that some other form of intelligence exists. If you wanted one example of a code that wasn’t designed, this is it: DNA. Unless you can provide evidence of the existence of a non-human, non-biological intelligence there is no reason to accept your inference in the first place.
So in answer to your question:
“We are asking whether science provides us with good reasons for concluding that DNA was probably designed.”
No, it most certainly doesn’t. You still cannot infer design without also inferring human design. Since the genetic code clearly cannot have been designed by human intelligence, we cannot make inductive generalizations about it based on examples of codes designed by human intelligence, because it wasn’t designed by human intelligence. This means we cannot even infer that it was “designed”, unless you can not only show that an immaterial, non-human intelligence exists, but describe how it could “design” anything. Otherwise it does not logically follow to even infer “design”.
“We do have examples of genetic code designed by human beings: The cell recently engineered by Craig Venter and company.”
I wasn’t arguing that we don’t have examples of genetic code designed by human beings. You clearly did not even remotely comprehend what I was arguing. What I was stating is that the genetic code itself obviously was not designed by human beings, and if the set of codes you are defining only includes examples of codes that were designed by human beings, then DNA is not part of this set. This means you cannot inductively derive an inference of “design” because the set only allows you to generalize to “design by human intelligence”. It is not a logically consistent example of inductive reasoning because “human intelligence” is the only context in which you have defined “design”. DNA does not fit within this definition, consequently it is inappropriate to imply “design” since design is contingent upon “human intelligence”. Again, I’m not rejecting the possibility that an immaterial, intelligent, creative agent could have created the genetic code. I’m simply asking you to provide me with evidence for it.
“1. DNA has every appearance of being designed”
No, it doesn’t. You have only provided examples of codes designed by human beings, therefore DNA cannot have “every appearance of being designed” unless it was designed by human beings. But since you establish with the following:
“2. It cannot have been designed by human beings”
Then we cannot infer that it was “designed” since our only definition of “designed” refers to codes designed by human beings. It is illogical to conclude:
“3. …it was designed by some other being or beings.”
It does not inductively follow that “some other being or beings” must have “designed” it. The only thing we can logically conclude is that the genetic code is a truly unique code that was not designed through the action or influence of human cognition. But we don’t have any examples of any other intelligent entity with the same or greater cognitive abilities. So it cannot even be said to have been “designed” at all.
“We can be every bit as certain that DNA is designed as gravity, entropy and the laws of thermodynamics. ”
No we can’t, actually. We can’t be certain about it at all because generalizations made from specific instances of codes designed by human beings do not extend to codes that weren’t designed by human beings. If it wasn’t designed through the action of human cognition, then we can’t assert that it was “designed” at all. Unless you can provide an example of some other form of intelligent cognition that designs codes, then we don’t have any reason to accept that the genetic code was “designed”.
“Because the genetic code gives us 100% inference to design in biology and 0% inference to any other explanation.”
We’ve already discussed why this is not a valid inference. It does not make more sense the more times you repeat it. Since it would be absurd to suggest that human beings “designed” the genetic code, it is absurd to suggest the genetic code was “designed”. What sort of intelligent cognitive entity designs codes other than human beings?
“I think we can all agree that a six year old can understand Morse code and create something similar. Morse code is a simple code.”
I think we can also agree that Morse code is a code created by the action of human intelligence.
“I think we can likewise agree that it takes a team of Ph.D.’s to design TCP/IP. TCP/IP is a smart code. I’ve never seen a six year old do something like that. Have you?”
Naturally, we could agree this is also an example of a code designed through the action of human intelligence.
“DNA is vastly smarter than TCP/IP.”
It does not fall under the same category because it was not designed by human beings. Any generalizations you can make about a group of codes that only includes codes designed by human intelligence may not apply to a code that wasn’t designed by human intelligence. Including the inference that it was “designed”. You still need to show that another type of intelligence exists to design it otherwise you can’t even say that it was “designed” at all.
I said: “You’re trying to call foul but you have not given us any good reason to deny the possibility of non-human intelligence.”
You said: I’m not asking you to deny it. I’m asking you to provide evidence for it.
Jason, would you consider immediate healing of blind and deaf people through prayer, documented and published in a peer reviewed secular scientific journal with statistical data on before / after hearing and vision tests, to be valid corroborating evidence of divine activity?
I will never forget the look of amazement and wonder on those children’s faces when they saw cows for the first time in their lives and I told them that that was where milk came from. Later, they were able to actually see milk spurting from the swollen udders. (One little girl exclaimed, “Yuk. I’m never going to drink milk again”!)
It was in 1965. I was teaching in a Primary School in a very poor (socially deprived) area of Nottingham.
Most of the pupils in my class of 8 year-olds had never been outside the city, never seen the countryside, farms, the sea etc.
They had only ever seen milk in bottles, usually delivered to their doorstep when finances permitted.
I suppose their reasoning could have been : “The only milk we know about is delivered in bottles, therefore any milk that is not delivered in a bottle comes from an unknown source.”
Telling them that it came from a large, doe-eyed, dribbling animal called a “cow” would have been ludicrous for them.
Fortunately it only took a day’s outing to a milk-producing farm in order to change their ideas. That raised their lactic Zeitgeist.
Jason, your entire reasoning seems to be based on an attitude, “You haven’t shown me a cow, and I won’t go to the farm.”
I understand your need for an uninterrupted series of verifiable phenomena before being able to accept an inductive “proof” or even an inference to the best explanation. You want an unbroken, straight line.
Everything you say would be valid and irrefutable except for one fatal flaw – the nature of codes/languages. The starting point of this whole subject.
Before going any further, would you be good enough to tell us what you mean when you use the word “code”. Perhaps we are using the same word, but entirely different concepts.
I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but if, for example, you prefer to say that the structure of DNA just gives it a code-like appearance, then continuing this discussion would be futile.
So – over to you, pal.
Oh, and I am holding my breath. This is all extremely interesting.
I love, and am open to, being proved wrong.
Perry,
The question you asked is as follows:
“Jason, would you consider immediate healing of blind and deaf people through prayer, documented and published in a peer reviewed secular scientific journal with statistical data on before / after hearing and vision tests, to be valid corroborating evidence of divine activity?”
My answer to you is that I couldn’t confidently say anything about any research until I had actually seen the research. You’re asking me to accept something I haven’t even seen yet, which defeats the whole purpose of “peer review”.
The authors of this research would have elucidated their methodology in their article, including the sample size, demographic, whether or not this was compared to a control population and whether or not the control was blinded. I would also want to see their was accurate source literature cited in the article, and see how the whether the work itself has been cited favorably or unfavorably in other journals.
I would also ask you to define what “devine” means and how this relates to intelligence because previously we were talking about intelligence as it relates to codes. I personally would not consider “devine” as analogous to “intelligent” but I want to know how YOU define the two simply to figure out how they even relate to one another in your mind. If something “devine” happens I want to know how you understand this as something “intelligent” happening because up until now I didn’t realize they were interchangeable terms.
But first, I would like to see you respond to my most recent post to Richard as this was directed at you both. Please explain how your inference is even logically valid in the first place without being circular.
Jason,
Here is a scientific study of hands-on healing of blind and deaf people in Pemba, Mozambique. Published in Southern Medical Journal, September 2010. 24 people were tested; hearing of deaf subjects improved by 10-60 decibels. Vision of some of the blind subjects also improved, ranging from none to 15X.
Further documented instances of healing prayer are available at http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles/
Perry,
I’m going to just dive right in:
“1. The pattern in DNA is a code.”
Perry, as I’m sure you are aware, the “code” part of “The pattern in DNA” you are referring to is the “Genetic Code”. Your subject (genetic code) is already a member of the set your predicate (codes) refers to. Thus, in stating that the genetic code is a code, you haven’t made a useful categorical proposition about anything. You’ve merely restated what was implicit in the subject to begin with.
Perry, this is not even a valid categorical proposition. This is a useless repetition of meaning known as a “tautology” and it means your first premise is utterly useless. In order to provide a useful categorical proposition, your copula needs to either affirm or deny something useful about your subject. In this instance, you’ve simply substituted “pattern in DNA” for “genetic code”, but “genetic code” is already a member of a subset of “codes”, so you’re not affirming or denying anything that wasn’t implicit in the subject in the first place. You aren’t stating anything more useful than X is X.
What this statement SHOULD be saying is something useful about the Genetic Code. For example, since we’ve previously agreed the Genetic Code is not of “known origin”, premise 1 should correctly state that “the Genetic Code is not of known origin”. This way it will actually say X is Y rather than simply saying X is X.
“2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.”
“All codes we know the origin of…” is important because previously we have established the Genetic Code is NOT of known origin, so the Genetic Code cannot be part of this subset. Thus, we first establish with our first and second premise two subsets of C; those of KNOWN origin, and those of NOT KNOWN origin.
“All codes we know the origin of are designed.”
We noted that our subject is a subset of codes, those of known origin. This proposition makes a universal affirmation in which “design” is predicated upon the set “codes of known origin”.
From here, it IS possible for us to construct logically valid statements to make true inferences from the categorical propositions we’ve made so far. For instance:
1. ASCII is a code of known origin.
2. All codes of known origin are designed.
3. Therefore, we have “100% inference” that ASCII was designed.
See? That wasn’t so hard, was it? Let’s try another:
1. HTML is a code of known origin.
2. All codes of known origin are designed.
3. Therefore, we have “100% inference” that HTML was designed.
Now let’s take a look at a conclusion that ISN’T arrived at as a logical consequence of our premises:
1. The Genetic Code is a code of unknown origin.
2. All codes of known origin are designed.
3. Therefore, we have 100% inference the Genetic Code is designed.
What I think you completely missed the bus on is that the only kind of “100% inference” is a form of DEDUCTIVE reasoning in which the conclusion is shown to be a LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE of the premises, stated as a syllogism. In order for your inference to be “100%”, you have to arrive at the conclusion as a logical consequence of your premises. This argument falls flat on it’s face in the very first premise.
In fact, it could also be true that:
1. The Genetic Code is a code of unknown origin.
2. All codes of known origin are designed.
3. The Genetic Code was not designed.
The conclusion of this argument could also be true; since the Genetic Code is of unknown origin, it could also be the case that it wasn’t designed. But it isn’t arrived at by way of our premises, and we have no reason to believe it any more than we have reason to believe “design” because in every instance “design” is predicated on “known origin” and the Genetic Code is not a member of that subset.
At the very most Perry, you could proclaim, “I have asked a question!” if the conclusion of your “argument” was simply to ask “Was the Genetic Code designed?” and to seek out some means of testing your inference. But instead you provide nothing but sloppy syllogistic sophistry and “testing” your inference amounts to nothing more than referring back to the inference itself.
Jason,
You still don’t understand my syllogism. Re-wording it:
1. All codes we do know the origin of are designed; there are no counterexamples of codes that are not designed.
3. The pattern in DNA is the one code that we do not know the origin of.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
You said, “Your subject (genetic code) is already a member of the set your predicate (codes) refers to.”
Apparently you feel it’s necessary to misquote me in order to attempt to prove my logic is flawed. I have already made it clear that the origin of DNA was the question from the outset. I have made it perfectly clear that my subject (genetic code) is not a member of the set my predicate (codes) refers to.
There are a million codes. We know the origin of 999,999 of them: Design by conscious agents, no exceptions. The origin of 1 is unknown. The only available inference is that it was also designed by a conscious agent. Since we know that conscious agent wasn’t us, we logically infer that we are not the only conscious agents.
Your “syllogisms” about ASCII and HTML are not syllogisms. They are just inaccurate statements. We don’t have to infer, we know the specific origin of ASCII and HTML. Once again you make “syllogisms” that tell us nothing, vs. my real syllogism that tells us something.
You say:
In fact, it could also be true that:
1. The Genetic Code is a code of unknown origin.
2. All codes of known origin are designed.
3. The Genetic Code was not designed.
Yes, this could be true. But you have not yet presented any facts which infer that this could be true. To reach this conclusion you have ignored known inferences and not provided one that supports your case.
Jason, show me a code that you can demonstrate is not designed. All you need is one.
Perry,
Previously I provided you with syllogisms about ASCII and HTML which stated that ASCII and HTML belonged to a subset of codes herein referred to as “designed” codes. In this case, we were making a proposition about ASCII called a “categorical proposition”, which provides a “100% inference” that ASCII belongs to subset of codes herein referred to as “designed”.
You incorrectly stated that these were “not syllogisms” and they were “just inaccurate statements”, so I think that the most pertinent matter at hand be to go over some fundamentals as clearly you are encountering some confusion.
A “syllogism” is a form of deductive reasoning that makes a proposition (conclusion) and shows how it is inferred as a logical consequence of two other propositions (premises). If the conclusion is shown to be a logical consequence of the premises, then the argument is said to be logically “valid”. In short, if the premises are true then the conclusion can be said to be true as well. This is the only type of inference that can be said to be a “100% inference”, and it is a form of DEDUCTIVE reasoning.
In this example, our conclusion makes a categorical proposition about ASCII that is derived from two other categorical propositions about codes:
1. ASCII is a code of known origin.
2. All codes of known origin are designed.
3. Therefore, we have “100% inference” that ASCII was designed.
A “categorical proposition” contains two categorical terms (subject and predicate) and employs a “copula” to affirm or deny the former or the latter. For example, the copulas “is” and “of” can be used to affirm that a term or an object is a member of a set or class. Consider again the following statement:
1. ASCII is a code of known origin.
Here we make two important categorical propositions that affirm our subject “ASCII” is a member of the class “codes” of the set “known origin”. Substituting A for “ASCII” , C for “codes”, and K for “known origin” we can now state:
1. A is a C of K
Isn’t this fun! We can see clearly how we’ve made a valid categorical proposition about ASCII; we’ve assigned it membership in a class and a set! As we can see our first proposition obviously follows valid form and is certainly true. Moving on:
2. All codes of known origin are designed.
This is our next important categorical proposition. It makes a “universal affirmation” about all members of our class “codes” within the set “known origin” possessing the property “design”. Assigning D to our new property, we can thus state:
2. All C of K are D
Now we’re really heating up! Let’s take a look at our conclusion:
3. Therefore, we have “100% inference” that ASCII was designed.
Our conclusion simply states:
3. A is D
So if we now look at our abbreviated syllogism, it looks like:
1. A is a C of K
2. All C of K are D
3. A is D
You find it useless because you have FOREKNOWLEDGE about the conclusion. Perry Marshall already knows the conclusion is true. But the point of a syllogism is not whether or not it provides Perry Marshall with something he doesn’t already know, it’s whether or not we can derive a conclusion that isn’t implicit in any of the premises. THAT is what makes it valid, true, and useful.
I’m going to give you a bit to let this all sink in before we move on Perry, then I’m going to go over the new syllogisms you’ve posted. As an aside, inserting a semicolon before making a new categorical proposition is not considered “valid form”. This would be a “new premise”. So in the meantime I’d appreciate it if you could take care of that and we’ll chit chat some more soon.
You make some excellent points, Jason. Allow me to extend them somewhat.
You seem to agree that DNA is a code-bearing molecule.
You also agree that every code we know has been
a) created, and
b) created by a human intelligence.
You correctly point out that DNA is an exception to (b) but you seem to accept (a) still applies. So far, so good.
Let us agree that we do not know the source of the code in DNA. That is, self-evidently, one aspect which makes it unique among all other (known) codes. But there is more than that.
Can we concede that:
1. A simple form of intelligence can create a simple code;
2. A smart intelligence can create a smart code;
3. the intelligence that would have been required to produce the code in DNA is inordinately superior to any known human intelligence (including my mother-in-law, and that’s saying something!)
So, we’ve established that the agent that created DNA is unknown and vastly superior to human intelligence.
Where the comparison with human intelligence falls down is in the fact that our double-helix molecule preceded human intelligence. In fact human intelligence is an expression of the potential intelligence present in the earliest form of DNA.
Now things are getting complicated:
a) a unique, unknown (invisible) source;
b) a vastly superior intelligence;
c) a creative intelligence that existed long before homo sapiens.
This is all beginning to look a bit, er, supernatural, don’t you think?
PS If we are able to recognise intelligence as a source, it is clearly because our intelligence is capable of recognising similarities – while remaining vastly inferior. How strange that ignorant, bronze-age goat-herders were able to say that God created man in his own image. Must have been a goat-herder who took night classes, huh?
You seem to be missing the point Richard. Allow me to further elaborate since we’re apparently not on the same page.
“You seem to agree that DNA is a code-bearing molecule”
That’s not generally how I would define it, no.
“You also agree that every code we know has been
a) created, and
b) created by a human intelligence.”
No, I do not agree at all. Every example Perry has provided to define a code is an example of a code created by a human intelligence. Consequently, I cannot accept (a), because we have not established that we can have (a) without (b) using these examples. Therefore, a code cannot be said to have been “created” unless it can also be said to have been created by a human intelligence.
“You correctly point out that DNA is an exception to (b) but you seem to accept (a) still applies.”
No I don’t. I have not accepted (a). If we cannot say that DNA was created by a human intelligence, then we cannot say it was “created” at all.
“Let us agree that we do not know the source of the code in DNA.”
Okaaay…
“That is, self-evidently, one aspect which makes it unique among all other (known) codes. But there is more than that.”
Oh joy!
“Can we concede that:
1. A simple form of intelligence can create a simple code;
2. A smart intelligence can create a smart code;
3. the intelligence that would have been required to produce the code in DNA is inordinately superior to any known human intelligence (including my mother-in-law, and that’s saying something!)”
I will concede to none of this tripe.
1. First define what a “simple form of intelligence” is and show me a simple code it has created. Are there any examples of simple coding languages created by simple intelligences that you can think of?
2. Define what a “smart intelligence” is and define a “smart code”. Provide an example of a smart code being created by a smart intelligence.
3. We haven’t established that DNA required an “intelligence” to be produced, because the only intelligence we’ve established is human intelligence, remember?
“So, we’ve established that the agent that created DNA is unknown and vastly superior to human intelligence.”
We haven’t even established that an intelligent agent had to ‘create’ DNA.
“Where the comparison with human intelligence falls down is in the fact that our double-helix molecule preceded human intelligence.”
When “human” comes down, “intelligence” falls down with it, because human intelligence is the only kind of intelligence we know of that can produce codes, and the codes from which Perry is drawing his fallacious inference have only been defined as such.
“In fact human intelligence is an expression of the potential intelligence present in the earliest form of DNA.”
Human intelligence can be said to be no such thing. I don’t know how you are concocting these dubious definitions. In general human intelligence is simply a property of the mind comprised of many related cognitive abilities. It certainly is no “expression of the potential intelligence present in the earliest form of DNA.” That doesn’t even mean anything. There are tests for intelligence, tell me how we would even test for an “expression of potential intelligence”. This is ludicrous reasoning.
“Now things are getting complicated:”
Things are getting downright absurd.
“a) a unique, unknown (invisible) source
b) a vastly superior intelligence;
c) a creative intelligence that existed long before homo sapiens.
This is all beginning to look a bit, er, supernatural, don’t you think?”
I think not. Not until you or Perry can provide a non-human based example of an intelligence with the cognitive capacity to produce a code.
“If we are able to recognise intelligence as a source, it is clearly because our intelligence is capable of recognising similarities – while remaining vastly inferior.”
You haven’t recognized any intelligence other than human intelligence.
“How strange that ignorant, bronze-age goat-herders were able to say that God created man in his own image. Must have been a goat-herder who took night classes, huh?”
How strange that a highly superstitious, largely illiterate population of people were able to invent supernatural explanations for things they didn’t understand? You’re right, that is strange. That has never, ever happened before.
Hi Jason.
1) If you do not define DNA (‘describe’ would be a better verb here, but anyway…) as a code-bearing molecule, and since this is a description that I have learned from real scientists and not invented myself, could you suggest a better description? I’m open to new perspectives on this.
2) You do not agree that DNA was “created”? Not even by inexplicable (or unexplained) natural processes? That is a coherent position to take, since you don’t even agree that DNA is a code-bearing molecule. And, in a sense, that marks the end of the discussion.
Having denied the essential quality of DNA, you can then say anything you like about it.
If we are not talking about codes, would you like to discuss Mahler’s third symphony, perhaps, or evidence of Shakespeare’s unresolved Oedipus complex in the characterization of MacBeth? Or the upcoming Six Nations Tournament?
(Don’t be offended by my frivolity – I have more spare time than is good for me, I suspect.)
3) Having evinced the idea of a code from DNA, strangely, you then go on to talk about Perry’s examples of codes. I don’t see why you would need to do that, though I’m sure you have your reasons, which I would be delighted to discover.
4) You said : ” I have not accepted (a). If we cannot say that DNA was created by a human intelligence, then we cannot say it was “created” at all.
You very wisely protected the word “created” with quote marks. Because “created” implies a “creator” and we can’t be having that, can we? How would you prefer to describe the origins of DNA – “emerged”? “arose”? “appeared”? Just three suggestions to comfortably eliminate the worrying need for an intelligent agent. Maybe you have a more appropriate one. Again, I’m open to new ideas.
5) You said : I will concede to none of this tripe.
1. First define what a “simple form of intelligence” is and show me a simple code it has created. Are there any examples of simple coding languages created by simple intelligences that you can think of?
My reply : You still want to talk about codes, after what you said at the beginning? That’s nice. My six year-old grandson has invented a fairly sophisticated code for communicating his desire for cookies to me, without his mother being able to realise what is going on. But it’s still a simple code
2. Define what a “smart intelligence” is and define a “smart code”. Provide an example of a smart code being created by a smart intelligence.
My reply : By using the words “simple” and “smart” I was just trying to use accessible language.
When I look at a score for a Beethoven Symphony, I see a very smart code. It will be a while before my grandson is up to that standard.
3. We haven’t established that DNA required an “intelligence” to be produced, because the only intelligence we’ve established is human intelligence, remember?
My reply : OK, you’re back to accepting code-like nature of DNA. That’s a relief. I can always respect a person who is prepared to reverse his position within the same post. The only intelligence we know is human intelligence. But you’re not going to do a Black Swan on me, are you?
You haven’t ruled out the possibility of a superior intelligence and, to be more accurate a “human-like” intelligence, which is why you need to wriggle out of the possibility that DNA was “created”.
I’m sorry, Jason, but it is so flagrant that you really don’t want to allow for any other intelligent agent at work in the universe, that you are grasping at straws. I promise you, I am trying to keep up with you. I’m doing my best.
You said : We haven’t even established that an intelligent agent had to ‘create’ DNA.
My reply : Correct. That’s not what we’re trying to do in the last analysis. We’re trying to determined the origins of the codes in DNA. (You’re OK with that now? I can talk about codes again? Good. Thank you.)
I’m sure that Perry, like me, will be more than happy to drop the Intelligent Agent theory if anybody comes up with something better, which is what science is doing all the time. But for the moment, the Super(natural) Intelligence hypothesis is doing pretty well – much to the dismay of you and other atheists.
You said : When “human” comes down, “intelligence” falls down with it, because human intelligence is the only kind of intelligence we know of that can produce codes, and the codes from which Perry is drawing his fallacious inference have only been defined as such.
My reply : Oh dear, the idea of a superior intelligence does upset you, doesn’t it?
I said : “In fact human intelligence is an expression of the potential intelligence present in the earliest form of DNA.”
You said : Human intelligence can be said to be no such thing….. This is ludicrous reasoning.
My reply : I was worried you might have a problem with that sentence. It was simply my rather elegant way of describing the straight line from the first (?) DNA molecule to your brain. I take it you do accept the reality of evolutionary mechanisms?
You do?
That’s a relief.
You said :I think not. Not until you or Perry can provide a non-human based example of an intelligence with the cognitive capacity to produce a code.
My reply : But you won’t read the Gospel of John, will you? Pity…
God is a “non-human based example of an intelligence with the cognitive capacity to produce a code.”
We’ve got what he produced – the codes in DNA, for example, but you resolutely refuse to look at the evidence pointing in his direction.
You’re not a fundamentalist, by any chance, are you?
Richard,
This response is directed at you and Mr. Perry so I think first we could all agree that what you have referred to as “the Intelligent Agent theory” could be correctly stated as the idea that the genetic code has an intelligent designer based on an inference from our previous experience with codes. Henceforth, I will refer to this as your conclusion (C1).
We will accept the previously established definition of a code using the set of codes you and Mr. Marshall have provided examples of (ASCII, Morse Code, TCP/IP, etc.), because as we will see this will prove to be important in illustrating this “100% inference to design” is mere sophistry and illusion.
We need to begin by making a logically valid proposition that will allow us a “100% inference” to C1. Thus, in order to show that this is a logically valid inference, we need to form a syllogism in which we can show the truth of the conclusion is inferred from both of it’s premises.
We therefore state (S1) that:
P1) All codes have an intelligent designer.
P2) The genetic code is a code.
C1) Therefore, the genetic code has an intelligent designer.
S1 is a logically valid syllogism showing that it’s conclusion is inferred from both P1 and P2(100%). Logically, if P1 and P2 are true, then C1 is true as well. This is a valid inference. It is in this way, in the plain language of logic, that we can show how an inference to C1 is true.
What you and Mr. Marshall would apparently rather ignore is the egregious abuse of logic and sophistic shifting of syllogisms from which we actually arrive at C1. S1 simply states that P1=P2=C1 therefore P1=C1. It is nothing more than a tautology to begin with. It simply assumes C1 is true and tells us nothing. Once we begin defining the sets used in our terms we start having fun, because we see how in fact the only way to show that C1 is true is to simply assume it is. This would explain the circularity of this argument since all you’re doing is assuming it’s truth in the first place. We start to see this when we start defining the set we’re using to make our generalizations about what you have described as the “nature of codes”.
We have previously agreed that our knowledge about codes is drawn from a pool of codes we know and have experience with. Therefore our knowledge about codes only extends to codes of known origin. So we have to modify P1 to reflect this.
Our new syllogism (S2) thusly must state:
P1a) All codes of known origin have an intelligent designer.
P2) DNA is a code.
C1) Therefore, DNA has an intelligent designer.
We still have a conclusion that may be inferred from our premises IF DNA is a code of known origin. So we have to see how we know the origin of the codes P1 is referring to. As it turns out, you and Perry have defined them as the very codes that we human beings have created, so that’s how we know where they came from!
Since the codes we know the origin of are of human origin and DNA is not of human origin, we need to change our syllogism yet again. Our new syllogism (S3) should state:
P1b) All codes of known origin have an intelligent human designer.
P2a) DNA is a code that does not have an intelligent human designer.
C1a) Therefore, DNA has an intelligent non-human designer.
S3 is our most important revision of the syllogism so far, because this is where the circularity of the entire argument starts becoming apparent. In revising P2, we had to revise C1 to assert the existence of a non-human designer in order for our syllogism to remain valid. The problem is that P1b does not allow for that.
C1a can be true if and ONLY if P1 allows for codes designed by non-human intelligence. Naturally, we absolutely would allow for such a thing, and even DID allow for it in P1a of S2. So, in order for C1a to be logically valid, we need to replace P1b with P1a.
Let S4 state that:
P1a) All codes of known origin have an intelligent designer.
P2a) DNA is a code that did not have an intelligent human designer.
C1a) Therefore, DNA has an intelligent, non-human designer.
This presents big problems for you and Perry because although S4 appears to be logically consistent, in order to infer C1a from the premises, P1a as to assume that C1a is already true to begin with. We can only justify generalizing to C1a by including examples of intelligently designed, non-human codes. S4 assumes it’s own conclusion in the first major premise because C1a must be true in order to include DNA as an example of an intelligently designed code. But since C1a is what you are trying to prove in the first place, you cannot simply assume it’s truth in P1a. Thus, we are restricted to using P1b.
Therefore, the only logically valid inference we can make will now be seen in S5:
P1b) All codes of known origin have an intelligent human designer.
P2a) DNA is a code that did not have an intelligent human designer.
C1b) DNA is not a code of known origin.
S5 is valid because it is not assuming any conclusions and arrives at the only logical conclusion that can be inferred from both of the premises. It is what Perry would refer to as a “100% inference”.
You on the other hand, can only infer your conclusion by assuming the conclusion to be true in the first major premise. You’re not even using “logic” in any meaningful sense. You’re simply declaring “all codes have an intelligent designer” over and over again.
You said I possessed a “need for an uninterrupted series of verifiable phenomena before being able to accept an inductive “proof” or even an inference to the best explanation”, which I found to be somewhat confusing considering I’ve taken painstaking measures to explain why your conclusion does not follow from a valid inference because the argument for it assumes it’s own conclusion. All I’ve asked you to do is justify C1a without assuming C1a is true in P1, because so far your argument is nothing more than a loud proclamation dressed up in fallacious philosophizing.
Jason,
I want to thank you for the time and thought given to posting this reply.
However, it is difficult to respond for two reasons:
1) You have made the mistake of assuming that Perry Marshall and I have identical points of views with identical references. I’m sorry, Jason, but you should never do this. You should address the points that Perry raises, or the points that I raise, but not conflate the arguments of two people into one, overall, general argument.
In other situations I would have accused you of using a “strawman”, but in your case I honestly believe that you have made an inadvertent dialectical error.
2) I asked you for your definition of the word “code” and you replied by giving examples of codes.
If you had asked me for a definition of the word “automobile”, and I had replied “A cabriolet, or an S.U.V. or a van or a truck,” I would not have answered your question. The correct answer could have been, “An automobile is a wheeled vehicle that carries its own engine. ”
Since I am interested in linguistics, I was careful to ask you an even more pointed question, which I repeat here : would you be good enough to tell us what *you* mean when you use the word ‘code’.
Unfortunately, at this stage,there is no point in my refuting your use of syllogisms ( which is very flawed), since we have to be sure that we agree on the terms of reference (what is a code,) You will see how important it is to reach agreement on the use of words if I give you an example of a silly-gism:
P1 : All scientists do science.
P2 : My father-in-law is a scientist.
C1 : Therefore my father-in-law does science.
There, that was a pretty useless exercise, wasn’t it? And I didn’t even need to say “All known scientists do science.”
You will have noticed that on his site, Perry Marshall has gone to great lengths to give his definition of “codes” and “languages”. Then, and only then, does he to go on to give examples.
We do need to be very clear about the definitions we attribute to words. I realised this when I was 12, and I told an American visitor to England that he should “always walk on the pavement”! Fortunately he survived the misunderstanding.
Please don’t imagine that I am indulging in a gratuitous exercise in pedantry. Give us your definition of the word “code” and all will become clear.
Thank you.
Jason,
You have accused me of assuming DNA is designed from the outset. You said: “It simply assumes C1 is true and tells us nothing.” This is a false statement. Never in any of my work do I assume the origin of DNA.
My original statement:
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
Your “new” syllogism S2 is simply what I have been saying all along.
But then you say, “We still have a conclusion that may be inferred from our premises IF DNA is a code of known origin.”
By making this statement you have demonstrated that you do not understand syllogisms. Maybe this will help:
~~~
From http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/deduc/syllog.html
A universal syllogism is a syllogism composed of universal claims. The first claim, or major premise, describes all of one class or group, X, in terms of some other class or group, Y. The second claim, or minor premise, places a third class or group, Z, either within X or not within Y. The paradigms for a valid universal syllogism are as follows:
All X are Y.
Z is X.
Therefore, Z is Y.
–or–
All X are Y.
No Z is Y.
Therefore, no Z is X.
These are the only two valid forms for a syllogism with a major premise in the form “All X are Y.”
~~~
You have invented a requirement that a syllogism is invalid unless we know in advance that Z is Y. Jason, the whole point of a syllogism is that you do NOT know in advance that Z is Y, and we are INFERRING that Z is Y. This is inductive reasoning and it is at the core of the scientific method: Reasoning from the specific to the general.
You go on to say:
Our new syllogism (S3) should state:
P1b) All codes of known origin have an intelligent human designer.
P2a) DNA is a code that does not have an intelligent human designer.
C1a) Therefore, DNA has an intelligent non-human designer.
S3 is our most important revision of the syllogism so far, because this is where the circularity of the entire argument starts becoming apparent. In revising P2, we had to revise C1 to assert the existence of a non-human designer in order for our syllogism to remain valid. The problem is that P1b does not allow for that.
C1 does neither asserts or assumes a non-human designer. C1 infers a non-human designer. C1 asserts the earmarks of a design process: freely chosen symbols, fixed thereafter. In computers, the free choice that 0=off and 1=on. In DNA, the free choice that GGG=Glycine. Could just as easily have been something else and there is much literature that discusses this. Including Yockey.
You said:
“C1a can be true if and ONLY if P1 allows for codes designed by non-human intelligence.”
It does allow for that. I have been inviting such evidence as long as I’ve been making the argument. And so has SETI.
You are twisting my words, Jason. No one here has ever assumed in advance that DNA is designed. The origin of DNA has always been presented as an open question. The inference to a definite answer is obvious to everyone.
Then you say:
Therefore, the only logically valid inference we can make will now be seen in S5:
P1b) All codes of known origin have an intelligent human designer.
P2a) DNA is a code that did not have an intelligent human designer.
C1b) DNA is not a code of known origin.
This is a 100% false statement. Why? Because the fact that DNA is *not* a code of known origin is exactly the thing that I have been assuming all along! It’s intrinsic to my syllogism:
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
Your statement C1b tells us nothing. In fact your S5 is not even a syllogism. It does not make an inference. It’s nothing more than a three statements. As such it only says what we already knew.
If you disagree with me, then head down to the nearest university and take your S5 to any freshman logic or philosophy class. Ask the professor whether I am right or wrong.
You demanded that I show that another kind of intelligence exists. I refer you to the article at the very top of this thread. I showed that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, when applied to the universe, infers a non-physical boundless entity that is a necessary axiom for a logical cosmos.
I have never claimed deductive proof for the existence of God. Rather, I have shown 100% inference from both mathematics and information theory. I have given you two entirely logical arguments inferring the existence of God. You have retorted with fake syllogisms and demands for evidence that I neither have nor need.
My friend, you are free to reject induction and inference. You are free to misunderstand inductive logic. That is your choice.
You are free to be an atheist if you want to. But you cannot at the same time claim to embrace mathematics or science because atheism contradicts both of those disciplines.
“Please don’t imagine that I am indulging in a gratuitous exercise in pedantry.”
Dearest Richard,
It shall then be delightful for you to know that I envisage no such thing. On the contrary, I don’t believe that every distracting didactic dialogue is mere pageantry and pedantic squabbling. It is only through such meticulous dissection that we can expose any important “dialectical errors” and correct them when they arise. Which is why I would agree when you stated:
“We do need to be very clear about the definitions we attribute to words.”
I agree, the pertinent matter be to resolve these disastrous disputations in dialectical matters occurring during the previous commentary with the utmost expediency. You will therefore be relieved to know that when I previously stated, “We will accept the previously established definition of a code” before I cited the examples you and Mr. Marshall provided, what I meant is that it is up to you to define what a “code” is. I don’t care how you define a “code” so much as I care that you define the form of the argument that supports your conclusion; that the genetic code was created with actionable intent by a non-human intelligence.
Previously you have stated that you would like me to accept “an inductive “proof” or even an inference to the best explanation”. Mr. Marshall has also gone so far as to loudly proclaim this is a “100% inference”. Thus, I have not “made the mistake of assuming that Perry Marshall and I [sic] have identical points of views”, because in this manner you and Mr. Marshall have indeed both attempted to advance the same conclusion by the same method of argumentation, specifically by providing a “proof by inference”.
As I’m sure you are aware, an “inference” is a type of argument in which the truth of the conclusion is established as a logical consequence of two or more premises. If the premises can be said to be true, then the conclusion must necessarily be true. Which is why I was glad we agreed when you said “there is no point in my refuting your use of syllogisms” since these syllogisms are valuable in establishing that we are following valid form, and it would be rather futile to attempt to refute the rules of the logical system that you yourself have defined. I was however, somewhat confused when you said my “use of syllogisms” was “very flawed”, since you’re the one who defined your argument as an inference in the first place and I was merely stating it as such in valid logical form.
I’m glad you provided us with your very own “silly-gism”, because all simplistic spoonerisms aside, this inference will prove to be of indispensable utility in showing the poor state of comprehension with which you approach the subject. This is an example of a logically valid inference. If it’s premises are both true, then it’s conclusion will also be true. It is “useless” because P1 is merely a tautology so the conclusion doesn’t tell us anything new. As an anglophone professing to be “interested in linguistics”, I’m sure you are aware that the suffix “-ist” already denotes “one who makes use of”, so it is redundant to say that a scientist does science. Thus, the statement that “all scientists do science” doesn’t tell us anything except that one who does science does science. This syllogism tells us nothing new about your father-in-law because in P2 it is already stated that he does science, so your conclusion does nothing but repeat P2. A formalized version of what this argument is actually saying would look like:
P1) Everyone who does science does science.
P2) My father-in-law does science.
C1) Therefore, my father-in-law does science.
So yes, I can agree that this particular “silly-gism” is obviously useless, but this is a consequence of the useless tautology in the first major premise. This does not imply that a syllogism is a “useless exercise” in this argument, because you have specifically stated that the conclusion of your argument was arrived at by process of inference. Mr. Morgan, this is what an inference looks like in formal logic. We can infer something useful about your father-in-law if P1 actually makes a categorical statement about scientists. For example if P1 states that “all scientists have PhDs”, we can then state that:
P1) All scientists have PhDs
P2) My father-in-law is a scientist
C1) Therefore, my father-in-law has a PhD
As we can see, this allows us to infer something useful about your father-in-law. The form of this inference is logically valid, so if both of it’s premises are true (assuming you’re not lying about your father-in-law), then the truth of the conclusion necessarily follows.
What I have been trying to do here is understand your argument within a logical framework that allows us to infer from the premises to the conclusion that the genetic code was designed with actionable intent by a non-human intelligence. The only thing I have understood so far is that the conclusion is supposed to be “design”, and somehow we are supposed to be inferring to it. I have yet to see you even attempt to perform such a feat, and will ask you to do so now at this time. Use whatever definition of “code” you’d like, but please do take care to define the type of argument you are attempting to use and stick to proper form.
Jason,
Just two points:
1) I don’t know who you paid to write that comment for you, but you should ask for your money back;
2)You correctly pointed out that, by definition, scientists do science, which is why my silly-gism was silly. Alas, when I ask you what codes do ( which is essential for understanding Perry’s syllogism) you wriggle out of your responsability with this pathetically weak : “I don’t care how you define a “code”…” and quickly shift the goalposts to “form”.
If you are unable to define your use of the word “code”, then sadly that means that you don’t know what you’re talking about (which I doubt, because I’m a kind person, and have spent many years working with children with learing difficulties); or, for some obscure reason you do not wish to share with us your definition. That’s called copping out of the argument when you sense imminent defeat.
What a pity.
And I really thought you had something interesting to say.
“Observe all men; thyself most.”
-Poor Richard’s Almanac
Dear Richard,
I looked with languish upon your latest linguistic disquisition, a puerile fulmination I found to be of rather insufficient formulation. The bellicosity with which you bellowed brainless abrasive embattlements left me feeling baffled about your basis for stating, “your argements are dying all around you”. If you will kindly review my preceding posts I have simply tried to help you define a coherent, logically valid framework to understand the “inference” that supports what you have dubbed the “Intelligent Agent theory”, and I haven’t advanced any arguments of my own.
From what I understand, you have asked me to hear a “proof by inference” to support said theory. In this instance we are using an “inference” to make a categorical proposition about whether or not the genetic code can be part of a subset of codes you have referred to as “designed” codes. This categorical proposition can be said to be the “conclusion” of your argument in which it states that if the premises can be said to be true, the truth of the conclusion necessarily follows. Perry would (hopefully) recognize this structure as something like an AND gate in digital logic. We look at our premises as the “inputs” of our AND gate, and the conclusion as it’s “output”. Let true=1 and false =0. C1=1 only if P1=1 and P2=1. So you see, we “infer” a true conclusion as a consequence of the truth of the premises.
As I noted previously, I’ve only attempted to hear out the premises of your argument as you requested, and have only attempted to encourage you to provide your own definitions for your own terms used in your own argument while putting forward no arguments of my own. After all, we are establishing the definitions used in YOUR argument. It has certainly proven to be quite an overwhelming ontological overload, and it pains me to continue to partake in such a pedagogic procession. Fear not dear Richard, for I will proceed with painstaking precision in order to avoid any more prospective phonological pandemonium.
Previously you have stated “Perry Marshall has gone to great lengths to give his definition of “codes””I would like to thank Mr. Marshall for providing the reference to Shannon’s communication model found at:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Shannon_communication_system.svg
and Yockey’s isomorphism found at:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna_isomorphic.JPG
In information theory a “code” is simply an algorithm that represents symbols from a source alphabet by “encoded strings”, found in some other target alphabet. So a (C)ode would be derived from a (S)ource alphabet {a,b,c} and a (T)arget alphabet {0,1} as follows:
C={a–>0, b–>01, c–011}
The encoded string 001010011 could be grouped into codewords 0-01-01-0-011 and decoded into the sequence of source symbols abbac. The “code” would be described as the total function mapping each symbol in our source alphabet, over a sequence of symbols in our target alphabet.
Shannon’s theory of communication describes a model of a “communications system”. From this diagram we describe that a communications system must be comprised of a source of information, a signal between a transmitter and receiver, to a destination. So from our dialogue, we can now state:
code – the total function mapping each symbol from a source alphabet over a sequence of symbols in a target alphabet.
communications system – A system in which information from a (S)ource is sent on a (C)hannel between a (T)ransmitter and (R)eceiver to a (D)estination.
I sincerely hope that you will find this rather detailed dissertation acceptable, and ask that you move forward with advancing your argument.
Jason,
Thank you for finally providing the defintions I requested.
I am traveling between Tououse, Paris, London and Exeter at the moment, but look forward to replying to your post on Wednesday.
I retain this :
code – the total function mapping each symbol from a *source alphabet* over a sequence of symbols in a *target alphabet*.
communications system – A system in which information from a (S)ource is sent on a (C)hannel between a *(T)ransmitter* and *(R)eceiver* to a (D)estination.
Have a nice Sunday.
“Jason,
Thank you for finally providing the defintions I requested.
I am traveling between Tououse, Paris, London and Exeter at the moment, but look forward to replying to your post on Wednesday.
I retain this”
Richard,
Thank you for finally retaining something. I would recommend some light reading during your travels:
“Introduction to the Philosophy of Science: a text”
http://bit.ly/ijQNuc
I don’t see any problem with Godels Theorem. The issue I have with your article is when you start using inductive reasoning to prove that “belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.” You make several assumptions that are certainly not the only explanation for the universe’s existence.
1st off, you are assuming that the first information was genetic code. This is based on assumptions as well since no one was around when it was created.
2nd, “…since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time.” The key words here are “not known.”
3rd, “All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.” Again… key words “we know”.
Why is it not possible that information spontaneously created itself in some fashion that we may never know? In my experience, just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean that God is behind it. God WAS the explanation behind the moon eclipsed the sun or that the waves crash on the beach or how humans came to be and many other things that have been proven(except evolution but it is generally excepted and makes a ridiculous amount of sense as well) to be caused by something else. Science keeps replacing God because it actually explains things instead of saying a magic man in the sky did it. It seems many others have proven you wrong in the comments but you have chosen to ignore the part of their comment that proves you wrong. Although I know this comment will not change your mind because you seem as stubborn as I am, I hope that you at least CONSIDER the possibility of there NOT being a governing consciousness of the universe.
1. Please show an example of known scientific evidence that some other code existed before dna.
2. Ditto for your 2nd point.
3. Please explain why I should accept your explanation of something “we may never know” and why you think this approach follows the scientific method. Explain why you think “spontaneously created itself” is a scientific concept and not just an appeal to wild freaking magic and fanciful mysticism. Do you consider this to be scientific thinking?
4. Explain how science has ever gotten us around the need for an orderly First Cause.
5. Please specify what objection on this page I have failed to address with known facts and valid logic.
Tim, please allow me to make a few comments here.
You said : 1st you are assuming that the first information was genetic code. This is based on assumptions as well since no one was around when it was created.
My comment : One characteristic of the codes in DNA is the instruction for replication. Apparently DNA has been doing that ever since it “appeared”. It’s still with us. Maybe there was other information around before DNA, but either it was not specified for replication, or it was and it had a serious bug and the system crashed.
Why is replication important? Because it happens to be a characteristic of Life/DNA, and that is what we are talking about in the last analysis. So unfortunately your allusion to a hypothetical “prior information” is irrelevant.
You said : 2nd, “…since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time.” The key words here are “not known.”
My comment : Science always starts with what is known, and endeavours to seek explanations in order to expand our understanding and knowledge. In so doing, it reaches out towards the “not known” but generally, by definition the unknown can not be factored into the research paradigm. You are trying to imply that Perry is using an “argument from ignorance”, whereas in reality your picking up on “not known” makes no sense in this context. If I said, with a knowledgeable air, “Boeuf Bourguignon is not known to appear on any Starbuck’s menu,” you would start backing away from me nervously, looking for the door.
No, I can’t prove that no Starbucks serves Boeur Bourguignon-flavoured coffee, but I doubt that I would find financial support in order to do the research.
No, I can’t prove that information is not an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time, but…
I’m sure you get my point. Perry was politely stating the obvious.
You said : 3rd, “All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.” Again… key words “we know”.
My comment : Obviously “we know”! See my comments on point n°2.
All the scientists we know do science. And you can’t evoke the “Black Swan” fallacy because a hypothetical scientist who didn’t do science, by definition, wouldn’t be a scientist!
If science didn’t make this kind of assumption, then every scientist would have to start anew every time he walked into his laboratory! (Which would work wonders for coffee sales.)
You said : Why is it not possible that information spontaneously created itself in some fashion that we may never know?
My comment : Sorry, Tim, but I get the impression that you accidentally dropped your prayer beads as you were writing that. Nothing has ever spontaneously created itself (out of nothing), so there is nothing to know about the “fashion” – either today or in a thousand years. In fact, “created itself” is just very bad grammar! Unless you consider that “it” and “self” are two different, separate entities. If you do, then I’m backing towards the door nervously myself.
You said : In my experience, just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean that God is behind it.
My comment : Yeah, well, that’s not rocket science, is it, pal?
You said : God WAS the explanation behind the moon eclipsed the sun or that the waves crash on the beach or how humans came to be and many other things that have been proven(except evolution but it is generally excepted and makes a ridiculous amount of sense as well) to be caused by something else. Science keeps replacing God because it actually explains things instead of saying a magic man in the sky did it.
My comment : I’m sorry, but “generally accepted” didn’t help the flat-earth theory, and it won’t help neoDarwinism.
Scientific knowledge keeps replacing ITSELF. That is the nature of science. Understanding the predictable relative movements of the Sun, Moon and the Earth and the laws of gravity which determine those movements, does not eliminate the need for a first cause, that we call God. Understanding the Creation does not make it uncreated.
ok, so ive been following all these comments for a long time now, and it blows my mind how stubborn everyone is. nobody is willing to really look at either side of the arguments put forth. it becomes a word game of faulty logic. its just like philosophy, its a joke. nobodys opinion on anything is going to be changes because you cant prove anything on either side because we exist in a universe that we cant understand because we werent around to see how it was “created”
further more, by created, I mean how it started. someone referenced the idea of a first mover being god. While, logically, we can call the first mover god, we cannot logically say that this god was the christian god. we cannot logically say it has any generally accepted god like qualities at all. All we can say is that something unknown happened and now we are here.
Also, what Perry says about the need for something outside the universe makes sense, but it does not logically follow that the something outside the universe is the christian god. for all we know, whatever started everything could have been a huge accident, or a random occurence. but that doesnt solve the problem of SOMETHING existing, and how it came to be.
Someone also mentioned something about the universe “creating itself” and someone had a problem with this idea, but they had no problem with god existing. Well where did god come from? The explanations are always 1) God always was, or 2) God created himself. If one can accept either of these premises, why cant they be applied to the universe itself? Just replace the word “god” with “universe” and all differences are settled.
All this arguing proves absolutely nothing on either side. Logic is limited in trying to explain the universe, because it really isnt a logical universe. Since when was it logical to divide by zero? This is what a black hole is, if you try describing it mathematically. So theres an argument against Perrys idea of needing godels theorem because we live in a logical system. Obviously, this is all bull shit, because its just a word game. Meaningless words that can follow one another with skewed meanings attached that every person interprets differently.
By the way, through all the comments ive read, nobody has proven anything. It really makes me laugh when people say “ive proven this, or proven that” when all you can really do is say, “its my personal preference to believe this aspect of reality” and thats how it should be. Everything is personal preference. You cant prove there is a god, and you cant prove there isnt a god, logically, you cant even prove that YOU exist. Do you see the problem with logic? Again, its just a word game and a way to make other people feel like imbeciles. Very elitist if you ask me. Nothing real, nothing meaningful.
Sorry for the broken thoughts, I have ADHD and dont feel like putting the effort into making my thoughts flow, because, as ive stated, its a meningless word game and doesnt matter anyway.
Can you point out whose points I have ignored and what they said? Please be extremely specific and make sure you’ve read my responses.
And before you go down that road, consider that if you really believe the universe is illogical and meaningless then maybe there’s no point in trying to have a meaningful discussion. But given that you’re this interested so far, I have to wonder if you truly believe that.
This is why random mutation can fuel evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873266/?tool=pubmed
DNA breaks and reforms, sometimes at random. It is damaged by natural UV light from the sun, and natural and artificial chemicals, sometimes repaired, sometimes not. Some people have a disease where they can’t repair this damage and have to stay inside their whole lives. If DNA was indeed designed the designer did a piss-poor job of designing it for life on Earth.
Finally, I want to hear the following sentence from your Richard Dawkins quote. The one directly following the one you give so disingenuously.
If you only knew.
Seriously, if you only knew.
Anyone familiar with communication theory knows that all codes are subject to irreparable damage. That’s the most basic fact you could know about information theory. It’s called noise. Noise is always bad. It always destroys, it never helps.
What’s not so easily appreciated is that it’s even possible to have mechanisms that reconstruct the data after it’s been damaged. This is no easy feat.
DNA is subject to all kinds of destructive forces, yet cells repair it and maintain the integrity of the data. They have elaborate systems for detecting copying errors, random mutations and UV damage. They have been doing this with extraordinary competence for 3.8 billion years.
Have you ever designed anything and sold it to a customer?
Have you ever designed a communication system?
Have you ever studied genetics?
YOU design a self-replicating database that not only preserves its data for 3.8 billion years but continuously incorporates inputs from the environment to continually adapt and refine its functions so as to actually EVOLVE into higher organisms (something which computers almost never do) – you do that and then you’ll be in a position to critique DNA. But I will not permit you to say such an utterly informed, misleading statement as “Indeed designed the designer did a piss-poor job of designing it for life on Earth.” What a hopelessly arrogant and uninformed statement that is.
Actually it’s Exhibit A of atheistic scientific vandalism. This is how atheists see the world. This is the kind of misinformation they spew all over the Internet. The people who say this kind of stuff should be stripped of their credentials and ejected from the academy. It’s not science.
If you only knew.
Interestingly, this paper you linked to tells you part of the story but you’re looking at it through the wrong lens. Cancer is evolution run amok. Cancer is what happens when the mathematical matrix that drives evolution is broken. Then cells evolve tumors instead of adapting cooperatively. If you read this paper with the understanding that cancer is caused by noise and is an interruption of the normal healthy evolutionary process, this paper is a huge help to understanding the proper function of cellular adaptation.
I wrote about the self-repairing capabilities of cells and DNA in these articles:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/mathematics-of-dna/
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/intelligent-bacteria/
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/evolution-untold-story/
I hope you will begin reading actual scientific literature instead of parroting this corrosive atheist dogma. Like I told Jason, the world must never be allowed to forget the damage that atheism has done to science during the last 100 years.
I hope that you can come to appreciate the extraordinary beauty of nature. I hope you can return from the land of the dead and live among the living. I urge you to listen to people who do not have a hate-God agenda. You will find the world to be a wonderful, beautiful place.
Which way do you want it?
Perry
P.S.: This really is a great paper if you can look through the microscope from the right end and not the wrong end. I’m going to use it and reference it in the future. For that, I thank you.
Uh, I’m a grad student, I’ve worked in the field of cancer research for over eight years.
It’s my job to understand the literature.
I think you misunderstood my point. I was commenting on an earlier post where you asked how random mutation could contribute to evolution.
The idea is that cancer is destructive to the body, but if you look at the body as merely an environment in which cells evolve, obtaining a selective advantage (by ignoring death signals or cell cycle checkpoints because the genes for these things have been disrupted) allows those cells to out-compete their neighbors. Great for the cells, not so good for the environment.
If noise is always bad, never helps, then in this case it is not actually noise.
I think you’re defining something (noise) and then insisting that evidence to the contrary must not exist because it defies your definition.
Also, I haven’t seen the rest of your Richard Dawkins quote.
Which cells produce more offspring that continue to reproduce and multiply and prevail in the Darwinian competition: Cancer cells, or healthy ones?
Um, well I’m a grad student in cancer research so I’m willing to bet I’ve spent a lot more time studying DNA than you have. Especially since the references you gave me lead me to believe you think bacteria are wandering around (even the non-motile ones?) trading plasmids like they were pokemon or something.
Can bacterial economics be far behind?
One point in particular from the mathematics of DNA thing.
“DNA is able to re-create destroyed data by computing checksums in reverse – like calculating the missing contents of a page ripped out of a novel.”
This is not only demonstrably false and contrary to even the most basic undergrad level experiment, the entire landscape of genetics today would be completely different if it were true. There would be no knock-out studies, the human genome project would have been impossible and we wouldn’t know half the gene functions we do.
Also, with regards to your reply to my last comment:
“Anyone familiar with communication theory knows that all codes are subject to irreparable damage. That’s the most basic fact you could know about information theory. It’s called noise. Noise is always bad. It always destroys, it never helps.”
With cancer you can have loss of a gene killing a cell or loss of a gene that would keep the cell from dividing (like p53, a famous tumor suppressor). So you can’t say that ‘noise’ in the genetic code is always bad. Deletion of a tumor suppressor would in fact increase the ‘reception of the code’ (ie more copies of the cancerous genome).
These words you keep using. I don’t think they mean what you think they mean.
If we have a sentence
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
and a word is deleted:
The quick fox jumps over the lazy dog
Then It is very unlikely that this is caused by “noise” nor would it be classified as such normally, especially if the deletion still follows the rules of grammar.
I am saying that DNA is no different than English in this regard. That in the real world, no version of J0e WuiXkhbrowb foxPjumpeK over the lrzy d2g is ever better for the organism as a whole.
You seem unfamiliar with the work of McClintock and Shapiro. McClintock found that if she damaged a chromosome in corn maize, the plant would replace the damaged material with comparable sections of another chromosome.
From http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Cent_View_Evol.html:
In addition to proofreading systems, cells have a wide variety of repair systems to prevent or correct DNA damage from agents that include superoxides, alkylating chemicals and irradiation (33). Some of these repair systems encode mutator DNA polymerases which are clearly the source of DNA damage-induced mutations and also appear to be the source of so-called “spontaneous” mutations that appear in the absence of an obvious source of DNA damage (34). Results illustrating the effectiveness of cellular systems for genome repair and the essential role of enzymes in mutagenesis emphasize the importance of McClintock’s revolutionary discovery of internal systems generating genome, particularly when an organism has been challenged by a stress affecting genome function (Fig. 4; 5).
In repair responses, we know that DNA damage triggers the activation of mutator polymerases and non-homologous end joining activities.
Sometimes, much larger multiprotein assemblages are involved, like the apparatus for carrying out homologous genetic recombination or for repairing severed DNA molecules by non-homologous joining of broken ends (36). Among the most important systems are those called “mobile genetic elements” (MGEs; 7, 8), which make up about 43% of the human genome (21). These MGEs include the transposable “controlling elements” discovered by McClintock, and they comprise integrated systems of proteins and nucleic acids that interact to mobilize DNA to new locations in the genome.
See the illustration next to this text of segments of DNA being re-arranged via transposition.
Are you trying to tell me that cancer cells are more fit in the macro Darwinian sense than healthy ones? Are you saying that cancer is an example of increased fitness?
I’m not sure why you included that whole thing about mobile elements. It doesn’t add anything to the argument.
Any your analogy:
“I am saying that DNA is no different than English in this regard. That in the real world, no version of J0e WuiXkhbrowb foxPjumpeK over the lrzy d2g is ever better for the organism as a whole. ”
- is completely false. There are fusion proteins (PET/PTC in thyroid cancer and c-myc/immunoglobulin, you should be able to check wikipedia for these) which cause uncontrolled cell proliferation. In this case “The quick brown fox juSee Dick run” is better for the cell than either sentence on its own.
Anyway, in this case there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. It’s the same for a fibroblast in melanoma as it is for a protozoan in a pond or a human on planet Earth. If they overgrow their environment, whether by acquiring a mutation to grow faster or by losing a gene that tells it to stop growing then its trouble for the environment (pond or body or planet) true, but that’s beside the point.
Single cells (or even whole organisms) don’t think ahead and say ‘maybe this mutation isn’t so good. I should slow down here!’ Cells are just responding to their chemicals interacting.
This points to the idea that there is no overarching plan for life. It’s all just random.
You appear to be unaware of it but you’re making a huge sleight of hand here.
Yes, I do agree with you that a random mutation causes a cancer cell to out-survive the other cells in the body in question. The sleight of hand is that none of the instance of this have ever resulted in a new species, or even the survival of a species. By species I mean the same thing Darwin meant in his title “origin of species.” Every single instance of cancer results in a mutant that goes extinct. This is not ‘beside the point.’ This IS the point.
In my book that’s a pretty big sleight of hand, Landothedead.
(By the way I’m using my real name. If you’re a knowledgeable cancer researcher why don’t you use your real name instead of hiding behind a screen name? )
Cancer is caused when teleological selection (as opposed to ‘natural selection’) called apoptosis fails to kill mutant cells the way it should and those cells become a runaway train.
This apoptosis, or programmed cell death, detects and corrects copying errors and kills cells when they get out of hand. As I said, it’s teleological.
The existence of apoptosis points to the idea that there is an overarching plan for life. It’s not just random.
Your example “The quick brown fox juSee Dick run” is an example of improperly executed mobile elements.
By the way I’ve asked you a ton of questions and you’ve answered almost none of them. I’ve posted a lot of reading for you to do and you’ve read almost none of it.
So long as you think cancer is just a less workable version of randomness than healthy organisms, you’ll search in vain for any kind of cure for cancer. You cannot define something as wrong if you deny what is right.
Land of the dead : before posting, I spent quite a few minutes wondering how I could avoid humiliating you too drastically. In fact, it’s not possible.
You are clearly another one of these young, hot-head, mindless atheists who believe that a swift Google search for a clever-sounding article will deal the death blow to any Christian.
You say :
“This is why random mutation can fuel evolution.”
You then give us a link to a very erudite article which demonstrates : “somatic cellular Darwinian evolution in cancer”.
His theory is that random mutation leads to cancer, sickness and death. This is something that Perry has said and published about a zillion times, and to prove him wrong you give a link to an article that proves him right????
Is he paying you or something?
You didn’t even read with synopsis, which I reproduce here in full:
*The biology of cancer is reviewed and evidence adduced that it can be modelled as a somatic cellular Darwinian evolutionary process; evidence for involvement of genomic instability is also reviewed.*
How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously when you do asinine things like that?
And as for your trying to be clever with Richard Dawkins quotes, Perry quotes Dawkins as having said something that a thousand other cleverer people have said, viz, when you look closely into the DNA molecule, biology has to borrow from I.T. – very heavily.
The next sentence, which you again imagine is going to strike a death-blow to Perry’s arguments is just Dawkins giving his shrill, atheist interpretation which he doesn’t even attempt to back up with evidence. because he can’t.
*Among many other consequences, this digital revolution at the very core of life has dealt the final, killing blow to vitalism—the belief that living material is deeply distinct from nonliving material.*
You call that science?
The truth shall set you free??!. Proof negates the need for faith. Digging for gold in the etymological playground sandpit does nothing to negate the worthy desire to seek the truth. Perhaps the questions one should ask ones self before embarking on any quest for proof is what are you without faith. can one avoid being subjective on the objective?
You make a very important point when you say :
“This is a useless repetition of meaning known as a “tautology” and it means your first premise is utterly useless.”
Tautology was the deleiberate mistake I introduced in my “silly-gism” about scientists doing science.
This is why a clear definition of “codes” was so important. We needed to milk out all the information implicit in the use of this word in order to avoid tautologies and misrepresentations.
Can we agree that codes are meaningless without communication?
If so, let us look at the definition of “communication” that you have accepted:
*communications system – A system in which information from a (S)ource is sent on a (C)hannel between a (T)ransmitter and (R)eceiver to a (D)estination.*
You seem to agree that a Transmitter, a Channel and a Receiver are necessary.
I would be interested to know how you conceive of communication without the prior existence of mutually “undertood” codes, and some form of intention behind the act of communicating?
When you have answered this question, we can safely return to our syllogism, fully aware of all that is implied, once we accept the use of the word “code”.
Maybe this could help us avoid the tautology : “All codes are intelligently-made artifices which enable communication between… intelligent entities. Therefore all known codes etc etc”
Do you think this is a useful way of looking at the problem…differently?
Richard,
I’m so glad we are finally making some progress! I too think it is important to be specific when defining the terms put forward in an argument, which is why I was rather disappointed when you found it so difficult to define your own terms. I was worried for a minute that you might not value the same strict syntactic style as myself. Now that we’ve cleared everything up, you closed by asking:
“Do you think this is a useful way of looking at the problem…differently?”
I do indeed think this is a way of looking at the problem…differently. It is useful in the sense that it allows us to discuss some of the more patent perversions of philosophy that have preceded. I was glad you agreed that a “clear definition of “codes”" was important”, and I’m overjoyed to hear you also agree we should “milk out all the information implicit in the use of this word’”. With that being said, let’s review:
“Can we agree that codes are meaningless without communication?”
I think I would agree this seems to be a reasonable proposition. Without a communication system to make use of a code, the code itself is just a useless mathematical formula. It doesn’t do anything but sit there on paper and look all mathy and stuff. I’m glad we’ve made this very useful observation! Moving on:
“If so, let us look at the definition of “communication” that you have accepted:
*communications system – A system in which information from a (S)ource is sent on a (C)hannel between a (T)ransmitter and (R)eceiver to a (D)estination.*
You seem to agree that a Transmitter, a Channel and a Receiver are necessary.”
I agree this is indeed the definition I provided. We’ve established that the fine art of “copy and pasting” has been perfected! I’m excited! Let’s continue:
“I would be interested to know how you conceive of communication without the prior existence of mutually “undertood” codes”
I found this particular nugget of folk-science gobbledygook to be particularly amusing. I never said we could have “communication” without the “prior existence of mutually “undertood” codes”. Do you even know what you’re trying to say here? I think what you are trying to say is that we need a “code” in order to have a “communication”. In that case, I would agree with whatever you’re trying to say here. Indeed, we need to have a code for our “communicator” to communicate. Thank you Dr. Morgan.
“…and some form of intention behind the act of communicating?”
Richard, apparently you are encountering some confusion. The Genetic Code “communicates” information without “intent”. Let me help you understand better:
The (S)OURCE of information is the GENOME.
The (T)RANSMITTER of the information is an RNA POLYMERASE which READS a DNA sequence called a ‘transcription unit’ and TRANSCRIBES it into a complementary antiparallel RNA strand. If we are coding for a PROTEIN, the result of the transcription is MESSENGER RNA.
The (R)ECEIVER is a ribosome that facilitates “decoding” by binding TRANSFER RNA molecules with complementary anticodon sequences to that of the MESSENGER RNA to produce a POLYPEPTIDE (this proceeds in four phases; activation, initiation, elongation, and termination).
The (D)estination of the information is a POLYPEPTIDE that will later fold into a PROTEIN.
Now that “we can safely return to our syllogism”, we can see that we have a model of a communication system in which “communication” occurs without a conscious agent “sending” the information. Information from the genome is “communicated” or “sent” by mRNA to tRNA to form a protein.
It was rather revealing when you said:
“fully aware of all that is implied, once we accept the use of the word “code”.”
What seems to be the case here is that your accepted “use of the word “code” is just a slippery way of inserting “design” into your definition of “code”, therefore your entire argument amounts to nothing more provocative than assuming your own conclusion. As I’m sure you know this is also called “begging the question” so I’m glad you’ve put enough effort into philosophy of science to make a logical fallacy. Seriously though, some people don’t even get that far.
Don’t get me wrong I do agree here Richard, most communication systems are produced by intelligent agents sending information from a source to a destination, and it is important to note that in each and every case they are material, animal agents. However as we can see, genetic “communication” occurs between the genome and biological components such as proteins. I was rather disappointed when you made the the statement:
“All codes are intelligently-made artifices which enable communication between… intelligent entities”
I think this is profoundly misleading in that genetic “communication” does not occur between “intelligent entities”. It is therefore incorrect to say that “all codes” posses this property when the genetic code clearly does not “enable communication between… intelligent entities”.
The best induction you and your lackey could possibly put forward is:
“I think the genetic code may have been designed.”
“The genetic code may or may not be designed.”
These are examples of valid INDUCTIVELY DERIVED STATEMENTS you could put forward as an “inference to the best explanation”. There is no such thing as a “100% inference” by inductive reasoning, Perry is just off his rocker if he thinks that’s the case. The only inference that could be said to be “100%” is a DEDUCTIVE inference which I’m sure you are aware by now is expressed as a “syllogism”.
One thing I think you and Perry are confused about is that induction never gets to the “best explanation” and then STOPS. Because even our strongest inductively derived statements are known to be false under certain circumstances. Newtonian mechanics are an example of a “strong induction”, probably one of the strongest you could make, but even then we know that at speeds approaching that of light, Newton’s induction is not accurate.
So how do we assign a percentage to the “truthiness” of Newtons induction? How can it ever be said to be “100%”? Do we tally up the number of observations we’ve made in which the induction holds vs. the number in which it hasn’t and the resulting percentage value is it’s “truth percentage”? What if Perry were putting forward any other inductively derived scientific model? Let’s see what it would look like if the induction describing Newtonian mechanics were being put forward according to the Marshall Method:
Perry: “The gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.”
Jason: “Actually, I don’t think this will extend to X and Y. X and Y are traveling at close to light speed, and this statement doesn’t appear to be true.”
Perry: “Jason, in all observed instances, the gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared. Therefore, we have 100% inference this will be true for X and Y as well.”
Jason: “Okay I get that, but X and Y are traveling at close to light speed. I understand this has always been true for “observed instances”, but X and Y are not “observed instances”. I think we should actually go out and OBSERVE X and Y and come up with a way to test your inference.”
Perry: “Jason, this is a 100% inference.”
Jason: “I get that Perry, but there is no such thing as a “100% inference”. Deductive inferences are the only type of inferences that can be said to be “100%”, and this conclusion cannot be derived by way of deduction because X and Y are not “known instances”. Because X and Y are not “known instances”, our only choice is to make more observations. Science never reaches a conclusion and just stops there. This is absurd. How can you test the validity of your inference?”
Perry: “Jason, this is a 100% inference. It is valid because it is valid. In all observed instances, the gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared. Therefore, we have 100% inference this is true for X and Y.”
Jason: “Okay you’re just repeating yourself. I’m leaving now my head hurts…”
This hypothetical does nothing more complicated than put Newtonian mechanics in place of Perry’s “100% inference” and we can see the utter vacuity with which this whole line of argumentation is constructed. Perry would have to put forward a way to test it, this is how “scientists do science”. In this case, we would simply go out and make an observation of X and Y or perform an experiment. You and Perry have accomplished nothing more meaningful than insisting his inference is “100%” over and over again without even that great of an idea what you’re even talking about.
Jason :
You said : “I was rather disappointed when you found it so difficult to define your own terms.”
My reply : Where on earth did you get that idea from? I simply asked you to give your definition. How you could have interpreted that to mean that I was unable to give you my definition is quite beyond me. Where I come from, what I was doing is called “making every effort to understand what the other person in saying.”
You said : What seems to be the case here is that your accepted “use of the word “code” is just a slippery way of inserting “design” into your definition of “code”, therefore your entire argument amounts to nothing more provocative than assuming your own conclusion.
My reply : I am going to be indulgent with you, and assume that in the USA there probably are many Christians who knowingly seek to insert “Design” or “God” just about everywhere and anywhere. I am sure that this must be very irritating, but it does not give you the right to assume that I am doing that.
I am not, and I never have done. I am an interested and curious observer.
If somebody spots something that seems to point to ‘design’ I am willing to take a look. When somebody else contradicts the observation, I listen to their argument with an equally open mind.
Speaking for myself, let me state quite clearly, once and for all : I do not believe that science can prove the existence of God. In fact, I consider it pure folly to hitch one’s faith to science, for obvious reasons. (Science is always changing etc)
Unlike you guys, I have the advantage of being an expert in nothing – not science, not engineering, not philosophy…nothing. In these discussions I think I can say that I arrive with no bias and no expertise.
Unlike some of you guys, I am happy to be shown where I am just plain wrong. So, please – do me a favor, and drop the “slippery way of inserting design” accusations.
Obviously, as a Christian, I am thoroughly intrigued when someone claims of have seen a “signature in the cell” or a “cosmic finger-print”. However, I have noticed that in fact I am a lot more open-minded than many on-line atheists who seem to have an aversion to anything that might prod them out of the their intellectual comfort zones – God, for example.
I accuse them of obtusely refusing to see the supernatural anywhere. That is a form of intellectual dishonesty.
I see them happily accept an “inference to the best explanation” except when that might point towards God. In those conditions, there is no true discussion possible. We can throw syllogisms back and forth for as long as you want – as long as you insist that we are trying to squeeze “design” into every fact of the material world, whilst blindly refusing any other vision of the same material world than your own, there will never be any effective communication. The codes are not functioning because there has been insufficient prior agreement between the Transmitter and the Receiver.
Here’s dramatized Ken Miller, a noted biologist and practicing Catholic, to explain why you can’t have supernatural explanations in science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnlwW1ozJg&feature=related
(the relevant part starts at exactly 7:00)
I respect Ken Miller. I like his book “Finding Darwin’s God.” I agree with many and possibly even most of his views.
But you don’t get off so easy, my friend. Did you read the article at the top of this post? It’s about the fact that there are always axioms in any field of knowledge that have to be assumed and cannot be proven.
Do you recognize that evolution itself is by definition incapable of telling us the origin of the genetic code – because code has to exist first before evolution can take place?
I am using simple logic. All codes are designed therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed.
Do you have any examples of codes that are not designed?
1 minute later in this video Eugenie Scott says “ID = Evolution doesn’t work therefore the designer did it.” Does she understand that you have to have code before evolution is possible?
Then she asks, “What does ID tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the purpose was?”
Information theory and cryptography definitely do tell you what the designer did. Do they tell you the purpose? No. That is by definition outside the realm of science. It’s a philosophical question.
Does evolutionary biology tell you the purpose?
Or does it just deny purpose in the first place and pretend the question doesn’t need to be answered?
Where in this does Eugenie Scott ever acknowledge that the scientific method is unable to answer philosophical questions? Yet she makes fun of ID because she implies that it can’t answer those questions either.
Is philosophy banned from the science classroom? How can it be banned if science itself cannot operate without an underlying philosophy in the first place?
Do you recognize that Ken Miller’s argument is a philosophical argument not a scientific one?
I am willing to acknowledge that there are axioms in every field that have to be assumed that cannot be proven.
I have presented an axiom, above, and I have told you how to disprove it.
Where’s your disproof? Your disapproval of the designer who in your opinion did a “piss poor” job of making something? Is that it?
Where’s the life that YOU created?
Shall we talk about the life the Craig Venter created? Shall we discuss the $40 million of investment and the level of expertise that was required to borrow parts from existing cells and build a new one?
What does that tell us about intelligent design? Is Craig Venter intelligent or not?
Here’s Bertand Russell about the burden of proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AXBvmd-xcw
And your axiom is outdated. You should listen to Jason above. Over a hundred and fifty years ago people thought things like the hand and eye had to be designed because everything they knew that had a function was designed.
Then Darwin clobbered them.
Then they got smaller. Michael Behe claimed that molecular things were too complex to not have been designed.
And people like Ken Miller clobbered him.
Your argument is the exact same ‘God of the Gaps’ but cloaked in the language of information.
Also, evolution never claims to know where the genetic code came from. That’s the theory of the origin life and it’s more a question of chemistry than biology.
So I guess you’re right about it being outside of evolution. It just doesn’t matter.
Landothedead,
I have provided 100% inference to a designer. You have provided 0% inference to any other explanation, chemical or otherwise.
You said:
That’s the theory of the origin life and it’s more a question of chemistry than biology.
Show me a chemical reaction that produces codes. Then you will have inference that chemistry is capable of solving the problem of information in biology. So far all you’ve done is claim the existence of an imaginary teapot. Show me your evidence.
Well, the translation of DNA to protein and then the protein catalyzing replication of DNA is pretty much the same as autocatalytic reactions, which are abundant in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_reactions_and_order_creation
There is a prominent theory in the field of early life studies called the RNA world. The formation of RNA can happen spontaneously when uncatalyzed.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html
And the products of these spontaneous reactions can catalyze the same reaction to create even more RNA.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k84710318l244777/
The same thing (albeit simpler) happens all the time in chemistry in things like tin blight and the degradation of aspirin.
Because we have models and real life examples for these things happening we can infer that they happened in the past (it only had to happen once) to create the beginning of life.
Nothing you have said addresses my question. The “RNA” you speak of contains no instructions. Show me a code that’s not designed.
All right, this will be my past posting here because I got around to reading the rest of your website. Especially the marketing stuff and I’ve come to the conclusion that this whole thing is a trap to hold my attention and run up hits on your website. At first I was a little annoyed, but now I’ve got to say: Pretty clever. Good on ya. You win the lying for God/gold award.
Anyway, RNA absolutely does contain instructions. There are many viruses that use it instead of DNA to convey information, including HIV, which you’ve written on before. But that was not my point. My point was that autocatalytic reactions fit your definition of code. The reactants produce products which go on to catalyze the reaction. It’s exactly the same thing as DNA-protein-DNA, except their products aren’t as complex. In this case, complexity is irrelevant because DNA-protein is just a series of simple reactions that make up a large autocatalytic cycle.
So, good luck with the website. If you have any comments about this you have my e-mail, but I will not be back. I urge anyone reading this to do the same.
Of course Real RNA contains instructions. But the artificially synthesized RNA that people refer to in “RNA World hypothesis” experiments does not. Again, sleight of hand. If you disagree then draw the encoding decoding table and label the symbols. Real cancer research deserves as much.
Landothedead : you have just announced your intention to disappear, never to return. I respect this decision – it is the best you could have taken in order to put an end to your continuing series of howlers.
In order to prove Perry wrong, you cited “autocatalytic reactions”. As I have mentioned before, I am an expert in nothing, so I had to call upon Google to help me out. I found a link to an absolutely fascinating article on an ultra-atheist site:
http://www.edge.org/documents/life/lloyd_index.html
For a layman like myself, I found this article extremely enlightening, and inadvertently, highly supportive of Perry’s theories!
Let me whet your appetite with some quotes:
“… there is an intrinsic capacity built into the laws of nature: this ability to process information in an open-ended fashion. And once things start doing that then they’re very hard to stop. I call such things “complexors” — because they generate complexity automatically. From the mathematical or physical perspective, complexors are actually rather simple, because all they are is something that can compute, which is systematically exploring a wide variety of, or all, possible computations. Once you have such a thing, once such a thing gets popped into existence, set into motion, then it will produce complexity, whether you want it to or not.”
“Gets popped into existence”.
We have just discovered the “Pops of the gaps” argument!
“One of the things I find life so extraordinary at is self-correction — of chemical reactions as moving around certain pathways that are fairly predictable, they go a certain way — not that this would define life, but it’s part of many lives, which is it will go down a pathway and it can sell-correct.
The most dramatic one is when DNA errors are corrected. There’s a directionality there that isn’t easy explained just by a chemical reaction. I don’t like to anthropomorphize either, but it is as if life has a behavior — I shouldn’t say a direction — but it’s moving along a direction that may not be easily explained by ‘if-then’.” (Ting Wu)
”There’s a directionality there that isn’t easy explained just by a chemical reaction.”(Ting Wu)
“Evolution runs on rails.” (Perry Marshall)
What a pity you atheists are so allergic to teleology. You are missing out on so much.
I do hope your world-views are not determined by your need to stay in bed on Sunday mornings!
To that I would add “It’s all random” is the ultimate anti-scientific cop-out. As soon as you declare that something is “Just Random” you have forfeited any possibility of defining or describing it any further.
It’s WORSE than “God of the gaps” because at least a God of the gaps argument presumes some sort of order or structure. “It’s all random” is just throwing up your hands and giving up. Any scientist who settles for that is not doing his job and should be fired. Especially if they’re trying to solve one of the worst health problems there is, namely cancer.
Landothedead, your career as a scientist will cease to be disappointing and become fruitful and exciting when you accept the #1 premise of science: That events happen for discernible reasons and not by accident.
It is questionable whether anything in the universe is actually random at all. It’s entirely possible that every interaction is defined by fixed physical laws and that randomness is only a word that describes the limits of our ability to measure.
Landothedead : “That’s the theory of the origin life and it’s more a question of chemistry than biology.”
You say that as if our discussion about the origin of codes in DNA is somehow different from the origin of Life issue.
Is that the case?
Interesting article, a bit dissapointing though. The idea falls short under it’s own assumptions.
Humans invented systems and circles work only with things that act like systems. Since we didn’t invent the universe it sort of can’t participate in the circles game.
It’s nice how the existence of a supreme being is implied, much better than religions I must admit. At least it makes you think..
There are many theories about the existence of the Universe that show no need for a creator though.
For example some Croatian guy in his 12 disertations long reserch caled PUSA says that there are 2 main properties of the universe and those are
concreteability and manifestability.
in the manifestability area which he calls ‘potential’ there are ‘waves’ that follow a straight line and are faster than the speed of light. the waves colide, slow down and form matter.
which represents the manifestability area. the matter then proceeds to radiate waves outside of itself in all directions and the universe pulsates like that. he only admits the present time and he defines it as the state of the universe within a planck’s constant time.
the guy proceeds to explain how basic units of potential and matter came to be, he explains density, temperatures, einstein’s relativity, and it all makes sense.
-if you assume that there are things that can travel faster than the speed of light and that from those all matter is formed.
It’s shaky, like the theory discussed in this article.
Perhaps George Carlin’s attitude about the world is healthier, how come we humans always think that we are so important. Haven’t Orwell and Huxley ilustrated well enough that our perfect systems are everything but perfect?
Are you saying that since logic involves man-made systems, we can’t have any confidence in the ability of logic to arrive at truthful conclusions?
It’s a trap.
Our daughter is a Freshman in college and taking a course in logic and another in Catholicism. I told her about your website. In response she sent me the following, which I think makes a lot of sense:
According to Perry:
S1 (1) Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies to all logical systems.?(2) The universe is logical? (3) Therefore the universe is incomplete
S2 (1) Belief in an incomplete system is not rational (2) Per S1, the universe is incomplete (3) therefore belief in the universe is not rational
My Rebuttal:
S1 (1) All formal systems of logic are incomplete (2) Perry posits a formal system of logic (3) therefore Perry’s formal system of logic is incomplete
S2 (1) Belief in an incomplete system is not rational (2) Perry’s formal system of logic is incomplete (3) therefore Perry’s belief in God is not rational
Where on earth did she get her S2?
I would like to say, yes, precisely.
But, my reasoning is suffering lately because of my inability to find any better way of drawing conclusions instead of the standard binary computation; which leads me only to true vs false, cause-effect, action – subject that performs it.
I’m convinced that the laws of nature can’t be explained so easily, let alone laws of the Universe.
Also if we(humans) were to explain things in a way that, to us, might seem true, the explanation does not have to be true for anyone else except for us.
For example enviromentalism. If we were to prove that our behaviour is in some way fatal to functioning of the planet. The statement would only be true about our own existence on the same planet. If we were to trigger a form of armageddon on Earth, say icecaps melt completely or we cause a nuclear winter.
It might mean the end of our existence but not all existence..
I apologize for poor grammar and straightout typing errors; I often err without even being aware of it.
‘the waves colide, slow down and form matter.
which represents the concreteability area.’
I don’t like skepticism or cynicism very much because they didn’t get me anywhere closer to understanding anything but sometimes it does seem, to me, that we should take a deep breath and try to find better ways of comprehension than pure logic and faith.
So is what you’re saying true for all of us or is it only true for you?
There is a chance that it is true in a similar manner for many perhaps, even all human beings but I wouldn’t dare to go any further.
Nature, Universe, other species perhaps have their own logic which is a bit different from ours..
I didn’t even notice the semantical trick in
your first reply.
“since logic involves man-made systems, we can’t have any confidence in the ability of logic to arrive at truthful conclusions?”
No, it’s just that I wouldn’t dare to conclude that the rules of man-made systems can be applied to anything else but man-made systems.
The ‘non here and non now’ ability in forming ideas is wonderful but it can’t be used for generalizations about things that are, to a large extent, unfamiliar, except perhaps for entertainment purposes.
It is very ambitious to make a circle around the Universe and to claim that we know how it works.
So you don’t believe that logic applies to the universe?
She’s a busy camper, so if you could indicate which S2, and which part of that S2, you’re having trouble with, she’ll try to relate it back to some of your earlier comments.
Her first one where she says I said belief in an incomplete system is irrational. When did I ever say that?
Okay, here you go -
S1 (1) Perry states, “The Incompleteness of the universe IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.” (2) From this it follows, for a system to be rational it must be complete. (3) Therefore, if a system is incomplete, it is not rational.
S2 (1) Perry States, “Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies to all logical systems.” (2) Perry states, “Belief in God is 100% logical.” (3) Therefore, from S1-3, Perry’s “Belief in God” is not rational.
Sir, you have it exactly backwards. For a system to be rational, it must be incomplete. The universe is rational and incomplete. Therefore God is necessary and God is not a system.
Logic is a tool not a wishmaster, it can not be applied to everything.
Especially to things that are vastly unfamiliar.
I am not certain that logic applies to the Universe, because the data that the human race has collected, about the Universe, is not sufficient to support such a claim.
Furtheron logic fails to explain many things regarding human nature.
For example in a war situation not many things seem to follow logical paths. The ideas of crime and adequate punishment seem to slide pass logic also.
Human tendency to follow the line of least resistance
wherever it may take us also doesn’t strike me as very logical.
A perfectly logical idea that things like pacifism and democratic socialism may actually work sort of failed miserably, why?
It appears then that you only believe in logic when it supports your purposes. So then is it your wishmaster? Does this then excuse all of peoples’ irrational behavior?
Our daughter says she’ll take her C for effort and move on, although she doesn’t understand where she went wrong since she used your words to build her syllogisms. She also added, it’s not God who’s a system, as interesting a thought as that might be, but your “logical” belief in God that she was calling into question.
She did not use my words to build her syllogism. I suggest she read this article much more carefully. Sorry if this sounds bombastic but she’ll probably learn more about logic and its limitations by scouring this thread very carefully than she will from a semester of classes.
I am being deliberately provocative here, but I hope that people from both “sides” of the discussion will take up the challenge, and destroy my syllogism. If you are unable to do so, might I suggest that you have a … problem?
Perry develops Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in order to apply it to the Universe, asking us to draw a circle around the Universe. Perry uses language which defines the Universe as everything that exists – “all matter, energy, space and time.”
Therefore, by definition, anything outside the circle does not exist. If it exists it should be inside the circle!
So –
P(1) Everything that exists is inside Perry’s Universal circle.
P(2) Perry’s God is not inside the Universal circle.
C(1) Therefore Perry’s God is non-existent.
This could also be expressed thus:
P(1b) Everything that is knowable is included within Perry’s circle.
P(2b) Perry’s God is not included within Perry’s circle.
C(2) Perry’s God is un-knowable.
“is it your wishmaster?”
It’s not my wishmaster, it’s my tool.
And I have no choice but to use it because I am unfamiliar with anything better.
Many times I have seen it fail to explain things for example the issue of understanding in heterosexual relationships.
It only seems to work well when applied to a man made system based on logic.
People have free will. People are irrational and illogical. No doubt about that. This fact itself strongly suggests that people are not purely physical, because if they were they would just obey the laws of physics. The ability to make a basic choice like “1=on, 0=off” instead of “1=off, 0=on” is proof of free will which is immaterial. This cannot be derived from the laws of physics.
We can use this to propose that from a materialistic standpoint, human beings, like the universe, are incomplete. I essentially already said this when I pointed out that the existence of code infers a designer outside the universe.
Making declaration about matter and energy and the universe is different from making a declaration about conscious beings. But you raise a good point.
Now what if you argued that humans are irrational, therefore humans are complete? That would be logical, except that human beings are contingent on their parents and so on and you still have the need to explain the origin of information. I don’t see any way to argue that the irrationality of human beings makes them complete. Just free to choose.
Hi, Richard
May I reply to your post of February 13? I have to agree (see my post of January 23) with Perry Marshall’s conclusion about there being “something outside the circle”, although our routes to that conclusion are not identical.
My thesis, though, depends upon accepting that our universe is mathematics only, and I know that may be too much to swallow! If so, I understand that the rest of this post will appear to be nonsense, and I take that in good heart. As an example of reducing the universe to mathematics, if you consider an electron, it has spin, and it interacts through the electromagnetic, gravitational and weak interactions and with the Higgs field. That’s it. There’s nothing else – no substructure. Mathematics doesn’t describe the electron – the electron is mathematics. Properties such as charge and mass follow from its interactions. All the richness and complexity of our universe – atoms, molecules, cells, neural networks, neural modelling, self-awareness – follow. Most people, including Perry, I believe, will not subscribe to that model.
Nevertheless, let’s see where this takes us.
Consider the first proposition – everything that exists is inside the circle. In a mathematical universe, any property that can be logically deduced from the simpler axioms (the basic truths, if you like) may be thought of as “existing”. From Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, it must be possible to construct a mathematical statement that says that it, the statement itself, cannot be proved in the universe in which it was constructed. Indeed, if you happen to stumble upon that very statement and write it down, you would not be able to prove that it was the statement you were seeking! The statement is said to be “undecidable” – you can prove neither the statement nor its negative.
However, that statement can be proved in a higher mathematical system. By “higher” system, I mean one that cannot be deduced logically from within our own system – our universe. In other words, in the higher system, you can prove that the Gödel statement cannot, indeed, be proved in our universe. But it took a higher system to do this! This is what Perry was saying at the beginning of this website.
So the significance of the first proposition is this – from our perspective in our universe, “everything that exists” means every property that can be logically deduced from within our universe, and so “everything that exists” is almost tautological – it is, indeed, within the circle.
What is important here is that the higher system cannot be logically deduced from within our own universe. To take a simple example, if your world is based only upon positive integers, you cannot logically deduce a world of complex numbers. However, if you start from complex numbers, you can certainly deduce the properties of positive integers.
Similarly, if you start from our universe, you cannot logically deduce the properties of the higher system in which the Gödel statement for our own universe can be proved. You may guess them, but you cannot prove them. But, from the point of view of the higher system, our own universe is transparent.
Of course, you may then think that you could apply similar reasoning to the higher system and, in this way, generate a never-ending chain of higher and higher-level Gödel statements. However, that sequence ends when you get to a mathematical system (a high enough universe!) in which “generalized natural numbers” are part of the system, and which permit the negation of the Gödel statement to be admitted as an axiom. Sorry about the jargon, but the take-home message is that the sequence of undecidable statements stops, as does the hierarchy of universes.
Whether you call that final meta-universe “God” or not is (almost) a matter of faith! While trying to avoid being too self-promoting, I would nevertheless encourage you to look at http://www.godel-universe.com for the beginning of further discussion.
Alan,
I am a fairly emotional old fella, so the only response I can provide at the moment is : YES!
Since my conversion from atheism to Christianity three years ago, I have had two overwhelming “epiphany” experiences. Already, I sense that reading your post will be a third.
You talk of mathematics, but what I discover is pure beauty.
Literally, the only word I have at this present time is : YES!
How can I not order your book?
I trust I will have something more coherent to say tomorrow.
Alan – thank you.
Thank you, Richard. I didn’t think my post would be received very well, and so I am delighted if it struck a chord. Your discovering pure beauty in mathematics reminds me of Keats’s words: “Beauty is truth, truth beauty”. In a consistent universe, mathematics is, indeed, truth, and many find this beautiful.
Okay. I was fine with walking away, but you had to imply that I’m a bad researcher. I can’t allow that to stand. Here’s how good of a researcher I am:
I read the transcript of your presentation in 2005, posted on Cosmic Fingerprints upon which most of your comments to me seem to be directed. It’s a slightly lamer, slightly less technical derivative version of a book published in 1994 called “In the beginning was intelligence” by a German engineer named Werner Gitt. Let’s see how the two stack up side by side, but first let’s see what you said about the revelation of this idea to you:
“I got pulled into this about a year ago because of a discussion I was having with a friend. You know this whole Intelligent Design versus Naturalism debate? Or if you want, you can call it the creation versus evolution debate. I had never really delved into it to really get to the bottom of things until about a year ago.
I started investigating this and I had this eureka moment one day. I think it was April of last year and I discovered some things about information theory linked to DNA.”
- Perry Marshall’s talk at Willow Creek Truthquest, South Barrington, Illinois, June 3, 2005
A comparison of the two works:
The title refers to the first verse of the Gospel written by John: “In the beginning was the Word…”
- “In the beginning was information”, German ed. 1994, page 10
I think it’s prescient that they said language was the formation and creation of what we know today. It wasn’t light or movement or anything else, it was language. And then in 90 A.D., John wrote “In the beginning was the WORD.”
In the beginning was words and language. In the beginning was information. The idea preceded the implementation. That He was in the beginning with God and He was God. Very prescient don’t you think?
- Perry Marshall’s talk at Willow Creek Truthquest, South Barrington, Illinois, June 3, 2005
Theorem 2: Information only arises through an intentional, volitional act.
- “In the beginning was information”, German ed. 1994, page 48
Information cannot be created without intent. There are no examples of information that is created without intent.
- Perry Marshall’s talk at Willow Creek Truthquest, South Barrington, Illinois, June 3, 2005
Theorem 11: A code system is always the result of a mental process (see footnote 14) (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor).
- “In the beginning was information”, German ed. 1994, page 67
Because all codes, all languages, all encoding, decoding systems come from a mind. No exceptions.
- Perry Marshall’s talk at Willow Creek Truthquest, South Barrington, Illinois, June 3, 2005
Theorem 26: The information present in living beings must have had a mental source.
- “In the beginning was information”, German ed. 1994, page 98
…exists in a symbolic form before it’s physically built. An idea, in order to exist, has to be represented by a language. Even to have an idea in your mind you have to talk to yourself and have images in your mind of what you want to do before you do it. So we know this:
• Ideas always precede implementation, always, no exceptions.
• All languages come from a mind. No exceptions.
• There are no languages that do not come from a mind.
• So we know that DNA was designed.
• A mind designed DNA, therefore God exists.
- Perry Marshall’s talk at Willow Creek Truthquest, South Barrington, Illinois, June 3, 2005
Oh and by the way, Gitt like Godel as well:
N1: The Laws of nature are based on experience. It is often asserted that the laws of nature are proved theorems, but we have to emphasise that the laws of nature cannot be proved! They are only identified and formulated through observation. It is often possible to formulate conclusions in exact mathematical terms, ensuring preciseness, brevity, and generality. But even though 26 numerous mathematical theorems (except the initial axioms) can be proved 4, this is not the case for the laws of nature. A mathematical formulation of an observation should not be confused with a proof. We affirm: the laws of nature are nothing more than empirical statements. They cannot be proved, but they are nevertheless
valid.
4 Provability: The German mathematician, David Hilbert (1862 – 1943), held the optimistic view that every mathematical problem could be resolved in the sense that a solution could be found, or that it could be proved that a solution was impossible, for example the quadrature (squaring) of a circle. He therefore said in his famous talk in Königsberg (1930) that there were no unsolvable problems:
“We must know, we will know.” Kurt Gödel (1906 – 1978), the well-known Austrian mathematician, rejected this view. He showed that, even in a formal system, not all true theorems could be proved. This statement, called the first incompleteness theorem of Gödel, was quite a revolutionary result. Because of the far-reaching effects for mathematics and for science theory, Heinrich Scholz called Gödel’s work “A critique of pure reason from the year 1931”.
- “In the beginning was information”, German ed. 1994, pages 26-27
The keypoints of both are nearly identical. And it’s interesting to note, that you don’t credit Gitt anywhere in the presentation. It’s possible that you were unaware of his work, but as your marketing website states, you’re an expert at “the Google” and I find it hard to believe that a smart guy like you could be that intellectually lazy.
Now I want you to think about this carefully. How much did you ‘mutate’ the code in Gitt’s work? Did you create any new information? (By the way, common refutations of Gitt’s work are at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html). Did you pass it off as your own? Did you make a profit off of the presentation?
This is important because Gitt has a pre-existing relationship with another creationist organization, Answers in Genesis (who have a big Ark project in the works in Kentucky and are looking for money by the way). In fact, they put a copy of his book on the web for free download, along with terms of use:
“The copyrighted work will be used for non-commercial, personal purposes only. You may not prepare, manufacture, copy, use, promote, distribute, or sell a derivative work of the copyrighted work without the express approval of Answers in Genesis. Approval must be expressed and in writing, and failure to respond shall not be deemed approval.”
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi
You may have permission for all I know, but then I have to wonder: Why no credit? You may also have already received a cease and desist order from them, but then why does your website still have links to the Cosmic Fingerprints website? Are you still profiting from this? You may have formulated the presentation before the book went up on the website, but, why still no credit?
It was at this point that the scientist in me got a little curious and started asking questions. How could I find out exactly which one of these hypotheses was correct. So I decided to make a cache of all relevant web file, send them to AiG and ask them. It was the only way my limited naturalist mind could come up with to figure out what was going on.
Anyway, in the future I suggest you remember commandments 8 & 9. You don’t need me to tell you what they are.
The lesson I’ve decided to take from this is best summed up in your own words:
“Most companies just imitate their competitors, and everyone gets dumber every year.”
- http://www.perrymarshall.com/guerrilla-marketing/
Oops, looks like that one might be plagiarized too!
http://marksuter.wordpress.com/
I give considerable credit to Gitt and mention his work numerous times, for example when I say in the very first talk I ever posted on this topic at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/intelligent_evolution.pdf “The German professor Werner Gitt, in his landmark book In The Beginning Was Information provides a rigorously formal presentation of most of the concepts I …”
You can find every reference to Gitt that I make on my website via this Google search: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22in+the+beginning+was+information%22+site%3Acosmicfingerprints.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
At http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/books/ I say:
In the Beginning was Information by Werner Gitt (link is a free PDF ebook) – Possibly the most profound science book I’ve ever read. The most concise and productive way to understand living things is that they originate first as information in DNA. As a communication engineer and author of an Ethernet book, I was amazed to discover everything I already knew about communication sytems – 1?s and 0?s, noise reduction, error correction, data compression and transmission – applies to DNA. Because DNA is a digital communication system, the tools of the information age unlock its secrets and lead us to form testable hypotheses. Gitt makes a rigorous, airtight case for an intelligent designer based on Claude Shannon’s information theory. I’ve run across a number of people and websites who say they’ve overturned Gitt’s theorems, but to a person, every single one of them violates Shannon’s work at some key point. This book brings more clarity to complex subject material than almost any I’ve ever read.
My argument is simpler than Gitt’s; his thesis consists of 8 statements; mine, 3. My material extends far beyond his into multiple mechanisms of evolution; Gitt doesn’t believe in evolution. He’s YEC; I’m Old Earth.
Given that I have said so much about Gitt and you didn’t know it, and given everything you’ve said about cancer, thus far I am not at all impressed with your research skills. You didn’t even get the title of Gitt’s book right, which by the way is “In the Beginning was Information.”
If you think you’re a good researcher, then demonstrate a flaw in my argument. And show me a code that’s not designed. By the way TalkOrigins counter to Gitt’s argument misrepresents crucial aspects of both Gitt’s statements and Shannon’s work and if you rely on it you’ll soon find out why.
P.S.: Mark Suter used my copyrighted work without permission. The article he copied, dated March 24, 2009 was first published by me in March 2002.
P.P.S: You’re not the only cancer researcher to weigh in on this. Here’s one who sees things rather differently from you:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ironcurtain/comment-page-1/#comment-3786
“I give considerable credit to Gitt and mention his work numerous times, for example when I say in the very first talk I ever posted on this topic at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/intelligent_evolution.pdf “The German professor Werner Gitt, in his landmark book In The Beginning Was Information provides a rigorously formal presentation of most of the concepts I …”
- Irrelevant. The matter at hand is that you didn’t give credit during your presentation. If you want to play science you have to give references everytime.
- But this is just a little side point.
“By the way TalkOrigins counter to Gitt’s argument is incorrect and if you try to use it you’ll find out why.”
- I was under the impression that I had used it. If you have a problem with it, you can try contacting the author. I believe this is his homepage http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/ctei/home/ctei_people/baldwin_home.html.
- But, “By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming genomic sequences are information fitting that definition, Gitt defines into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html” Seems pretty solid to me.
- Here’s an additional one: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html
“My argument is simpler than Gitt’s; his thesis consists of 8 statements; mine, 3. My material extends far beyond his into multiple mechanisms of evolution;”
- Unfortunately two (and arguably all)of those mechanisms are STILL stolen from Gitt (see below)
Really? Gitt doesn’t deal with evolution? He doesn’t believe in it so he addresses it in an attempt to knock it down, even Christian friendly evolution.
“In addition there is the idea of THEISTIC EVOLUTION where God just set the evolution ball rolling and supposedly guided it during millions of years. This latter view cannot be refuted by means of the information theorems, but it contradicts biblical revelation.”
- “In the beginning was information”, 1994, p 136 (caps are mine)
His section here:
“Cumulative selection (Latin cumulare = gather): Richard Dawkins, a British neo-Darwinist, revives the historical example of the typewriter-thrumming monkeys (see Appendix A1.5) and replaces them with “computer monkeys”. As shown in Figure 21, he begins with a random sequence of 28 letters [D2 p 66 – 67] and seeks to demonstrate how a pre-determined phrase selected from Shakespeare, “Methinks it is like a weasel”,
- “In the beginning was information”, 1994, p 102
Is quite close to your section here:
“2. Random Mutation + Deliberate Selection + Time = Design
An example of this would be a game of Scrabble. In Scrabble, you get a bunch of letters and you reach into the pile. You get your letters and then try to spell something with them. That’s deliberate selection out of a random mutation.”
- Perry Marshall’s talk at Willow Creek Truthquest, South Barrington, Illinois, June 3, 2005
He even deals with the same Dawkins problem you do later on (making the Scrabble allusion again). Here’s why you’re both wrong about that. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF011.html
Also, his section here:
“Genetic algorithms: The so-called “genetic algorithms” is yet another way of trying to explain how information could originate in matter [F5, M4]. The combination of words is deliberately chosen from biology and numerical mathematics to suggest that evolutionary events are described mathematically… The sample is then modified (mutated) by allowing various genetic operators to influence the bit string (e. g. crossover). A “fitness function”, assumed for the process of evolution, is then applied to each result.”
- “In the beginning was information”, 1994, p 104
- Reference F5 here refers to an article titled ‘Genetic Algorithms: Principles of Natural Selection Applied to Computation’
Is analogous to your section here:
“1. Deliberate Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
An example of deliberate mutation combined with natural selection and time is business and technology. Five guys start a company and they are all going after the same market. Four of them fail, one of them succeeds. That’s evolution right?”
- Perry Marshall’s talk at Willow Creek Truthquest, South Barrington, Illinois, June 3, 2005
Of course he uses the example of airplane connections and you use advertising.
These are the mechanisms of evolution you were talking about, weren’t they? (Also, here’s why your conclusion of ‘design’ in these three points is wrong http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.html)
The fact that the ideas you subscribe to (OEC) are slightly less crazy than Gitts (YEC), meant that aesthetically you could just take the conclusion that Gitt says ‘cannot be refuted by means of the information theorems’, say ‘I love things that can’t be disproven! And I’m not a literalist!’ and shove it in at the end. You didn’t even really do anything to develop this, you just grafted on the definition of theistic evolution along with work done by others.
“Q16: Can new information originate through mutations? A16: This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious.”
- “In the beginning was information”, 1994, p 104
“Random mutations violate the whole nature of how information is created. Language can only be improved from the top working down to the bottom. You can’t randomly mutate a sentence into saying something more meaningful.”
- Perry Marshall’s talk at Willow Creek Truthquest, South Barrington, Illinois, June 3, 2005
Here`s why you`re wrong about that: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
In fact, the only part I could find that might be original was that mutations are noise, which one could argue is implied by Gitt`s use of Shannon`s theories, or that you lifted that one from a second creationist source. Ironically it`s the single weakest part of the argument since it completely invalidates the rest of your analogy as I mentioned earlier. If mutations are noise and they can increase information(see above link) then the rest of your analogy is false. The whole thing is like me screening Star Wars and claiming I wrote it because I stuck fifteen minutes of Empire at the end.
Let`s have a look at some more stuff and get away from Gitt.
In your presentation:
“Was it Divine intervention? Well the fossil record does match the Genesis story better than it matches Darwin’s theory. You can read all about punctuated equilibrium and the sudden changes of the fossil record. The Cambrian explosion, is that divine intervention? I think it certainly could be.“
Wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_1.html
Wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
“Dobzhanski’s Fruit Fly Mutation Experiments: A Total Failure”
- Debatable: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html
While we’ve been talking:
Horizontal gene transfer somehow accounts for evolution:
- Overblown: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html
A few weeks ago, you claimed that cancer was a break down in the mathematical matrix of evolution, or something like that. Here`s why you`re wrong about that:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract
This is just one paper, but it’s pretty famous, and there are lots more. Please note that if there was some larger order within the genome that accounted for evolution, all of Lenski`s bacteria would have evolved the ability to use citrate at the same time.
Nowhere has any researcher proven that the mutations that generated new features were random. In all the literature I have ever been able to find, like Lenski’s, such genetic changes involved some form of genomic re-arrangement, transposition, or horizontal gene transfer etc. The talkorigins article about random mutations and noise does not add any direct evidence to your case. If you disagree then show an experiment where mutations proven to be random produced new features.
Show me an example of a fruit fly radiation experiment that produced new features or speciation.
The data in the Lenski paper never demonstrates that the changes that produced the ability to digest citrate were actually random. He says they were random but he never proves this. Meanwhile the changes noted are concentrated in specific genes, not distributed evenly across the whole genome. He notes several times where different bacteria mutated in the same ways. Your claim that ALL bacteria would mutate the same way ignores the fact that when organisms re-arrange their genomes they do so in response to their environment. No two bacteria are ever in 100% identical environments so your proposition would not hold.
You still haven’t shown me a code that’s not designed.
And you don’t appear to have read Jean-Claude Perez’ research on the mathematical structure of DNA. It also sounds like you’re unfamiliar with Chargaff’s rules – both observations show that it’s impossible that evolutionary change is driven by random mutations.
Evolution is driven by transposition, horizontal gene transfer, symbiogenesis, genome doubling and epigenetics. Not randomness. If you disagree then prove that the path between one species and another is random.
Good night! I was just rereading some of your older posts. You claim that apoptosis is some kind of ‘telological selection’… Wow.
At first I just thought you were maybe just forgetful about your references or at the worst dishonest. But…
I have to digress into the emotional realm here for a second. Up until you decided to impugn my ability as a researcher I was enjoying a spirited argument. That annoyed me, but reading this… This honestly makes me sad. There’s something I want you to do. Next time you’re at a hospital, find the cancer ward and find a terminal patient. Tell him or her that they are going die because god decided not to intervene with his ‘telological selection’. Tell them that god ‘selected’ them to suffer and then die. He did a poor job of designing their DNA. Then tell them that we have to waste time and resources that could have found them a cure to start looking for ghosts and goblins that may or may not exist, that we have to respect do-nothings like Dempsky, Gitt and Behe who try to define god into science instead of producing concrete results. Seriously. ‘Cause if you’re right about this (and I’m 99.99% sure you’re not, because I know the pathway) then your god is a really terrible person. Like, ridiculously terrible. And if you still think that this is an entity you still want to pay homage to then… you’re pitiful, small and arrogant, scrambling after crumbs left by other small people like Gitt who never did anything, just stood in front of society and demand that it stop because they’re uncomfortable going on without their god.
… Holy crap. Do all creationists think this way? I used to think that people like Dawkins were exaggerating, but… I don’t even know what to say.
Just… screw this.
Apoptosis is defined as “Programmed cell death.” All programs are teleological.
Just because your theology is incoherent and insulting doesn’t mean mine is. You are free to entertain whatever misconceptions you wish to have about such matters.
If the best that you can do is call people names then that says a great deal.
“Evolution is driven by transposition, horizontal gene transfer, symbiogenesis, genome doubling and epigenetics.”
- Dude! Look how far you’ve come!
- If you throw in mutation (whose causes could be environmental effects, as you alluded to above with your response to the Lenski experiment) and gene duplication (which can be done by transposons which you clearly know about) then we are in complete agreement!
Congratulations! You no longer need god to do anything with regards to biology.
And, after you talk to the cancer patients, THEN you can be ‘holier than thou’ with me.
“Look how far you’ve come!” ?????
Where have you been? I’ve been saying this for years.
If you were listening you would know that’s what I’ve been saying all along. Scroll up and read the thread. http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/#comment-31305 for example. You’ll find discussions of all of these things. And none of that stuff is random. It’s all systematic and orderly.
And by the way, my dad died of cancer when I was 17. Our family went through the whole 3 year ordeal. The roller coaster of emotions, the gut wrenching treatments, the ghastly expenses, the plane trips, the works. And finally his last day on earth when he was laying in the hospital bed arching his back to take every last gasp of air. If you want to talk about cancer wards, I’m qualified to participate. But stop your insulting behavior and your belittling remarks, because I don’t enjoy delving into private personal matters and sensitive topics with rude disrespectful people.
I’ve had relatives affected by cancer too, fortunately no one has died though so, I’m sorry about your dad.
So, really,it’s not the mutation part, but the random part that you’ve got issue with? I see. I see.
Then I have to ask; what’s with all the ‘And yes, atheists are irrational.’ and ‘Actually it’s Exhibit A of atheistic scientific vandalism.’ stuff you’ve got going on here?
1. Belief in a closed rational universe violates Godel.
2. Belief that random copying errors drive evolution violates information theory. Belief in random evolution is scientific vandalism because it obscures the crucial fact that extremely systematic mechanisms drive evolution. Science always prefers system to accident.
I have backed these statements with painstaking detail and thorough explanations. Read the above text, follow the links and you can confirm it all item by item.
I respectfully submit to you that once you accept that evolution is highly mathematical and algorithmic you will begin to find a cure for cancer.
Land of the Dead : I am happy that you have felt able to express your highly emotional anti-God feelings, because that is at the root of your issue – not science and not logic.
I would like to thank Perry for allowing you to use his discussion board as a sort of therapy. It’s good to get personal pain out of the way, then hopefully you can start getting things the right way round. (Sorry about sounding pompous and condescending, but there’s no gentle way to say it.)
You and I are both confronted with the problem of suffering.
On-line, anonymous atheists tend to say, “Either your God is a sadist, or more likely He doesn’t exist. Look at all the pain and suffering, for crying out loud!”
The Christian says, ” There is so much pain and suffering. What is my responsibility in all this, and what can I do about it with God’s help?”
Do you see the difference?
Land of the (spiritually)Dead says, mockingly, ” Your so-called God really screwed things up. Stop looking for him in DNA and let real scientists get on with finding a cure for cancer. But we’ll have to factor ‘random’ in somewhere.”
Perry Marshall says, “Get rid of the criminally unscientific ‘random’ mythology, learn the lessons from Nature, and Nature’s true mechanisms in evolution (even if we have to admit that God-did-it). Once you accept that evolution is highly mathematical and algorithmic you will begin to find a cure for cancer.”
Do you see the difference?
Oh, and if you still doubt the importance of the role of mathematics in all of that, just check out the work of Arkhat Abzhanov at Harvard, where he is rediscovering D’Arcy Thompson.
‘I don’t see any way to argue that the irrationality of human beings makes them complete. Just free to choose.’
I agree.
By becoming dominant species on Earth we opened up alot of options for ourselves. One of them is the freedom of choice, which is healthy when it is driven by will to live.
But since we are on the top of the food chain we can choose to do various stupid things and still survive.
I like the discussion about how systematic the evolution is. I agree.
But, for example I can’t understand how homosexuals fit into the story. I have nothing against gay people or anything, I just, don’t understand the natural necessity for the phenomenon.
For the sake of argument I would dare to assume that in the far past, while humans still had to battle for survival, there weren’t many gay people walking around.
With freedom of choice in mind, why is god necessary, except to justify some of the choices that we make but don’t like?
I’m not sure where you got the idea that existence of God justifies choices. In my mind it implies accountability to make wiser choices, not license to make dumb ones.
God is necessary as an explanation for why we live in a logical universe. That’s what Gödel’s logic indicates.
For theories about homosexuality, I refer you to others wiser than myself.
‘I’m not sure where you got the idea that existence of God justifies choices.’
From a chatolic priest.
For every ‘bad’ choice the believer has to repent by saying he’s sorry to the priest, the priest then produces a cost for forgiveness, the modern currency is – prayers 2, 3, 5, 10, and the gates of heaven are wide open once again, providing that the repentance was sincere.
‘God is necessary as an explanation for why we live in a logical universe.’
Yes, but if we are not always behaving rationally or logicaly and we invented logic, how can we claim that the Universe is logical, since we are a part of the Universe.
Igor,
Insightful answers.
Well first of all I have to say that “the priest introduces a cost for forgiveness” is not a concept you find anywhere in the New Testament. Jesus and the NT authors taught GRACE not cost of repentance or penance. This is, in my mind, just so much Catholic baggage. I am not anti Catholic but I am definitely not in favor of what you experienced.
Humans did not invent logic. Humans observe and discover logic. Christianity has taught this for thousands of years – just read the Wisdom literature in the Bible.
Mathematicians have taught the same thing. Ask any math professor anywhere whether humans invent mathematics, or discover it.
*Facepalm*
You know what. I apologize for my earlier vitriol. I didn’t know I was talking to a bot.
So, here’s a summary of my points so far:
1) Your arguments are stolen from Gitt, so all the criticisms of his argument apply to yours. They are located here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html and here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html
2) We’ve established that you believe in all the elements of evolution, you just substitute god in place of natural laws, which from a theological standpoint is acceptable, but it hardly has any place in science. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301_1.html This is confirmed by the way you attempt to use Godel to remove god from the universe (and therefore from scientific study.)
3) Your challenge ‘Show me a code that isn’t designed’: By definition codes are designed, therefore any complex, self-replicating pattern that I showed you that wasn’t designed would not be a code. This challenge is a tautology, like asking me to show you a stallion that is not a horse.
4) Though I can’t show you a code that isn’t designed in reality, let’s take a ride on the inference express using your own logic (with appropriate sarcasm thrown in).
i. The only things we know of that are intelligent have differentiated, connected parts (ex. neurons, possibly computer hardware). (I made this argument a few months ago when I first stumbled on this site, at that time you said it was sound)
ii. Differentiated parts can be expressed symbolically (binary code uses 1’s and 0’s, language uses an alphabet, DNA, if we use your logic, uses A,T,C,G)
iii. Therefore all intelligence can be expressed as a code.
iv. If god is intelligent, god must have differentiated parts, therefore god can be expressed as a code.
v. All codes have designers (this is your own logic here)
vi. Therefore if god exists and god is intelligent then god is designed.
vii. Whatever designed god must be intelligent… Oops!
5) Your shaky grasp of biology (you like to quote Nobel prize winners, but seem to have little idea what their works mean. Ex. McClintock)has led you to propose apoptosis is ‘teleological selection’ (which is impossible if god exists outside the universe by the way). This isn’t really a scientific argument; it just means that you worship a non-present being who’s sitting outside the universe with a logic-defying sniper rifle. That makes you not only ignorant, but in my book, some kind of death worshipper as well.
If you can answer criticisms 1-4 satisfactorily, without deflecting the argument, then we can continue to talk. If not, keep on botting!!
1. If you will present the talkorigins arguments here in your own words I will respond to them point by point. I have already addressed every one of these objections in some form or another at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infidels.
2. No I do not substitute God for natural laws, because natural laws do not create codes, programs or algorithms. An intelligent agent is ostensibly necessary for such things to exist, and directly inferred by what we observe in biology.
I model evolution as a capability originally programmed into cells. Evolution is organized by a protocol that can be understood and replicated if its existence is acknowledged first. It cannot be studied so long as evolution is attributed to “random copying errors.”
3. Incorrect. The fact that all codes are designed is a plain observation, not a tautology. In theory a counterexample should be EASY to produce, if there is any principle in science that supports your worldview. If we received codes from outer space tomorrow (like SETI has been watching for for many years) then that would show that codes can come from somewhere besides humans. Furthermore, DNA is proof that codes CAN come from somewhere besides humans – because we can be pretty sure that humans did not design DNA.
So if normal natural laws created codes then you will be able to find other encoding / decoding systems that humans didn’t create. Where are they?
4. This is just a loosely connected assembly of statements, culminating in an admission that everything does in fact require a First Cause. And sarcasm will get you nowhere. Let me know when you’re ready to provide a serious argument.
5. Apoptosis is teleological, just like you writing comments on my blog is teleological. God’s constant intervention is not needed for either to happen.
1. Shan’t! Do you have a phobia about talkorigins or something. Seriously, it takes 5 minutes to read these things, unlike all your forum posts (which still don’t credit Gitt) that are like 300 pages long. You have your own website. Surely you can organize all the points you make into something that’s a little easier to read.
2. No, this is what you infer from looking at DESIGN. In your reasoning you observe design in designed things and then apply it to biology, NOT the other way around. You’re just replacing chemistry with supernatural causation, which has no place in science.
3. “If we received CODES from outer space tomorrow (like SETI has been watching for for many years) then that would show that CODES can come from somewhere besides humans.”
- Which would be DESIGNED, because they are CODES. Guess that alternative isn’t too easy to come up with after all. Go go gadget circular logic.
4. What?!! Loosely garbled together sentences that collapse into tautology and circular logic aren’t serious arguments? Holy crap, I just won the argument!!!!!
- What I’m trying to say is that if my logic fails then so does yours. I’m using the same line of inference as you with one extra point #1 that you’ve already admitted was sound.
- If everything has a first cause, then so does god.
5. “Apoptosis is teleological, just like you writing comments on my blog is teleological. God’s constant intervention is not needed for either to happen.”
- Which is fine theologically, but it’s not science. If god never gets of his duff and sets foot inside the universe to intervene then we can’t study him, can we?
Landofthedead,
1. I’m still not convinced you understand my argument let alone theirs. Copy/paste if you want but you have to be extremely specific. You post a question here and I’ll answer it.
2. Gödel’s theorem shows that science relies on axioms and causes that lie outside of science. Therefore neither philosophy, nor metaphysics nor supernatural causation cannot in principle be ruled out of scientific discussion. All scientific worldviews make metaphysical assumptions. I am positing an axiom that the origin of life was a singularity event.
3. If you could demonstrate that chemistry alone makes codes then signals from outer space wouldn’t infer design. Until then, it does. For this reason, DNA infers design just as much as signals from outer space would.
This is not circular logic, it’s standard inductive inference. You’re trying to make the same argument Jason Devlin failed to make. See his argument and my response at http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/#comment-37405
4. Your logic is not the same as mine. See #3.
5. I never said God doesn’t enter the universe. I said the universe is incomplete without God, and I said the active intervention of God is not necessary for the ongoing function of biology.
1. I don’t need to copy and paste, that’s what the links are for. Here they are again. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI131.html I’m reasonably sure you have an internet connection. Keep on botting.
2. You’re just agreeing with me here. I agree. The supernatural is by definition outside of science because science deals with the natural world. It is by definition untestable and you can never know anything for sure about it. Without data you can never differentiate a hypothesis from a null hypothesis and never reach any useful conclusions. Theologically okay, scientifically bad. Keep on botting.
3. Chemistry alone DOES make hundreds of self-replicating patterns, here’s my favourite example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg (prediction, you will take the title as proof for your own views, even as the video shows otherwise )but you can’t call them codes, because codes are, by definition designed (World English Dictionary, Code, n, a conventionalized set of principles, rules, or expectations) You need evidence of convention (read: design) to call them codes, NOT the other way around. And when you and Dembski get that, go claim your Nobel Prize. In the meantime, keep riding that carousel.
4. If my logic is so flawed you should be able to knock it down pretty easily. Find me an example of intelligence not made up of differentiated parts that can be represented symbolically. Good luck!
5. This is theology, I have nothing to say about it.
That Youtube presentation was absolutely delightful.
Just imagine – in millions of years, when those polymers have evolved sufficiently to become intelligent, they will be calling Dr. Jack Szostak: “God”, and having debates about his existence.
No?
That’s not how it works?
OK.
Landothedead,
I have taken your three TalkOrigins articles and responded to them point by point in a dedicated blog post. The full text is here:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/talkorigins-gitt/
The TalkOrigins articles are of inexcusably bad quality. For example TalkOrigins claims DNA is a cipher and not a code. That is an uninformed and bizarre statement. This contradicts all standard biological literature since the 1960′s. Atheists willingly contradict even the most basic scientific discoveries to avoid teleology.
Summary:
1. TalkOrigins says that Gitt can’t infer meaning from codes because randomness cannot be proven. Non-randomness CAN be proven and the presumption of all cryptography and linguistics is that meaning can be inferred. Information theory is all about the non-random statistical profiles of codes, is it not? Actually the fact that randomness cannot be proven is precisely why Neo Darwinism is by definition not a scientific theory – because Neo Darwinism proposes that evolution comes from random copying errors.
Your own repeated insistence that “it’s all random” is as anti-science as you can get.
2. TalkOrigins claims that information theory is concerned with symbols originally generated randomly. This is patently false. Warren Weaver addresses this in the introduction to Shannon’s book, 1998 edition, U. of Illinois Press.
3. TalkOrigins says that information theory is only concerned with the statistical nature of codes. This is a half truth at best. Mathematics can only *quantify* statistics but information theory is explicitly concerned with statistics, syntax, semantics and pragmatics.
4. Just like you and Jason Devlin, TalkOrigins accuses inference to design as a circular argument. I have already shown above that I am using normal linear inferential reasoning.
5. TalkOrigins says DNA is not a language because it doesn’t obey Zipf’s law. This is a prime example of the poor quality of TalkOrigins scholarship. First of all, it does follow Zipf’s law. And secondly, Zipf’s law has nothing to do with the definition of a code or language anyway. By most criteria of defining language, DNA is language. My criteria by the way is: A series of symbols containing Statistics / Syntax / Semantics / Pragmatics.
6. TalkOrigins uses a hopelessly vague definition of machines to suggest that since inclined planes occur naturally, cellular Turing machines occur naturally too. A useful definition of machine is a Turing machine or any equivalent that processes algorithms based on symbols. According to that definition there is no such thing as a naturally occurring Turing machine that produces code, that is known to science.
Read my full article at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/talkorigins-gitt/
I’m about to go on vacation for the long weekend, so I’d like to clarify my #3 from earlier. Your inductional inference is wrong because it’s backwards.
If you look at something and see it has long legs, gray skin, flappy ears and a trunk you can infer it’s an elephant.
You can’t look at a cat, call it an elephant and then infer it has long legs, grey skin and a trunk. That’s silly.
You’re looking at something, calling it a code and then inferring it is designed instead of finding the design and then inferring we should call it a code, which is what you have to do if you want this to actually have any meaning. Dempski has been failing spectacularly at it for a while now.
By what criteria would we infer that SETI space signals are designed and not likewise infer DNA is designed?
We can infer that any signals we receive from deep space are from intelligent beings, because they’d have to be, especially if we established two-way contact. While it is theoretically possible that random forces could create what appears to be intelligent conversation, it’s remarkably improbable. We can verify that the SETI signals are designed, we can empirically prove this. Furthermore, we already have reason to think that they are designed. We do not, however, have any reason to think that DNA is designed. The existence of DNA can be explained by chemical and biological processes.
“By what criteria would we infer that SETI space signals are designed and not likewise infer DNA is designed?”
That’s a good question Perry, too bad you aren’t asking it, because it’s a really terrible analogy. The SETI program actually has to make a number of major foundational assumptions in order to even justify it’s existence. In a general sense, these amount to first assuming that at least some extraterrestrial civilizations would evolve along the same developmental track that humanity has, thus we would recognize their electromagnetic communications by the simple fact that they would be very similar to our own.
So I think it goes without saying why we wouldn’t make the same assumptions in bio-chemistry as we would in the SETI program. But I digress, really I just wanted to ask:
What is it that you think the genome of a given organism is communicating, Perry?
The genome communicates instructions to build physical structures. The communication is decoded by RNA Polymerase and Ribosomes. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/ or chapter 5 of “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” by Hubert Yockey (Cambridge University Press, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802938?ie=UTF8&tag=httpwwwperryc-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521802938
“The genome communicates instructions to build physical structures.”
So then the genome itself is completely arbitrary right? After all it’s only there to store and communicate the instructions, just like the SSD in my iPhone stores the instructions to play my music collection, but I could also store it on an HDD or a CD or even holes punched in cards if I really wanted to get crafty. Since the genetic code is exactly like the codes designed by humans, I’m assuming we could store it and communicate it with any arbitrary medium, right?
Is the SSD slot in your phone arbitrary? If the SSD slot in your phone does not accept CD-ROMs, is the data on your SSD card a code?
“Is the SSD slot in your phone arbitrary? If the SSD slot in your phone does not accept CD-ROMs, is the data on your SSD card a code?”
The SSD in my phone is arbitrary, yes. It literally does not matter at all. Apple uses an SSD simply because it is most efficient, but the code could be stored on a CD-ROM or a HDD instead. The storage medium doesn’t matter, the code stored on it does. This is true for any digital code ever created in the history of mankind.
The instructions to play my favorite Jay-Z album are stored on my phone’s SSD, but I could store it on a mountain of hole punch cards instead if I really wanted to prove a point. I could bake cupcakes and arrange them on a grid the size of Florida and read the code from space, I could feed black and white marbles into a hopper, it doesn’t matter. The code will always produce my favorite Jay-Z album.
So, why can’t we transcribe a sequence of DNA from say, an optical disk, and still produce a protein? After all, if it’s truly like any code we know the origin of, then the medium shouldn’t matter.
We can. Genetic engineers do it every day.
“We can. Genetic engineers do it every day.”
No Perry, this isn’t even remotely close to what genetic engineering does. Genetic engineering does not transcribe the genetic code to a new storage medium, it uses DNA no matter what it’s intended purpose is. We do things like introduce a novel genetic sequence into a bacteria to manipulate it to produce insulin. This is more analogous to taking bits of data on a magnetic drive and rearranging them to produce a new output.
I am talking about taking those bits from the magnetic drive, transcribing them onto an optical disk and still getting the exact same output. With digital code, i.e. every “intelligently created” code in existence, the medium is entirely irrelevant. It literally does not matter one bit what we store the code on, we can still read it and produce the same output no matter what. With genetic code, the code does not function without DNA as the medium. No DNA, no output.
This is one very important aspect in which it doesn’t function like a code at all, because it isn’t as simple as just “instructions” stored on a medium, we can’t store the instructions on anything but DNA and still get the same output, like we can store the code for a piece of music on any medium imaginable and still produce the same piece music. A wax cylinder full of holes can produce Beethoven’s 5th the same as a spinning magnetic disk can. But a neither a wax cylinder nor a magnetic disk can produce a protein. Why?
We can take data from anywhere stored in any medium and transfer it to your SD card in your phone. But for your cell phone to read it, it has to be on the SD card.
We can take data from anywhere stored in any medium and transfer it to your DNA. But for your cells to read it, it has to be on the DNA.
The two systems are isomorphic.
In both situations, the data is read from the storage medium (SD Card/DNA), transcribed into a different digital format (electrical impulses/messenger RNA) and translated into yet another form (images or sound / amino acids). This is the very definition of digital communication. DNA transcription and translation is digital communication. Read Yockey’s book and he will set you straight on this matter.
Craig Venter produced a quasi-synthetic cell by arranging genes on a computer, then producing a strand of DNA with the desired pattern, then implanting it into a cell. Yes Jason, he most certainly did transcribe the original code to a new storage medium – a hard drive.
You said, “I am talking about taking those bits from the magnetic drive, transcribing them onto an optical disk and still getting the exact same output. With digital code, i.e. every “intelligently created” code in existence, the medium is entirely irrelevant.”
That is false. In every specific instance of any specific system, the medium is crucial. CD players don’t play floppy disks. Your cell phone doesn’t read data from magnetic drives, it reads SD cards.
If we translate the code, we can store the instructions on any medium. That’s why it’s meaningful and accurate to use English to say “In DNA translation, GGG codes for Glycine.”
Jason, if you think you can counter my syllogism by arguing that DNA is not a code, or that cells don’t employ digital communication, then you have failed to understand the very definition of “bioinformatics.” I suggest you look it up in a science dictionary, or consult one of the many journals.
Jason, something I would like to add:
I don’t know your story. You’re welcome to tell it if you want. My experience based on 15 years of conversations with hard-core atheists, both in person and online, is that for the most part they are *very* spiritual people who experienced a profound disappointment with God. Perhaps an unanswered prayer or a deep loss. They came to a point where they felt duped, exposed, ashamed, foolish for ever seeking or believing such a “silly childish thing” as a God who loves them.
At some point they abandoned their belief, realizing that entirely natural explanations for everything are possible, that the human mind tricks itself by assigning purpose to things that have no purpose. They trade their former hope in God for “tough guy” rationalization that shit happens and they’re now finally man enough to accept it.
The problem with this approach is that you now have to dismiss anything that smacks of ultimate purpose in the universe. Which means that anything in science which suggests ultimate purpose in the universe – including any sort of teleology – has to be rejected before being examined. To examine such evidence is to put one’s atheism in peril. Which means re-evaluating, again, a carefully constructed worldview.
CS Lewis was an Oxford professor, an atheist for many years who became a Christian later in life. He said, “A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.”
The other problem with this approach is deep down they’re still angry. Angry at themselves for wanting something they can never, ever have; and angry at religious people for happily deluding themselves into thinking they have an Imaginary Friend. Angry that the world is seething with religion and irrationalism.
My friend Richard Morgan was a card-carrying atheist and rabid Richard Dawkins fan for 25 years. At one point someone asked him what it would take for him to believe in God. As he began to ponder that question, the Holy Spirit came to him with a scripture: “We love Him because He first loved us.” It was at that moment that the lights turned on and a black and white world changed to color in an instant.
Jason, I pray the same for you.
You can read Richard’s story at http://www.christianpost.com/news/former-dawkins-atheist-richard-morgan-continues-to-praise-god-49558/
I don’t know. I’ll leave that for linguists to worry about, but William Dempsky has been trying to find “CSI” in life for years and failed. Maybe he’ll succeed tomorrow, I don’t know. But in the absence of compelling evidence I’m going to accept the null hypothesis; we haven’t come into contact with aliens, life was not designed and god is not part of science.
What exactly you do with god is up to you, but he stays out of science.
Are we done here? Because your arguments just completely fell apart earlier this morning.
If so, good luck in the future.
1 down, 3 to go.
Although:
“In all communication systems it is possible to label the encoder, the message and the decoder and determine the rules of the code.”
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/faq/
You’re labeling this a communication system and then assuming the presence of the encoder which then indicates to you that this is a communication system.
Keep elephanting those cats.
If any new commenters are reading this, I’ve summarized most of the arguments here to prevent repeat posting. I’m sure no one likes reading over the same technical stuff again and again.
The simplified and overly sarcastic article is here:
http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/attachment/download?id=1982180%3AUploadedFi58%3A534706
Au contraire, Landothedead. You don’t read things very carefully, do you?
The encoder is the transcription of DNA, the code is messenger RNA and the decoder is the translation from mRNA to proteins (Yockey, 2005.) No encoder is assumed here. Yockey’s diagram is reproduced on http://cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm
Landothdead : I checked out your “simplified and overly sarcastic article “.
After mocking Perry Marshall’s incompetence as a philosopher (he’s never claimed to be a philosopher but, hey-ho, anything goes when you want to insult and vilify someone, right?), you makes this interesting confession :
“This is called a Reductio Ad Absurdum, or the reduction to the absurd. Normally they’re not considered to be good arguments, but I like to play around with it to see what results I can get. The object is to take a line of reasoning far beyond its breaking point, into the realm of the crazy.”
So someone we’re supposed to take seriously, admits that he “likes to play around” with arguments that are normally not considered to be “good” and push them into the “realm of the crazy”.
Well, OK.
If the “realm of the crazy” is where you feel at home – enjoy yourself, pal. Come back to our discussion when when you’ve got a handle on the “realm of the sane”. Not offence intended, but Perry and I call “not good arguments” – bad arguments : we don’t employ them, neither do we play with them.
That said, you must admit that it’s pretty telling that the best you can do to invalidate Perry Marshall’s arguments is to resort to intellectually masturbatory (you’re alone in your pleasure) flights of fancy.
Yep – you said it : “simplified and overly sarcastic”.
Thank you for your constructive criticism of my summary of the arguments listed here. I have made a couple of corrections based on your suggestions.
You can find the latest version at:
http://noxpopuli.blogspot.com/p/profiles-in-crazy.html
Is this a joke?
All of the things you said “If the universe is logical, it has an outside cause.”,
There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove,
you don’t realize you’re using the analogy on the real world in a way its not supposed to go. There is no circle around the universe! The circle was an analogy.
THERE IS NO CIRCLE AROUND THE UNIVERSE! Ninety percent of what you said on this thing was based of an imaginary boundary in the universe. You would have to first PROVE that the boundary was there. and you can’t do that, Because of this Theorem.
Einstein’s space-time theorems indicate that even space itself is finite. Everything we know indicates that the universe is limited in size and mass and even space itself has an outer boundary.
Ralphie,
I understand your irritation, but please forgive me for saying that it is more due to your underestimation of Perry’s intelligence than any flaws in his reasoning.
Nobody has ever said that the Universe is actually round.
Nobody has said that if you get on your bike and pedal for a very long time, one day you will hit a point with a sign saying, “The Universe stops here.”
You have reacted the way you did on account of a conceptual problem – the human mind simply can not conceive of “non-existence”, but that doesn’t prevent us from being aware of the difference between “existence” and “non-existence”.
It is simply a useful analogy to talk about the limits as a “circle”, it conveniently helps us to distinguish categories.
In certain forms of schizophrenia, the individual has great difficulties in sensing where his own body “stops” and another person’s “begins”, which is why he finds physical contact so invasive and terrifying.
The new born baby learns this process in the first months of life – where he “stops” and his mother “begins”.
If you accept the idea of Planck units (which, apparently, not everybody does) then you accept that there is a finite number of these units that could theoretically be “counted” in the universe. (Though it would take even longer than waiting for the plumber to arrive!).
Sure, even Planck units are based on that which is observable and measurable by the human mind, and any metaphorical “circle” should be considered as unstable in that it could be ever-growing.
The Bible, Christianity and Perry Marshall (in that order)are not saying anything different, pal.
I would have thought that we would all take it as given that the “circle” is a conceptual device and, yes, an analogy. But such analogies are essential for useful conceptualization and, more importantly, verbal communication.
So take it easy, loosen up a bit, accept the inadequacies of analogy-based language, and let’s all move on together, ok?
Bing Crosby understood the difficulties of distinguishing between “blue” and “gold” when he sang:
“Where the blue of the night
Meets the gold of the day
Someone waits for me”
Nobody can draw a line where the blue of the night sky actually becomes gold under the influence of the rising sun, but that’s the way we talk. Or sing.
You and I can communicate because of the differentiation between “you” and “I”.
We can, and do, differentiate between “known” and “unknown”, “existence” and “non-existence” and Gödel keeps us humble and hopeful.
There.
I hope you feel better now.
I confess I haven’t read through all the comments but this article feels a little misleading.
At no point did mathematicians expect to be able to prove their self-evident truths (axioms) using the results based on those truths. This is a clear case of circular reasoning. Rather Godel showed that there would always be propositions which cold be stated using an axiom system which could neither be proved nor disproved within that system. No mathematician would ever describe these results as “obviously true” since proof can be the only method for deciding this, and adding these results as further axioms would only lead to more unprovable statements.
This is a far more subtle problem and is very far reaching. In short it means that no mathematical system can be taken to its ultimate logical conclusions.
I find it odd that this appears as a religious article I must say. I think some of the conclusions drawn from this by you and some commentators are speculative in the extreme.
Are you saying Euclid’s 5 postulates are not obviously true?
# All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
# Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.
Thats wrong. A few lines above that, you mentioned the genetic code as a sort of information. The genetic code evolved. It’s information without any conscious being behind it.
Naturalism is wrong? So, something, that isn’t part of the nature does affect it? The sun is part of the nature in a way, the stars are also. But the spaces in the universe, which are that far away, that they can’t be seen, yet (because the light hasn’t reached, yet). Have they really ever influenced the world? – Sorry, that I prove you wrong, but you are…
If a councious beeing a “god” (thats an allegorie for that) would really existed, it would be a part of the universe. And nature hasn’t been created by an intelligent, reasonal, logical, concious being, so it is a infomation, created by accident. (intelligent design etc excluded)
I rather enjoyed your explanation of Godel’s theorem, up until you tried to use it to prove God. If information is not an inherent part of the universe, then how can the universe be mathematical? What makes you think that in order for a genetic code to exist, it had to be intelligently designed? The Miller/Urey experiments show that amino acids can spontaneously be formed, and from there, those acids can form proteins, and the basics of life. I don’t understand how you think that DNA couldn’t have just happened, like all the countless other things in our universe. It’s like hydrogen and oxygen bonding to make water, having a genetic structure just makes sense, if life were to exist, it would have to have some way of carrying the information that makes it. The sugars in DNA just happened to fit together in a particular way that they could store information if ordered in a certain way. You have to understand that in an infinite universe, everything is possible. An infinite series of random factors could have just created the first strand of DNA. Nothing I’ve ever seen implies that there has to be a conscious being outside of the universe, I don’t know where you could have gotten that assumption.
You seem to think that codes come from chemistry. It’s an understandable misconception. It’s like saying that hard drives spontaneously produce software. Please show me one experiment that shows this is true. The criteria is at http://www.naturalcode.org.
1. All elephants that we know of are mammals that have four legs, tails and long trunks.
2. This cat is a mammal, has four legs and a tail.
3. Therefore this cat is an elephant.
4. Therefore this cat has a long trunk.
Sweet logic my friend.
Rexxar : “The sugars in DNA just happened to fit together in a particular way that they could store information if ordered in a certain way.”
In a way it’s rather endearing to see that “it-just-happened” theories are still alive and well. In the same category as the “God-did-it” explanations.
Kipling became famous with his “Just so” stories. Maybe you can find a market for your “Just happened” theory. It’s worth thinking about.
However you got one thing right : “You have to understand that in an infinite universe, everything is possible.”
Including God.
Glad to see you have acknowledged that, pal.
It’s been a few years since I’ve studied biology, and I’m not sure how DNA is thought to have originated, but my explanation made the most sense to me. Much of what we observe can be attributed to the random nature of the universe. I’m of the opinion that nothing is impossible, there’s just such abysmally small probabilities of ‘impossible’ things happening, that we tend to round to 0, and say it will never happen. Pigs very well may sprout wings tomorrow and fly off, even though common sense says they shouldn’t. Welcome to the chaotic universe.
“Much of what we observe can be attributed to the random nature of the universe.”
That is an explicitly anti scientific statement. The scientific method is predicated on the exact opposite:
Much of what we observe can be attributed to the orderly systematic nature of the universe.”
I am sorry that they taught you randomness in biology. Your professors didn’t do their job.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem proves that there cannot be a God.
You wrote:
“If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know that all logical systems must rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, the Infidels cannot be correct.”
I’m sorry, what it really means is that according to Gödel’s theorem, the concept of a God cannot be logical!
Here’s the “short” reason:
The existence of a god cannot be explained except by something “outside” itself which we must assume to be true but cannot prove.
Whoops! Either Gödel’s theorem is false, or God requires something outside itself for which its existence depends.
Is this not perfectly consistent with Gödel’s theorem?
If you start with the assumption that a god exists “outside” of the material world, and then subject it to Gödel’s theorem, then it is the material world that is the “outside” of god which is required to explain the god upon which its existence depends. (Unless there is a “nother” outside outside, all of which destroys the idea that a god is the final ‘outside’.) You have simply arbitrarily exempted God from the theorem.
Notes:
/The “circle” is a metaphor which means: We cannot define the “thing” inside the circle without ultimately relying on something outside the circle, assumed to be true, upon which the thing inside the circle “depends” for its existence./ Agreed?
You wrote:
“You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.” (note: there will still be something “outside” the circle.)
–
Here is a major flaw in your reasoning:
You wrote:
“Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle [we] possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):
* There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove”
—
Error! if there HAS to be something outside that circle… then we in fact did NOT draw the biggest circle!
In fact, you inputted a common logical fallacy at this point called “god of the gaps.”
Here is the correction to your error: The biggest circle we can possibly draw is the circle around ALL THAT EXISTS.
The ONLY circle, at that point, that can be conceived larger (again, metaphorically), is in fact ALL THAT DOES *NOT* EXIST. (Can you see intuitively how the sum of all that does not exist must inherently be greater than the sum of all that does? All that does not exist is inherently infinite, because once we conceive it we can subtract it from the pool of nonexistence and still never diminish the pool.)
Good Sir,
I’m afraid you’re confusing a metaphor (God) with an actual thing; but no matter. If God were an actual “thing,” a circle can be drawn around it. For example, what specifically is a God? Love? A Being? An omnipotent, omniscient spirit? A primal cause?
Notice all these descriptions “depend” on other things for their meaning (a circle can be drawn around them). We can draw a circle around “Love” because it depends for its meaning, on other things “outside” of love, (i.e., emotion). Same for “God,” (i.e., omni-this or omni-that). Both are concepts, or ideas, still within the realm of “things.”
The circle around ALL THINGS, by definition, includes everything. To leave out “god” on purpose is intellectually dishonest, though I do not think you are doing it on purpose. Your concept of a god is that it actually ‘does’ fall outside of every thing. The problem is that this would make it non-existent ‘by definition.’
Long story short: if a god exists, a circle can be drawn around it.
According to Gödel, with which you agree: If God exists, it cannot explain itself except by something outside itself which we must assume to be true but cannot prove.
That there is something outside of God, upon which God depends for its existence, annihilates the concept of God itself (having been the product of something else).
===
I conclude that Gödel’s theorem proves that a god (outside of which there is nothing) cannot exist.
AcesLucky
Do you know the difference between something and nothing? It sounds like you think you can count nothings.
I have addressed all your other objections multiple times here in the comments.
Aces etc : “Long story short: if a god exists, a circle can be drawn around it.”
The truth is somewhat simpler : if a circle can be drawn around it, it ain’t God. You have simply defined God out of existence.
Well, no, actually, because you have said nothing about God. You have just highlighted the limitations of mental constructs. It’s a sort of “I can’t imagine it, therefore it doesn’t exist” kind of argument.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, AcesLucky, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
(My apologies to Shakespeare)
Ok. Here’s a thought. A program is simply a string of bits, information encoded in binary, right? When a person looks at the raw binary, it’s very difficult to notice there’s a pattern unless you’re actually looking for it. Now, I have this program, it’s really simple, really, all it does is output every possible permutation of a string of 800,000 bits, or 800KB. Given enough space, and enough time, this program will eventually output a text file containing the cure to cancer, your commenter thumbnail, -anything- that can fit into 800KB. I did not create these files, they emerged from randomness.
Show me 1 communication system that came from randomness. None of your examples do.
Rexxar : “Given enough space, and enough time, this program will eventually output a text file containing the cure to cancer,…”
How do you know?
Or is this just another bald assertion, identical to the much-criticized “God-did-it” argument?
PS I didn’t construct this post – it just happened. We’ve reached that point in infinite time and space where it was bound to happen.
If you don’t believe that statement, prove it wrong.
Perry, you’ve said several times here that the universe cannot be infinitely old because of entropy. Forgive me for being naïve, but I’ve never really understood entropy. As I understand, entropy states that all the energy in the universe must dwindle to zero, right? It seems to me that unless you throw out thermodynamics, this means that all the energy is now matter. All that matter must be affected by gravity, and be attracted to a central point, resulting in a ‘big crunch’ that would lead to a big bang. I’m not trying to make a point here, simply trying to understand.
No, entropy means that energy goes from usable to unusable forms. The reason that gas inside the piston of your car can do work is it’s heated up to 1000 degrees. Since it’s only 70 degrees outside, you can do work with the difference.
But once the piston cranks and the pressure exits out of the exhaust pipe, the exhaust cools to 70 degrees and will not push a piston anymore. Even though there is still energy in those 70 degree air molecules.
Entropy is the fact that energy always flows that way and never in reverse.
@Richard
You wrote: “You have simply defined God out of existence.”
Not I. This is what it appears Perry is using as the definition of a god (can’t draw a circle around it).
Two things wrong with this:
1. how is it that the concept of a “thing” around which a circle cannot be drawn equals a god? (it’s a god of the gaps argument)
2. if a “thing” has existence it requires (according to Godel’s theorem) that there exist something else outside that thing to which it owes its own existence.
Perry has simply arbitrarily created a God, and then removed it from these requirements. Nothing more.
I repeat: The circle around ALL THINGS, by definition, includes everything. To define a Being that exists “outside” of ALL THINGS is simply dishonest, as it is itself a thing.
–
You wrote: “Well, no, actually, because you have said nothing about God.”
That’s right, I have not assumed one, Perry has.
–
@ Perry
You wrote: “I have addressed all your other objections multiple times here in the comments.”
A few date references might be in order. In the mean time, as best I can tell…
1. You have asserted that you can define something outside the Universe by calling it a god. This is a fallacious argument. God is not defined by “all things outside of the Universe.” You’re attempting to form-fit a god to be excluded from the theorem.
2. You are also asserting that something exists outside of Gödel’s theorem and labeling it “God”. To suggest that Gödel’s theorem does not apply to a God is to assume a). that there is a God, and b). that (without merit) Gödel’s theorem fails upon finding a one. Why? Isn’t a god also a “thing”?
3. I am sorry, but you are simply asserting a God of the Gaps argument. Even if something DOES exist outside of the universe, you have no knowledge by which to call it a god.
4. And finally, to insist that something exists outside of the Universe (according to Gödel’s theorem) is moot. Because the question is not about everything in the UNIVERSE, but about EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS! And if a god exists, it includes Him.
1. My actual words, in the article:
# Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
# If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
# Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
# Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.
Notice I never said “All things outside the universe.” You continue to misquote me. Before you continue to reply, please read the original article.
2. God is not physical, God is not a system, and God is not finite. God is not a “thing.”
3. This is not about a gap. It’s about causality. Do you believe in cause and effect or not?
4. You haven’t read.
@ Perry,
You wrote:
# “Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.”
I agree.
You wrote:
# “If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem,…”
Error! Why the limit of matter, energy, space and time? This is arbitrary and exclusive. Herein lies the dishonesty. You are attempting to define a “something” by separating from it all things you don’t want this “something” to be a part of, so you can then label what’s left “a god!”
This is shameful. But even if such a concoction had existence, it goes INSIDE the circle of all that exists, because the LARGEST circle goes around ALL THAT EXISTS, not just the things you arbitrarily pick.
—
You wrote:
“Notice I never said “All things outside the universe.” You continue to misquote me. Before you continue to reply, please read the original article.”
My good Sir,
On May 11, 2010 you responded to Greg and said:
“That which is outside of space and time is infinite. And indivisible. I believe that everything I stated in my article is entirely logical, and that which logic tells us has to be outside the universe bears a striking resemblance to God.”
But let us no longer focus on irrelevant diversions. There is only ONE thing that matters.
The set of EXISTENCE is the largest circle. Would a god belong inside of it, or outside?
Why limit matter, energy, space and time? Because we know empirically that all of these things have limits, that’s why. It’s not arbitrary and exclusive, it’s factual.
I said “Anything you can draw a circle around….”
There is categorically only one sort of thing that you cannot draw a circle around. You cannot draw a circle around something that is infinite.
So if existence is infinite and God exists then God meets the criteria of something that does not require something else for its explanation.
I think this brings a good point in the logic…
Can you draw a circle around something that is defined (or finite)?
“If existence is infinite” is an odd proposal because existence (human existence) can be defined and so it is not infinite. Human existence has limitations.
Existence (with a capital E) is supernatural and outside of existence (with a little e).
It’s pretty safe that so that we are talking about two different domains here, but I’m not so sure you can apply math (a human invention) to nature in a way that makes the reality supernatural.
In other words, human measurement (and the mathematics the goes with it) can’t be useful beyond what can be measured.
Just saying, “Well you can just add another one inch or draw a circle around it.” is insufficient to describe anything in real terms. You are engaging in measuring rather than mathematics. In the same light, you can’t take this idea of drawing a circle around the biggest circle and declaring that to be anything but a bigger circle. The number 3 is an idea. The number is not reality. A description of reality is not reality. A description of reality is not reality and using an idea to draw a bigger circle is not reality. There is simply no reality to this idea to draw a bigger circle; it’s just an idea.
You can’t do it so it doesn’t prove anything except that maybe you can get an a-ha out of it. Is this a mental exercise for pleasure or are you actually trying to prove something that you know that you can’t prove and what’s the difference?
Existence vs existence is an important distinction.
This question comes down to the NLP concept of the difference between the territory and the map. Two different things.
That said, you seem now and have always seemed confused about this. For example you say “You are engaging in measuring rather than mathematics.” I acknowledge there is a difference but in science the two always match if you are doing things right. 3+2=5 in both math and in measurement.
At the end of the day mathematics inevitably infers that the source of the universe and the ultimate axiom everything rests on is infinite. At the end of the day, math and logic demand something bigger than math OR logic themselves as a source of everything.
How many ways can I say, “Math proves it can’t explain its own self, it requires something on the outside that is boundless”?
Joseph, I fail to see what is so hard to grasp about this.
AcesLucky : When I read : “Why the limit of matter, energy, space and time? This is arbitrary and exclusive.”
it almost sounded like you had a valid point, but since the probabilities of this happening are vanishingly small, I decided to look at it a little more closely.
Once again it’s a problem of language. You seem to think (and you are not alone) that as soon you/we put a word/label on “something” it becomes “some thing” which has a “thinginess” existence, and must therefore come within the circle of the “set of EXISTENCE”. (This is called artificial reification.)
It is no coincidence that “matter, energy, time and space” are things that we are able to conceptualize, observe and measure.
I have a concept (a mental construct) of a distance of 100 yards.
I have a less clear concept of 100 miles.
I have real problems with conceiving 6,000 miles, but I can get round it by imagining an uncomfortable, 11-hour flight from Paris to Rio de Janeiro.
I personally find it quite impossible to form a structured concept of a distance of 100 light years, but by extension of my concept of 100 miles (a “distance”) I can still talk about it.
Now, for those who have not noticed it, my brain is limited but infinity is not. “Infinity” can never be more than a word for me.
It is literally inconceivable.
Infinity, eternity, the time it takes to find a plumber who will fix my tap, these can not be captured or modelled by the limited capacities of my mind.
Putting a name on something does not magic it into becoming a member of the The Largest Circle Club.
The largest circle goes firmly around anything that can be defined as “matter, energy, time and space.”
Eternity and infinity are part of the impossible definition of God. That is something that was understood by (revealed to?) “ignorant, Bronze-age goat-herders” a long time ago.
In his way, Perry is strictly correct. The circle encircles the “encirclable”. The rest is semantic silliness.
It sounds valid – but not for long.
@ Perry
You wrote:
“Why limit matter, energy, space and time? Because we know empirically that all of these things have limits, that’s why. It’s not arbitrary and exclusive, it’s factual.”
I’m not asking “Why limit matter, energy, space and time” I’m asking “Why THE limit of matter, energy, space and time?” — as your selection of things inside the circle?
I don’t care if each are limited or limitless, factual or conceptual. The point is that YOU got to choose what goes in the circle (the limit) in order to tailor what stays out — thereby crafting your idea of a god. This is dishonest. You either take the set of all that exists or admit that you do not have the largest circle. (You have yet to address this most important point!)
Since you clearly do not have the largest circle, your comment “Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless..” remains inapplicable to your example, thereby making your selection moot.
But let us no longer focus on irrelevant diversions. There is only ONE thing that matters.
The set of EXISTENCE is the largest circle. Would a god belong inside of it, or outside?
I can just as well include “dimension x” or “entity x” that we have no knowledge of. I can include alternate universes and whatever else.
But if it’s finite, it’s contingent on something on the outside. That’s what Gödel’s theorem says.
In order to avoid an infinite regression we cannot avoid the conclusion that the something on the outside is itself infinite and indivisible.
Existence: existence with a lower case e describes what is inside the circle. Which necessitates that what’s outside the circle is Existence with a capital E.
@ Richard
Getting to the crux of all that you wrote:
“The largest circle goes firmly around anything that can be defined as “matter, energy, time and space.”
I am sorry, but this is capricious and slightly arrogant.
Might there be more perfectly natural dimensions part of the MEST system that we just do not perceive?
The Largest Circle Club consists of all that exists, not all that we perceive to exist as limited by our perceptions in MES&T.
The Largest Circle is the set of ALL THAT EXISTS; such a definition is clean, precise, and honest.
AcesLucky : Today will be remembered as a very special day in the history of this thread. I earlier remarked that the probabilities of your making a valid point were vanishingly small. In spite of the odds being stacked against you, today you have, actually made a valid point:
“this is capricious and slightly arrogant.”
I fully recognise this as an accurate description of my style of commenting, so, congratulations.
Alas, it doesn’t make the rest of your points valid, as Perry has demonstrated.
You ask : “Might there be more perfectly natural dimensions part of the MEST system that we just do not perceive?”
Well, since I only have five senses, I am humble enough to admit that there could be a whole pile of stuff that I can’t perceive. As I have published elsewhere, if one day I find myself on a planet where everyone has ten senses, then at the very best, I’m only going to have half as much fun as everybody else at the party. And, yes, all that other stuff will be square dancing in the circle.
Oops – Circle.
But you are still letting yourself become ensnared by the trap of artificial reification (also known as linguistic cognitive gap-filling).
As Christians, we have but a paltry and tenuous notion of God the Infinite, the Eternal, the Uncaused First Cause, but what we do have changes everything, I can promise you. And you’ll never get a circle around God’s love.
Since a circle is a human concept, by definition God is outside that circle.
Perry is far from being perfect (ask his wife!) but his verbal construct “existence” as opposed to “Existence” is refreshingly “clean, precise, and honest.”
@ Perry
You wrote:
“I can just as well include “dimension x” or “entity x” that we have no knowledge of. I can include alternate universes and whatever else.”
Why wouldn’t you? You did say in your article, “Now please consider what happens when we draw the BIGGEST CIRCLE [we] POSSIBLY CAN – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around ALL of them too)”
Are you changing your mind now? I dare not admonish you to read your own article. So I’m just asking.
You wrote:
“Existence: existence with a lower case e describes what is inside the circle. Which necessitates that what’s outside the circle is Existence with a capital E.”
Sorry. Now you’re just trying to salvage the gap by dividing existence into parts. The set of ALL THAT EXISTS remains the largest circle. Compartmentalize it into bite size morsels if you like, but the circle remains.
This being the case, what is left outside ALL THAT EXISTS? Easy answer: all that does NOT exist. And wouldn’t you know it… you cannot draw a circle around that which does not exist!
Son of gun. Gödel’s theorem stands! Because, you cannot explain “existence” (a form of ‘to be’) without at some point answering “as opposed to what?”
God of the gaps, as usual, fails. Because, if you insist that such a being lies outside the largest circle… I would tend to agree. But then it wouldn’t exist, would it?
AcesLucky
Where did you get the idea that I changed my mind?
Let’s go back to the formal language:
Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”
The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.
Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)
Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.
Syllogism:
1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete
You can substitute multiverse for universe if you want.
There is a logical fallacy in your argument. You said:
“Sorry. Now you’re just trying to salvage the gap by dividing existence into parts. The set of ALL THAT EXISTS remains the largest circle. Compartmentalize it into bite size morsels if you like, but the circle remains.”
You don’t seem to understand that Gödel said that if a system is “effectively generated” and logical it’s incomplete. If it’s incomplete it depends on something else.
You can draw a circle and proclaim that it encircles all that exists – and that there is nothing else – as long as you accept that what’s inside the circle is illogical.
But if you believe in a logical universe, you necessarily believe in something infinite. There logically has to be something that you cannot draw a circle around.
Are you willing to follow the evidence where it leads, or are you unconditionally committed to atheism?
@ Perry
You write:
Syllogism:
1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete
You can substitute multiverse for universe if you want.
—
Yeah, I don’t deny any of that. But then none of it addresses anything that I said. By the way, I’m glad you didn’t change your mind.
You wrote:
“You don’t seem to understand that Gödel said that if a system is “effectively generated” and logical it’s incomplete. If it’s incomplete it depends on something else.”
So? The largest circle (the set of existence) is effectively generated and logical, AND incomplete, because it cannot explain itself without reference to the concept of “non existence” which, by the way, is outside itself. Like I said above, “you cannot explain “existence” (a form of ‘to be’) without at some point answering “as opposed to what?”
Shiver me timbers…man. You write, “If it’s incomplete it depends on something else.” Hey Perry. It depends on something else outside the circle for its EXPLANATION!!!!
As somebody noted before, you are confusing metaphor with literal.
You wrote: “You can draw a circle and proclaim that it encircles all that exists – and that there is nothing else – as long as you accept that what’s inside the circle is illogical.”
Nope. As long as you accept that what’s inside the circle is INCOMPLETE since it ultimately requires something outside the circle to explain it.
You wrote:
“But if you believe in a logical universe, you necessarily believe in something infinite.”
Really??? Alright. (moot)
You continue: “There logically has to be something that you cannot draw a circle around.”
Can you draw a circle around that which doesn’t exist?
I’m sorry, but…
1. you have failed at every turn to generate a “largest circle” by excluding arbitrary items to your liking in order to construct a god from leftovers.
2. you have failed to honestly answer if your constructed god would exist inside the largest circle or outside of it.
3. you have failed to acknowledge that ALL THAT EXISTS is the largest circle.
4. you have failed to acknowledge the “gap” filler in your argument that anything outside of ANY circle must therefore be a god.
5. you have asserted without merit that Gödel’s theorem, upon finding a god, suddenly doesn’t apply.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem proves that there cannot be a God as you describe, as such a god could not be explained without resorting to something outside of its own system for that explanation, or… as you admit, its existence would have to be illogical.
I’m afraid those pesky Infidels are correct. Either Gödel’s theorem is false, or God requires something outside itself on which its explanation depends.
I concur with Gödel.
You have done a most amazing thing: You have somehow turned “nothing” into an axiom which “something” depends on.
It’s as though you don’t know what nothing is. It’s as though you think nothing is really something! I refer you to the nearest dictionary.
Modern geometry rests on the axiom of Euclid’s 5 postulates. And according to “AcesLucky” (yet another faceless anonymous atheist who, like “Jason Devlin” and “Landothedead” and so many others here, won’t even use his real name) the universe itself rests on the axiom of nothingness.
Responding to your points:
1. Explain to me how you think you can draw a circle around something that is infinite.
2. I am surprised that I should have to explain this to you. Do you have a piece of paper? Draw a circle and imagine something infinite in its relationship to the circle. God is everywhere. God is both inside and outside the circle because God is boundless.
3. All that exists, that you can draw a circle around, is inside the largest circle.
4. I didn’t say it “must therefore be a god.” I pointed out that something that is infinite, immaterial and conscious sounds an awful lot like God. Does it not?
5. I have asserted that Gödel’s theorem ALWAYS applies. Stop twisting my words
Overall, however, I have to salute you for faithfully adhering to the core principle of atheism, which is and has always been “Something for Nothing.”
In Nebraska where I come from, “something for nothing” is a con.
Neat article. The only thing that I’ve ever had a problem with was that if God is a logical system –if He weren’t, why would He want us to seek truth?–, wouldn’t that have made Him incomplete Himself? Of course, thanks to your article, I know that God is complete because He’s a single thing; singularity. Because logic and knowledge require a series of assumptions that need to be true, and all those assumptions will spawn off of a single one, we’re left with the only logically consistent model being monotheism. The statement that everything that exists must be in the circle that others have made… I’m not going to ask how they messed that one up: The truth is that things that can be PROVED are in the circle, not things that EXIST. Everything that exists is in a circle that can’t be drawn? If that’s the case then the theorem still applies, because it’s impossible to draw a circle that is infinite. So either a multiverse exists, or God. And because a multiverse would itself be illogical without God, the fudge-factor of fine-tuning undermines science. Atheism, as such, is dead to me. Thank you.
(don’t respond to my message, I’m not going to reply back)
It makes sense intuitively. Either a theory has to rely on external concepts, or else it is self-proving (uses circular reasoning) which is logically means that it holds no weight anyway.
Just an observation, I’m a theist, but the way you use Goedel’s theorem to prove the existence of God is absolutely wrong. I could go into specifics, but I’m going to use a much broader argument. Goedel’s proof proves, as you yourself pointed out, that there is no way of completely proving the veracity and consistency of any given circle from “within” the circle itself (because any proof will have either contradictions or loopholes), and also then no possible way to prove the veracity and consistency of a larger circle from within a smaller circle within the larger circle. So there is absolutely no way to prove something outside the bounds of whichever “circle” you choose. In our case the circle is the entirety of the universe and all it’s existence. Which God exists outside of. Therefore, by Goedel’s incompleteness theorem, it is absolutely mathematically and logically impossible to prove the existence of God. Again, I’m a theist, but God is about faith. Sorry.
Why are we assuming the universe was created again? I’m pretty sure that I’ve never witnessed matter or time being created in the manner in which you make your analogy. You say you have come across a watch on a beach, this watch is very complex(it’s structure symbolizes a watch to us). However, A watch isn’t made so to speak, it’s sub-parts are just arranged and organized in such a way that it has become, what we call, a watch. It seems to me that the planets and stars have organized according to the laws and forces of physics. My questions is how these laws are enforced. What makes these laws apply to matter-energy, and space-time.
You don’t have to assume the universe was created. You can assume it’s illogical instead.
But if the laws are enforced – and are consistent – then there necessarily has to be something outside the universe.
I don’t understand why I can assume it’s illogical.
Doesn’t everything exist inside the universe, by definition?
According to Gödel’s definition, if the universe is logical, there has to be something outside of it. Read the formal syllogism on the right side of my blog article at the top.
Here is a proof that logic and faith cannot coexist(it can also be seen as a proof that belief in God is illogical(in fact, it is probably a much stronger proof for the latter)):
Proof:
Assume logic and faith can coexist.
Draw a circle around the universe.
By Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, we cannot explain what is inside this circle without what is outside this circle.
By your argument, faith is what is outside this circle that is essential to explain what is inside this circle.
Extend the circle to include God and faith.
Now, by Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, there must be something outside this circle that explains what is inside this circle.
By your argument, faith is what is outside this circle that is essential to explain what is inside this circle.
However, since we have reached a logical fallacy(circular logic, ie using faith to explain faith), and since by our assumption, logic and faith coexist, we have reached a contradiction.
QED
The reasoning behind this is that faith and reason together leads to a fallacy. In reality, logic and faith are both fallacious human constructs used to estimate the functioning of our universe.
Here is another argument, if you don’t like my “proof”.
Let logic and faith coexist. This means that faith can be examined with the scientific method. God and faith are both abstract concepts which have never been proven and have never been tested, but have never been disproved. Therefore, they are hypotheses. In contrast, mathematics is a tool which has been used countless times to explain many millenia of scientific occurrences with amazing degree of accuracy, and, like faith, it has never been disproved. Therefore, mathematics is a theory. So, even assuming logic and faith coexist, mathematics is still much more useful to us.
Finally, I still do not see how logic cannot exist without faith. Maybe your definition of faith is much broader than my own, but I take it to imply belief in a creator. If it is the former case, then yes, you do need a certain amount of presumptuous belief in logical axioms. However, if you actually do mean it to imply the existence of God, then you are mistaken, as whether the universe was created by one being, created by many beings, or has simply always existed would yield the same logical axioms.
Brendon,
It is clear from what you have written that you have not read my original article sufficiently to understand the core argument. I explained why you cannot draw a circle around God. You missed this major point.
You also seem to have not understood the entire point Gödel’s theorem which says that all systems of logic rest on axioms which have to be assumed but cannot be proved.
Yes, had you read what I had written here you would understand that my definition of faith is broader than your own.
I suggest you read first, then offer your opinions. We don’t need more straw man arguments.
Perry,
“1. All the mainstream scientific literature I have ever found says the universe is finite. When you said the universe is expanding you contradicted your own statement that it is infinite. Please provide empirical support for your claim that the universe is infinite.”
The academic consensus as to whether the nature of the universe can correctly be described as finte or infinite is currently undecided. There are some interesting proposals, all of which entail untested hypotheses, but the point is that we simply don’t have enough information to say anything with certainty one way or the other.
Is the universe finite or infinite? We don’t know. One thing we can be certain about however, is that dressing things up in circles and making silly arguments isn’t a serious inquiry at all. It’s just more “God of the Gaps” reasoning with an authoritative name attached to it.
Here is a brief interview with Professor Joseph Silk that I think will be a bit easier for you to understand:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_index_0_iv.html
“2. I do not define the universe as the encompassment of all things material and immaterial. I define it as all observable matter, energy, space and time.”
Then you are aren’t talking about the entire universe, you are only talking about the observable universe. By the way, where are we observing from anyway? From Earth? From somewhere in Andromeda?
“3. You ask, “Why could time not be the ultimate controller, the 4th dimension that causes the universe to have orderly structure?” It’s not my job to disprove your conjectures. Perhaps you could describe why and how time could be the ultimate controller. I await your explanation.”
I don’t know what The Thinker meant by “ultimate controller”, but it is your job if you want to defend your own argument, which is in itself nothing more than a silly conjecture. He was correct in pointing out that time is currently beyond our understanding, so it is rather presumptuous to try and neatly tuck it into one of your circles.
“4. Please elaborate on Gödel’s mistakes.”
It seemed to me that he was referring to Godel’s ontological proof. I’m sure you are perfectly capable of doing the homework yourself. I doubt you will find that necessary considering you’ve managed to elaborate on Godel’s own work to prove God’s existence in a manner that Godel himself managed to overlook. Who knew it was as simple as just drawing circles around stuff all along?
“5. You said, “There is absolutely nothing else.” Prove it.”
This was a pretty obvious one, I don’t know how you managed to completely misunderstand the context. He was defining the universe as everything that exists, thus there is nothing else. I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure there can’t be anything else besides “everything”.
“6. It’s rather telling that almost every atheist who debates me here is anonymous or operates under a pseudonym. What are y’all afraid of?”
The vast, VAST majority of people who post in online message boards do so anonymously or under a pseudonym whenever they are allowed to do so. This is by FAR one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen you say, especially as the owner and admin of a website with an active comment thread. It’s a lot more telling that you actually thought you were making a point here.
1. What do you mean, we don’t know? Joseph Silk says:
“The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite.”
According to him, in the infinite future it will be infinite. Since the infinite future is infinitely far away, it’s finite now and for all measurable points in the future. Thanks for the quote. And by the way, the torus he describes is also finite.
2. We can observe from anywhere in space as far as I’m concerned. Does your own definition of universe include or exclude metaphysical beings?
3. I think all of us understand more or less what time is. Einstein’s Spacetime theorems indicate that time began at the moment that space started expanding with the big bang. The point being that time is also finite. Thus if time is logical, it is contingent on something outside of itself.
4. Please explain, in your own words, what the problems are with Gödel’s ontological proof.
5. If the universe is everything that exists, and there is nothing else, then Gödel’s theorem says the universe is irrational. Thus overturning the underlying premise of science and mathematics. You can have it that way if you want it, but you forfeit your right to use logic from that point forward.
6. Most of the other people on my blog are not anonymous. Many of them give links to their websites. In all the debates I’ve engaged in on the Internet, such as http://www.infidels.org, my identity is plain. I have nothing to hide. Why don’t you use your real name?
“1. What do you mean, we don’t know? Joseph Silk says:”
You claimed that all of the “mainstream” academic literature says the universe is “finite”. The academic consensus is that WE DON’T KNOW whether the universe is finite or not. You intentionally left off the one sentence that preceded the quote you provided. You know, the one where the first thing Professor Silk says in response to the question as to whether the universe is finite or infinite is “We don’t know”. He then goes on to use examples of what COULD be the case, not what IS the case. He then goes on in the very next response to reiterate, “We do not know whether the universe is finite or not”.
“Thanks for the quote. And by the way, the torus he describes is also finite.”
You mean the one you stripped of it’s context and vomitted back out onto your comment thread without any regard for the context or meaning originally intended by the speaker? Perry, what you are doing right now, at least in my book, is exactly the same as flat-out lying.
For example:
Professor Silk presents the torus as one example of two distinct possibilities, neither of which we are certain about to any degree where we can reliably say one way or the other. He is only claiming that the torus is one possibility, and he is pretty clear in presenting both of these possibilities.
Perry Marshall comes along and declares himself the victor, stating proudly that “the torus is also finite”, and intentionally neglects to mention that the torus was merely one possibility out of two uncertainties. He argues with intent to deceive, giving the false impression that Silk’s statements support Perry’s arguments when in fact, they do nothing of the sort.
Would you consider Perry Marshall an honest person? I wouldn’t. It seems to me that Perry Marshall tossed honesty out the window a long time ago.
So Jason,
Other than wild speculation and completely hypothetical conjecture on Mr. Silk’s part, where is the evidence that either the space or the time or the matter in the universe is anything other than finite? Do we have any inference to any specific mathematical models or physical measurements that indicate infinite size or scope? Please be specific.
Perry
“Other than wild speculation and completely hypothetical conjecture on Mr. Silk’s part, where is the evidence that either the space or the time or the matter in the universe is anything other than finite?”
Perry, it seems that you are somewhat confused:
We are responding directly to your claim that all of the “mainstream” academic literature states the universe is finite. This claim is provably false.
There isn’t a very large body of literature supporting this notion at all, because the academic consensus is that the jury is still out on this one. We simply don’t, and CAN’T know at this point in time. That was the point I was trying to illustrate by providing the link to the interview with Professor Silk.
Whether or not you feel comfortable with “we don’t know”, or whether you actually agree with the literature is a separate issue. You claimed the literature supported the notion of a finite universe. It doesn’t, and you’re wrong.
Secondly, Professor Silk was not speculating about anything. He was simply saying “we don’t know”, and using specific examples of what the universe COULD look like IF it were infinite or finite, he used examples of BOTH, and refrained from speculating either way. He said if very clearly and I don’t know why you have such a problem understanding this simple statement:
We don’t know.
Regardless of if you believe that saying one doesn’t know amounts to “wild speculation”, that doesn’t give you the liberty to strip quotes of their intended meaning and use them disingenuously to give the false impression that an authoritative source supports your position when it in actually doesn’t. That is LYING.
Jason,
You’re invited to bring whatever evidence you have that the universe is infinite. All I’m asking you to do is back up whatever statements you make with verifiable data and logic.
Perhaps I’ve missed something but I don’t see where Dr. Silk has done this. I only see that he has speculated that the universe might be infinite. I don’t see data to support this hypothesis.
You have stated that it’s not possible for us to know whether the universe is finite or infinite. How do you know this?
If the universe were infinite how would you know it?
Maybe you’re unaware of the reasons for the Big Bang model and the failure of the Steady State model during the last 80 years. Yes, 100 years ago many scientists believed the universe was infinite and eternal. That view has been all but abandoned. Your statement that “the academic consensus is that the jury is still out” is false. The academic consensus is that:
-Dozens of different types of data converge on an age of the universe of 13.7 billion years
-An infinitely bouncing universe violates entropy
-Space can only expand so far in 13.7 billion years
-Only so much matter fits in that space
-We have no ability to verify the existence of universes outside our own
All that is very finite.
I should have clarified what I meant when I said “mainstream scientific literature.” I didn’t mean articles where guys with PhD’s muse about what might be. I meant refereed journals. I encourage you to look for peer reviewed scientific papers that conclude that the universe is infinite. Please post a link to such papers and we can discuss the evidence they use to support that assertion.
If I have lied about Dr. Silk please articulate what evidence he has presented that I am ignoring.
You’ve said an awful lot of disingenuous things about me since this thread started. Not so long ago you were mocking me for saying that DNA had error correction mechanisms very similar to TCP/IP. You’ve attempted to tell me that DNA isn’t really a code. You’re advocating an infinite universe hypothesis, thus far with no indication of how this might be tested or even modeled.
Are you sure that atheism is really helping you in this discussion? It seems to me that at every turn it has made you hostile to the actual facts of science.
What are you fighting?
What was done to you by religious people?
When I was 13 my mom went bipolar – which was total bedlam in our house for a year and a half. My dad, who was a pastor, got demoted and publicly humiliated because his wife was “rebellious” and “out of control.” It was freakin’ ugly. The axe came down when my dad ‘crossed the line’ and took her to a psychiatrist. That whole saga did a lot of damage, as my therapist would happily assure you. It was totally wrong.
But it doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. It just means that some people use religion to bully, demean and control other people.
And just because some people abuse religion doesn’t mean you have to be the victim of it, or justify it, or anything of the sort.
Spirituality is just like technology. It can be used for immense good or it can be used for pure evil. It gets used both ways. Scientists make vaccines and they also make atomic bombs. Christopher Hitchens in his crusade against religion is really no different from some Luddite who would have us believe that all scientists are evil.
I also found it outright hilarious that when you are allowed to take “artistic liberties” with an authoritative source, you confidently assert that a sloppily butchered quotation supports your argument and do nothing short of thumping your chest and declaring yourself the victor. When I point out that you’re blatantly lying, demand that you be honest and preserve the context of the speaker, all of the sudden you claim it’s nothing more than “wild speculation”. So here in one thread we’ve seen:
1. Perry makes a claim about “mainstream” literature that isn’t actually supported by the literature.
2. Perry is called out on the fallacious nature of this claim and provided with a reference to a source to show he is incorrect; academic literature, “mainstream” or otherwise, isn’t actually saying what Perry says it does.
3. Perry resorts to lying to avoid admitting he’s wrong about what the literature says. He sloppily selects quotations from the reference provided to purposefully give the false impression that the researcher being interviewed is saying something that he’s actually not.
4. I openly point out to Perry that the speaker is not saying what Perry is trying to give the impression he’s saying.
5. The source that Perry confidently (and fallaciously) cited as supporting his argument, and even thanked me for, is now all of the sudden “wildly speculating” when Perry is forced to actually be honest.
This is all cartoonishly absurd.
This is getting a bit ridiculous. Lots of people are throwing big words around and quoting both well-known and obscure references to try to defend or refute an argument which, either way, to prove or disprove its validity, involves some seemingly intensely convoluted, roundabout logic. I think we should get back to what Gödel originally said (which, I believe, is accurate if the quote in the article is):
“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”
First off, let’s drop the idea of circles. Gödel makes no mention of circles in his formal statement, and we shouldn’t introduce anything as an analog for anything unless there is a clear equivalence that we can rely on.
Here’s the bike example again: according to Gödel, there is no mathematical formula that can describe the bike that is both consistent and complete.
What does this mean? All we can really say goes along these lines: the observable validity of special and general relativity means we cannot hold indices of space and time absolute for all reference frames, so not all equations/formulas are guaranteed to accurately describe the bike’s dynamic behavior; additionally, we cannot apply statistical particle behavior to that bike as a whole, even though it is made up of innumerable quantum particles to which that system very consistently applies. We CAN have a nearly exact measurement of the bike’s momentum and position in any given frame, but not for any of the individual particals that it is made of, even though both exist in the same frame.
That takes care of the first part, the incompatibility of two valid mathematical statements applied simultaneously, thus their incompleteness despite the consistency of each.
The second part is a bit trickier: there first must be a concession by mathematicians everywhere that the whole of variable arithmetic is self-proving. Allow me to explain. We start with the identity axiom, x=x. Every formula in mathematics works only if this is true. If x is equal to two things at once in the same equation (e.g. x=2, x=3 –> 2=3), then the math breaks down, and indeed this can happen IF you do the math wrong. It can thus be said that because you work the math according to the rules (or at least according to consistent rules), that x always equals x, forever and ever, amen. This ought not be taken as absolute, however, because there could possibly come a day when something somewhere violates this axiom. The most likely explanation would be that somebody just did the math wrong, but we can’t totally rule out the variability of x either. What that situation might call for is a reinvention of the fundamental laws of mathematics that remains consistent with everything else for which x=x is a valid statement, a manipulation similar to Einstein’s laws of relativity: they agree with classical measurements taken at low velocities to such a high degree of accuracy that many truncating calculators won’t show a difference between the two systems, but at speeds near that of light, its predictions, though drastically different from Newton’s, are observably correct. This may not be an appropriate analog to use for direct argument, but hopefully it can show that we can alter our understanding of fundamental laws of nature if we need to.
Alright, home stretch now. I won’t keep you much longer (congrats, though, if you’ve made it this far). I don’t know of any animal besides humans that has expressed or can express belief in God. Maybe some smarter species of apes, though I doubt it. I will go off on a limb and say that the idea of God is a human invention. We have the unique cognitive qualities that lead us alone to attempt to understand the world around us in its totality. The thirst for knowledge, it seems, tends to go hand in hand with the desire to have everything be complete. Take, for example, the desire many jilted lovers have for closure or many a card player’s refusal to use an incomplete deck (myself included), even that frustration we feel when we can’t for the life of us find that last jigsaw puzzle piece (guilty again). I’m not by any means saying this applies to every human individual, just that it does to enough of us to think that maybe this is a pretty significant trend. Is it possible that cave-dwellers long ago, frustrated with their inability to explain why the wind blows or why the sun rises and sets every day, invented an ad-hoc “creator” to fill in the gaps? We can’t prove it completely, but odds are that’s how it went down.
Believing in God is strictly a matter of faith. We can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence, but certainly our ability or inability to draw a hypothetical circle around the known universe won’t get us any closer in that direction, plus it bears no relation that I can see to Gödel’s theorem. You can choose to believe in God or not, but we can’t say anything one way or the other unless we are told so explicitly. And even then, reality as we know it individually is only what we allow ourselves to experience.
Do I believe in God? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. What my gut tells me about God is the only thing I feel I can trust, and that is to let others alone regardless of their beliefs (as long as they aren’t trying to harm me or others).
Perry, I admire the work you have done in attempting to prove the existence of a creator; the problem I have, though, is that you have assumed too much and read too deeply into Gödel’s theorem, and I feel like we are all being dragged down the rabbit-hole. I have, on the other hand, learned a good deal thanks to you both about myself and about philosophy in general; for this I thank you. I feel like it’s about time for this discussion to come to an end, knowing that some things in life are just not for us to prove to everyone else. Thank you again for making it possible for me (and hopefully for everyone involved in this) to embark on such an amazing journey.
Ian,
On the upper right side of this article at the top of the page is a beige box that deals with Gödel’s theorem via formal syllogism, showing that if the Church-Turing thesis is correct, the universe is incomplete. Invoking circles is not a requirement here.
I still stand by my circles though, because Gödel’s theorem specifically refers to that which is “inside” the theory and “outside” the theory. There is an inside and an outside. So whether we use circles or 3 dimensional surfaces or N dimensions or whatever, there is a boundary, and Gödel’s theorem concerns the existence of something beyond it. My “draw a circle” around language is much easier for most people to grasp than Gödel’s abstract language and it’s still accurate.
Yes, as you say, the roots of our current mathematical system could be pulled up by some new discovery. Just like in physics. For now, we’re pretty certain that x=x. My motto is: I can’t know everything for certain but I can follow the evidence where it leads.
Everybody likes to make up a cave-dweller story out of thin air and say yeah, that’s probably how things went down. But it is still a made up story and it contradicts the stories that have been recorded and preserved. Prior to 1947, the oldest copies of the Old Testament were physically dated 1100AD. Skeptics assumed there’d been all kinds of liberties taken by scribes. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and texts from 100BC turned out to be virtually identical.
You can make up cave dweller stories if you want, but ancient people went to utterly extraordinary lengths to make sure you and the rest of their descendants knew that the God of Israel actively intervened – cloud by day, fire by night – and freed them from slavery in Egypt.
I have not proven that God exists. What I have done is shown that IF we can trust mathematics as it is currently known, then you have two choices:
1-You can not believe in God, so long as you are willing to admit the universe is therefore irrational. The benefit of that view being that you get something for nothing.
2-You can take the existence of God as axiomatic, which gives you philosophical grounds for postulating a rational, logical, scientific, mathematical universe.
You get to decide. Given the above, it shouldn’t be surprising that the modern science we know today was formulated in large part by theologians and that most of the early scientists considered their work to be an act of worship.
Okay, dude, I’m Jewish and I don’t believe half the stuff that’s written in those documents. The sun standing still so that the Hebrews, with Joshua leading them, could win a battle? You realize what would have to happen for that to work, right? Literally, the earth would have to stop spinning (and then start spinning again the same as it had been), causing continents to loosen from their tectonic foundations, oceans to spill over and cover most of the planet’s land, and a whole lot of other stuff that would stem from the effect of jamming a pole in between the blades of a running industrial fan. I mean, if the universe were logical BECAUSE there is a God whose presence is attested to in those scriptures, then God’s own universe would have just violated its own laws. This stuff isn’t real. Yes, the writings are there and have been properly dated, but there is no proof outside of those documents that God came down and interacted with anyone, let alone held the sun still in the sky. It’s all allegory, meant only to teach us how to live good, virtuous lives, and all the cave scrolls really tell us is that those age-old lessons were just as pertinent then as they are now. Keep in mind that by 100 BCE, the Hebrews had been in Canaan for about a millennium (Solomon is estimated to have reigned around the year 1000 BCE), and so the REAL cool stuff that God supposedly did would still, even then, have been a distant memory. There was no way for them to confirm all the stories that had been passed down by word of mouth. We only hold onto those teachings now because they give our lives some kind of meaning apart from us.
An interesting question, JUST a question. I’m not going to insist that the Bible/Torah is a political document, but isn’t it interesting how the soundest argument for its veracity is that God wrote it, and isn’t it even more interesting that the only reason we know God exists is because the Bible says so? It’s like saying, “I’m the best because I said so”. Not to bash my own people now, but isn’t having a strongly admired leader come down from a mountain holding alleged proof of God’s support for them a great way to win a crowd? It’s a really great feeling knowing you’re one of the chosen people…well, until you’re chosen to go to a gas chamber…but I digress. But really, if you’re about to go kick a few dozen tribes and clans out of the land they have inhabited for several generations, aren’t morale and gusto great things to have from everybody? So what if it takes forty years of wandering through a desert? That’s just to weed out the old and sick. We want our people young, fresh, and untainted by the demoralizing shackles of slavery. THAT’S how you take over a small strip of land in the Middle East, not with scud missiles.
Now, given what we know about human evolution, plus the shadiness of the authorship of the Torah, the most LOGICAL hypothesis in this situation is that *Man created God*, not the other way around. Man saw things he could not possibly explain given his own knowledge and available resources, and so he theorized the existence of an outside entity. Looking back now, however, knowing what we know, we would laugh at someone who thought the success or failure of his harvest was the work of an opinionated god. The nature of the human mind is to explore the world and discover new things. Obviously, there will be times when we come upon things we don’t understand. Some will see the mechanism sooner than others, but ultimately we will push our way forward in our comprehension of the universe.
About this something from nothing idea…
I don’t actually agree with the hypothesized singularity-based origin of the universe. It has a distinct aftertaste of Einstein’s prediction of the failure of his theory of general relativity. There is something beyond that, something that Einstein’s equations don’t account for: the quantum world. See, according to classical/relativistic physics, the universe existed far in the past in a state of infinite density and infinitesimal volume. What that produces mathematically is the division of infinity by zero; in a logical universe, that’s not allowed. But what if that volume is not zero but some sphere whose diameter is a multiple of the smallest practically applicable unit of length (the Planck length)? The density and volume still should work out to provide the energy for the expansion of the universe as we have determined it, but even cooler than the elimination of a singularity is this: perhaps the “big bang” was not the beginning at all-perhaps it wasn’t even a bang. Imagine a previous universe collapsing in on itself and immediately re-expanding. Now imagine ours doing the same thing. And finally, imagine all matter and energy doing this forever-one big clump of everything oscillating in and out of stable equilibrium. It’s a crazy idea, granted, but it is logical, and if the universe is a logical place, then we should at least take a minute to consider an alternative to the HUGE white elephant problem that is a singularity at its beginning.
Ian,
I don’t have the ability to evaluate the Joshua story of the sun standing still. I fully understand that would require a suspension of the laws of physics. Miracles in some sense are understood to transcend normal laws, that’s why they’re called miracles. A violation of the normal pattern. There is nothing theologically inconsistent about God suspending or changing a normal law.
Both Old and New Testaments report the resurrection of the dead. That is nothing more or less than a reversal of the laws of entropy. Many modern people scoff at this idea but if you do then I challenge you to study serious modern scholarship of Jesus’ resurrection. Good place to start:
http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/what-we-know-about-jesus-and-the-resurrection/
Before you dismiss this, let me remind you that everybody who does not believe in God believes that life itself, the first cells, somehow magically self-assembled, or that through some laws of physics and chemistry that are utterly unknown at this time, spontaneously produced life. That’s belief in miracles, my friend, they just refuse to call it that. It’s a violation of every scientific principle that is actually known. Actually everyone believes in miracles, but only religious people are honest enough to call them that.
I am not asking you to believe Torah or Bible merely because it asserts its authority. There are all kinds of external measures you can apply. In fact the fact that you would even say what you said indicates you have never investigated this for yourself. Consider:
-If you assume a day is a period of time, and that the story is told as seen from the surface of the earth, Genesis 1 matches modern science *exactly.* No other ancient creation story can even begin to make such a claim. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/genesis1
-The Bible is extremely accurate historically and archaeologically. It’s got a better track record than any other historian or document in history.
-Jesus and various aspects of his miraculous work are cited in a dozen extrabiblical sources. Good book: Jesus outside the New Testament by Voorst
-The Jews are the ONLY civilization that is intact after 4000 years. Same language, same customs, same holidays, same religion. Every other ancient civilization is G-O-N-E. Ruins. Despite the fact that most of those other civilizations tried to destroy the Jews. Not only that, Jewish people (there’s only 15 million in the whole world) occupy the top 20% of every intellectual profession. Most extreme example of the 80/20 rule in action, ever. Illiteracy rate, nearly zero. In free countries, Jewish poverty rate is nearly zero. Israel has 7 million people yet has more venture capital than all of Europe combined and more companies on the Nasdaq than any other country besides the US.
Do you really think this is the result of simply having “made up” a better story than everyone else? C’mon dude, open your eyes and look around. Not to mention the fact that Jesus, the most influential person in all human history, was Jewish. And that Paul, the most influential intellectual in human history, was Jewish.
And by the way what’s the 2nd most enduring civilization in history? The Catholic church. Outlasted Rome and the Huns and the Egyptians and everyone else. The only reason it’s possible to stand here and ridicule their history, criticize them for the Galileo stories etc is because they’re still around. The history of both the Jews and the Christians is an open book.
You can insult your ancestors if you want but the world has been more blessed by them and their culture than all others – by far.
You should also study Biblical prophecy – utterly remarkable stuff. For example Isaiah described the crucifixion of Jesus with remarkable precision, 700 years before it happened. Daniel predicted the rise and fall of the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman empires, in sequence, including remarkable details – in 550 BC.
You, a guy who doesn’t believe in miracles, just got done telling me that the universe explodes and then collapses on itself in an endless cycle. Ian, don’t you know about entropy? Don’t you know that IF the universe collapses upon itself all its energy will be spent and it doesn’t have enough to explode again?
Entropy alone proves that the universe has finite history, that there’s an elephant in the room.
Ian, you have simply traded one set of miracles for another. And the miracles you have chosen to believe in have less to commend them than the ones I believe in.
By the way I’ve written a chronicle of my personal investigation of miracles over the last 10 years with extensive documentation – see http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles/
Here’s my challenge to you: If the issue for you is historical, scientific or philosophical credibility, then I encourage you to study these things in depth. Read the very best scholars who disagree with you, understand their data and their arguments and make a fair assessment.
If the issue for you is your personal experience, then I ask you to invite God, in whatever form or manner He might choose, to show up in your life and make Himself personally known to you. And I ask Him to do the same.
I’ve just about had it. I can respect others’ belief in God (or lack thereof), but it seems wrong to me to try to use a mathematical proof to force an admission that God is real. People believe in God because they find that it has some meaning for them in their own lives. People can experience grace, have visions, or go through something/have an attribute that leads to faith in a creator, but they do it without being beaten in debate, and they do it at their own pace.
I swear, Perry, if you have converted anyone via this thread, it is a tainted victory for you, and I will take this conviction with me to the grave. Using logic the way you have as a foundation for the exact opposite (assumption of something that cannot be directly observed) is a cheap shot that relies on the iconoclastic doubt typical of a scientifically motivated mind, an underhanded tactic whose sole purpose, it would appear, is to force a victory for the church by adding more saved souls. Please, for the love of all that is sacred, stop doing this.
Perry, you are entitled to your beliefs, but when you want to talk about science, leave God at church. The debate you attract with your article and subsequent posts invites discussion that revolves heavily around science and logic. If you want to have a theological seminar, then talk about scripture and ethics and such. Tell us about your interpretation of holy writings without firing up a debate involving empirical research and speculation. I would gladly tune in, but right now I have a hard time tolerating your attempts to make people see things your way in an area where the whole point is that we all see it differently.
Might it really be possible to demonstrate the necessity of God through reason and logic? Some of the greatest philosophers in history have taken this position. So then why should it be so surprising to find out that the prevailing view of the 20th century – which says religion and science must not speak to each other – has turned out to be wrong all along?
I understand that these conclusions seem radical and worrisome, to the point where you’re ready to proclaim that you will resist them to your grave.
Ian, why approach this with fear? I’m not ramming Judaism or the Catholic Church or any particular institution down your throat. I’m just challenging you: IF in fact reason, logic and mathematics infer the existence of God, then what good could it possibly do for you to run the other way?
After all you’re a pretty smart guy. Wouldn’t your absence from that conversation just invite more abuses and prejudices from people with harmful agendas?
If the notion that science and religion can’t speak to each other was wrong, then isn’t it just as possible that your conception of God and spirituality could have been be equally flawed? What if God is BETTER than you imagined Him to be? What if a relationship with God can be both meaningful and rooted in fact?
Surely at some time in the past you’ve challenged somebody somewhere to show you evidence for God. I’ve shown you an entirely logical argument based on Gödel which nobody’s been able to overturn. Does this really merit such a negative reaction? Do you really mean to tell me, in the name that “all that is sacred” that it’s wrong of me to do this?
Who’s more concerned about that which is sacred? You or me?
Did you not choose to join this debate?
If I think I can present an argument, shouldn’t I try my level best? Are we here to have a meaningful intellectual discussion, or are we just playing patty cake? Are you really serious when you say “Tell us about your interpretation of holy writings without firing up a debate involving empirical research and speculation?”
If it doesn’t involve empirical research, then what should it involve?
My point is not that we all see it differently. Everyone knows that already. My point is that mathematics and logic distinctly infer an infinite being as the source of the universe.
All I’m asking you to do is follow the evidence where it leads.
Ian said :”it seems wrong to me to try to use a mathematical proof to force an admission that God is real.”
I agree. If that were Perry’s intent, it would not only be wrong, but futile.
I suppose you would equally agree that it is wrong that people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are trying to use “science” to force an admission that God is NOT real. In their case, this is their avowed intention.
The nature and implications of religious belief are such that they can not be forced.
In an era where science is being used in an unconcealed attempt to rid the planet of religion, Perry’s endeavours are perfectly legitimate. He is generally consistent in his use of the word “infer” rather than proof. (In all the historical sciences, a strong inference is accepted as being on a par with “proof” so there’s no problem there.)
In a combat where science, math and logic seem to be the main weapons being deployed, Perry is using those same weapons and saying that they can be used differently, to different ends.
Rather than force anyone into belief, he is showing that you can take science, math and logic to point in a different direction than atheism.
Paying lip service to “reason” even Dawkins has said that the chances of God existing are “vanishingly small”. He says this as a biologist.
Perry is demonstrating that the “vanishingly small” conclusion is not the only one that can be inferred from our knowledge of science, math and logic. Quite the opposite.
What a refreshing voice to hear amid the clamour of cries for humanity to be cured of the God delusion and cleansed of religion.
Godel never made any reference to God. The largest assumption that fits with Godel’s theorem is that mathematical and physical systems are logical. Any theory we come up with is only good if the universe makes sense, and that cannot be proven by any theory. We just have to assume that. God has nothing to do with it. Godel does not account for God, he only introduces the necessity of a statement of inherent universal logic for any arithmetic theory to be both consistent and complete.
There is a tremendous difference between proving mathematically and logically what we CAN observe and what we CAN’T observe. Touting proof of the existence of an intangible, unknowable God implies the necessity that there is only one right way to see things. This is an acceptable framework for determining HOW things work, as when the rubber meets the road, the world only works in certain ways, but not for WHY things work, which is the domain of religion. The goal of science is to investigate phenomena in the natural world so that we can both understand how they arise and accurately predict when they will next arise. A GUT (Grand Unified Theory) will only explain how things tick, not why.
Every religious war and act of persecution in history stemmed from one side’s conviction that the other side’s belief system or some other attribute was fundamentally flawed. The Inquisition and the Holocaust are both instances of authorities using warped scientific deduction to arrive at a conclusion of their particular sides’ undeniable supremacy, giving them the right, indeed the mandate, to purge the world of all others. This has happened in religion, but not in science. Why? Because there’s no way to prove whose religion or God is the right one, let alone that there is a God. However, when one scientist disagrees with the hypothesis of another, they don’t go to war, they put their theories to the test. The one that agrees with observable reality is obviously the right one.
Perry, you fail to see that faith is such a deeply personal matter that nobody will ever see it the same way, no matter how desperately you appeal to cognition. That millions can go about their lives, either believing in or denying God, or somewhere in between, and that they still find success in life is a testament to the relative nature of religion’s impact.
So, in short, don’t invite atheists to the table when you want to preach abut God. You will only meet with frustration when you realize you can’t possibly change our minds.
There are many ways to see things; we all know that. But do you agree that in the final analysis there is only one reality?
Do you believe philosophy’s law of non-contradiction – that two contradictory things cannot both be true in the same way at the same time?
Or do you believe the opposite?
If you believe the opposite, you can then embrace the view that the universe is inconsistent. That the cosmos is illogical. In that case the atheist position is safe from attack.
Or you can believe that the universe is logical. That it is incomplete, and that it necessarily depends on something outside itself.
If the universe is logical, there is an Other. That’s what happens when you apply Gödel’s incompleteness theorem to matter, energy, time and space.
But you can’t have it both ways. It’s either inconsistent or it’s incomplete.
You’ve hit on a key point: Science cannot tell us why, it can only tell us how. Only religion can tell us why. So if any answer to WHY exists, then religion is valid.
How do you know there is no way to prove whose religion or God is the right one? Please come forward with a logical argument.
Religious wars have usually been about money, land, sex and power, not religion. Whatever god in question is merely used as a convenient excuse to act out the cravings of natural selection and behave like animals.
You might not be aware that theologians approach their questions the same way scientists do. They subject propositions to rigorous analysis and debate. Ever read a theological journal? You can find one at the nearest university library. In fact science came from theology. I’ve written at length about this elsewhere.
It seems to me that this discussion is making you uncomfortable so you’re trying to declare it out of bounds. You say I’m trying desperately to appeal to cognition. I’m only using math and logic to tell you what your options are. Seems to me you’re trying desperately to avoid cognition.
It’s not my job to change your mind. I am fully aware that some atheists will not be dissuaded by facts or logic. Believe me, I know that quite well. It’s only my job to present evidence and logic that cannot be refuted. You know that I welcome all comers and thus far after 500+ comments in this thread, I have at least done that. If you want to embrace a worldview that violates the laws of entropy every time the universe re-creates itself, if you want to dodge the necessity of a first cause, that’s up to you. Only you get to choose between atheism and rationalism.
Ian : excuse me for this remark which you might find offensive, but it is not my intention to offend, just to clarify.
You say: “That millions can go about their lives, either believing in or denying God, or somewhere in between, and that they still find success in life is a testament to the relative nature of religion’s impact.”
That is SO American!
Try this : “For I envied the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. They have no struggles;
their bodies are healthy and strong. They are free from common human burdens; they are not plagued by human ills.”
You’ll find it in Psalm 73.
That somebody find “success” in life or not has nothing to do with religion; even less than Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory.
(I am British. I live in France. And I LOVE the USA!)
Oh – and thankfully you are wrong about changing people’s minds. Most people DO change their minds in the light of new information.
*rant over*
Now, getting back to Gödel…
What this boils down to is faith in the theory. You need a great deal of faith, even in the face of sound logical deduction, to accede to the verity of a statement that you have never seen in action with your own eyes. Take electromagnetism, for instance. It’s so hard to believe at first that things can really exhibit those certain behaviors, but as you play around with it, you get comfortable with the idea. This experiential elimination of doubt can be made accessible to anyone. You seem to be assuming that God works the same way. Here’s the flaw: there is no observable evidence that indicates God’s existence. The inability to disprove that God is real is not evidence that God is real. I want you to provide just one real-world example that proves there IS a God. Faith doesn’t cut it for me. Until we can prove that the whole observable universe sprouted from the will of one entity (who, additionally, is particularly interested in the goings-on of a little blue planet in some corner of the Milky Way galaxy), there is as much legitimacy in your argument as there is in my own earlier challenge to thermodynamics (I never said I was right). We need more than faith in a clever manipulation of logic; we need hard evidence. Let me restate that Godel never mentioned God in his theorem. What he said amounts to this: “There will always be more to learn. Humankind will never quite know all there is to know.” On that note, if we know everything there is to know about the observable universe, plus we know from just by knowing the finite extent of everything that there is an Other (and we achieve a formulaic description of that Other), haven’t we just proven that it doesn’t end with that Other? If we can describe that Other, then there must still be something beyond. This becomes a never-ending God-hunt, even if you are right. Your basic assumption dictates that we will never know everything, so we will never know for sure whether or not there is a God.
http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles/
Jeez Perry: There is a huge amount I would like to say, but I don’t have time: gotta work. I’ll try to make just two main points.
1. You say: “The incompletness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But it IS proof that in order to construct a rational scientific model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical..it’s necessary.”
Godel did not prove the universe is incomplete. He proved our attempts at building rational, mathematical models of the universe are incomplete. Big difference! Further, of necessity must our models must always be incomplete and that is what we are stuck with.
You say: “just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclids 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent desctiptionn of the Universe without a First Cause and a Source of order” Well, there are a number of alternate Geometry systems that
use other postulates and come up with self-consistent results. In some of these, for example, parallel lines DO meet. Euclidean works for me, but for other purposes, Non-euclidean is chosen.
The truth is, we live in a world that is in many ways simply bizarre. In deep space (and every where else) particles appear out of nothing and disappear into nothing. Galaxies behave “as though” there were a much greater concentration of mass in them than we can find. Physicists postulate undetectable “dark matter” but cannot define what that might be. One could with equal right postulate that things are that way because that’s the way God wants it. Belief in “Undetectable Matter” or “Undetectable God” are equally rational–or equally not.
The fact that we yearn for certainty, does not oblige the universe to supply it.
It’s fine with me for you or anyone else to add order to their experience of life by believing in God or whatever. So long as we don’t use that belief to suppress others.
I have my own approach to “belief in God” and it’s different from yours. I don’t argue with your right to your belief. I do argue when you claim Godel supports your conception. Not true.
Bill Clinton
Bill,
Yes, the universe is a very strange place. The real question here still remains, is the universe rational or not? However strange it may seem, however complex those laws are, does it obey logical mathematical laws or not?
If it does, God necessarily has to exist. As I show in the syllogism in the right column of the above article.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people suggest or imply that I’m going to use this sort of logic to suppress others. I’m not doing that. I’m showing you what reason and logic say. Just because someone can prove the cigarettes will kill you doesn’t mean they are going to come and confiscate them from you. Everyone is free to believe what they want, but let no one think that mathematics and science have nothing to say.
First of all, I have to apologise. I haven’t read all the comments above, so it’s possible someone might already have made a similar point. Anyway; my view is that it’s never going to be possible to prove the point you’re trying to make Perry, by dipping into the details.
And to that extent, I include Gödel’s work as detail. Part of the philosophical implications of what Gödel found was that humans seem to possess some kind of amazing ability to draw conclusions about what is provable within a formal system – that the formal system cannot prove. However, I don’t get too carried away by the claim.
It wouldn’t surprise me if robots are eventually able to outperform humans in all mental tasks, including identifying when a formal system requires another axiom. The robot would still be implementing a formal system of logic, with its own limitations, but it would be far beyond what a mathematician could do.
I think, in order to answer your original question, it’s necessary to step back from the detail, and ask questions like: why is there logic? Why is there mathematics? I prefer the question: why is there something rather than nothing?
PS I have a maths degree, but I’m not a big believer in the idea that the universe does maths. Just because mathematics can be used to describe how a bicycle stays upright, doesn’t mean it’s the only description, or that mathematics is being used to ride the bike.
I suggest you read the comments above. I have addressed your objections multiple times.
Perry is doing what humankind has always done – go to the limits of the knowledge of the time, point out the mysteries that we don’t know or can’t yet explain, and then claim that it proves that God exists. We will never be able to explain first cause – why anything exists – so the God people will always bring that up. So why does God exist? Even the God people can’t answer that, factually. And if a God did exist, the chances that it would resemble the mythic bad-tempered old man of the Bible are “vanishingly small.”
Give it up, Perry. There will always be stuff we don’t know. You will always put God there, on faith. Quit claiming that your solution is scientific.
It does not say what is life and how it is godlike and who we are – it tells rather the opposite what is not the causing point. At least it is true. Thanks for pushing these points home !
“All closed systems depend on something outside the system.”
I don’t think so. Just because there are true statements that can be made about the integers (for example) which can’t be proved using some system – this does not mean that the integers DEPEND on something outside that system.
Re-read Gödel’s theorem.
I see what you’re getting at Richard about the justification of using such a heavily loaded word as ‘depend’. And it’s not just an issue limited to discussion of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems. It’s a general matter of the quality of the debating and deductive methodology used.
It’s also one of many common errors made in debates. Someone may go through a very detailed and convincing outline of an argument, but then in the last line, draw some tangential conclusion that isn’t justified by what went before (but often provides 99% of the weight of the conclusion). Sometimes it’s done inadvertently, other times it happens because the speaker, either consciously or subconsciously, has already decided on the conclusion to be arrived at.
But if we’re really really driven by a desire to discover truth, then spotting such issues should be a cause for encouragement.
If this were a face-to-face conversation, I could imagine myself saying: let us not overburden the moment with meaning, and let us not overburden the conclusion with unjustified meaning.
Thank you Gerard. I do understand Godel’s theorem, Perry. It seems to me that you’ve used the word ‘incomplete’ in two different ways. ‘Incomplete’ in mathematics means there are true statements that are unprovable from the axioms. That is all.
Everything every human believes is based on faith. Atheist. Christian. Buddhist. Scientist. Mathematician. Butcher. Baker. Candlestickmaker. Every single one.
A bold statement with no exceptions
Facts support belief systems, yes. i can drop a rock off the roof and decide that gravity seems like a good theory…good enough that i don’t want to jump off the roof myself and see if i’m the exception.
in the end, the question is…which incomplete set of facts and which set of assumptions do you want to bet your life on? Pascal’s wager is not irrational, its the only option. Its good sport to make fun of Christians for not being rational or scientific. (Truth is, many Christians don’t help themselves much here admittedly).
Better to simply say, ‘you’re right. I do believe this is an incomplete set of data. And so I made a leap.’
However if you are outside the Christian faith, you are less than honest when you don’t think you are doing the same. Every person who says the “hard facts” don’t support God or the Christian faith are also willfully ignoring a great deal of information. Which they are free to do. They simply have faith in other facts, are willing to make certain assumptions while dismissing others. We all…every one of us…do this. Better to clearly man up, admit it, and then see if our theories of life hold up with the passing of time.
The Christian faith is not an airtight proof. Its rational, but not definitively provable. I freely admit this.
That said, neither is atheism. Or Hinduism. Or Objectivism. Or anything.
I can’t prove for example that when my wife fixes me dinner tonight, that instead of doing it out of love….she’s not secretly fattening me up for slaughter like the witch in Hansel and Gretel.
Christianity = incomplete set of facts. Not exhaustively provable. Show me a better explanation for love, meaning in life, good, evil, rationality, man as self conscious creature….and I’m interested. But I’m 52 and have spent most of my life looking…so far, every explanation I hear is less complete, less rational, less personally satisfying.
Still looking of course, but as a wise man once said, you can only spend so much time in the hallways of a home, deciding which room to enter. At some point you must choose, since in the rooms is where the fireplaces, the good meals, and long talks into the night with good friends occur. At some point you need to live life, not just “think” about living it.
I’d love more certainty…always…but I have enough to place my bets. We’ll all get to see for sure when we face that One Great Certainty and learn first hand if we placed our bet on the right horse or not.
The most i am able to contribute to this conversation is an expression of my belief that the wisdom, that is logic, of man is foolishness to God.
Godel’s Theorem, as quoted by you above determines nothing about “cause” only about “proof”. The presence, absence or potential for provability has nothing to do with cause or origin.
Even the incompleteness test you describe above doesn’t do that, because while the universe may well be incomplete with regards to basic mathematics, the whole that consistutes the universe dwarfs the mathematical aspect of it.
The fact you cannot prove that something is complete, does not mean that it is not complete.
I’ve seen variants of your reasoning used for the purposes of demonstrating that there is an exremely high likelihood that the universe we live in is a simulation. Following from which, the sysop is God.
Roger,
Gödel didn’t not say “cannot be proven consistent and complete.” His theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.”
If the universe dwarfs mathematics then you’re really saying the universe is somehow “above” reason and logic. Which is to suggest that the universe itself is metaphysical. That would be at least some sort of pantheism or panentheism.
I still say, cannot be proven.
Let’s start with “both consistent AND complete”
You claim the universe is not complete.
So prove that it is consistent.
My admittedly limited reading on the nature of hyper dimensions and singularities would indicate to me that we cannot currently prove that the universe is consistent across all conditions, or that it’s condition is even stable. In fact Godel’s Theorem would probably indicate that we will never be able to do so.
But really, when you start these discussions, you should probably define the type of God you are talking about.
God the prime cause?
God the all knowing?
God the all powerful?
God the all caring?
God the flying sphagetti monster?
You are taking a word that has a great deal of vaguness about it, and a massive emotional and neurological load, and waving it about as a target.
There is no way you are going to do anything but draw fire from multiple directions for it.
For the record
Atheist
I’m more than prepared to admit the possibility of God the prime cause.
I’m more than prepared to admit the possibility that at least one entity exists that we would consider to have the power of the prime cause.
I’m dubious about the existence of God the all knowing, since information theory dictates that the information density of such an entity would have to exceed that of the universe.
I can’t see what God the all caring would get out of it, unless it is an entity that is at some point dependent on our existence.
Which would in turn negate the existence of God the all powerful. But I can easily see the potential for the existence of a being we would CONSIDER all powerful.
Roger,
First of all you owe me the courtesy of reading at least a sampling of the above comments because we’ve already discussed this ad infinitum.
We cannot prove the universe is consistent. We can only assume that the universe operates according to reason and logic. I can hardly think of a presupposition that atheists are more fond of, than that reason and logic are fundamental to everything.
If the universe is consistent – ie logical – then it is incomplete. That’s what Gödel says. If you wish to presume the universe is not logical, be my guest.
But given a logical universe, a metaphysical world necessarily exists. Thus materialist philosophy is not compatible with the laws of mathematics.
From that point forward, all your questions are theological. Happy to discuss them, but at that point we go beyond mathematics.
Hi Perry.
I have read the other comments.
And I am trying to understand, but I think that you are not answering some key assumptions.
1. What “type” of god are you discussing
2. Why do you think you can assume that the universe is either consistent or complete given that Godel’s Theorem itself implies that neither is likely to be POSITIVELY provable. (They may be negatively provable)
3. Both Godel’s Theorem and the Church-Turing hypothesis “as quoted by you” apply solely to alogrithims. That is to say, they must be computable.
So why does that apply to the universe?
At the smallest level, the universe is subject to quantum effects that render computation of the behaviour individual items (e.g. electrons and quarks) uncertain. Is this not a form of inconsistency?
Around singularities, the physical laws are believed to break down. Would this not also be another form of inconsistency?
In these cases, even if Godel’s theorem does apply to the universe, if the universe allows inconsistency, then it can be complete.
1. In this article I’m discussing what can be inferred about God mathematically: That God is boundless, immaterial and intentional. Also that, per the origin of life, God has triggered at least one more singularity event beyond the big bang.
2. Gödel says it’s either one or the other. You can choose either. Incomplete gives you a logical universe.
3. We don’t know that the Church-Turing thesis applies to the universe. But modern science effectively does assume this and you can’t practice science without that assumption.
If behavior of subatomic particles is unpredictable that doesn’t mean it’s illogical. It just means we haven’t figured out the logic.
If a singularity is a boundary between one system and another then it’s not an inconsistency. If the big bang is something that happened for no reason at all, then it is an inconsistency.
This is what I love about you, Perry.
Hi Perry,
Great job of making people think!
The high number of responses to this post show that this is a subject that people passionately care about, whether they agree or disagree with you.
I read quite a few of the comments and appreciated that you were willing to clarify your statements. You also welcomed people to defend their arguments with logic.
The huge amount of time that you’ve put into this broad subject shows that you want to help people on another level. Instead of asking the question: “How can I do what I am doing better?”, you pose the bigger question: “Why do we do the things that we do?”
I love it!
I eagerly await more thought-provoking posts in this spirituality series. Keep ‘em coming.
@ Rick Kettner
“However, there is absolutely no reason to consider it above other possibilities.”
Did you rather mean to say, “I have not encountered any reason which could be acceptable to me”?
I presume you are not making any claims to omniscience here. Unless you truly believe that you are familiar with all the possible “reasons” available for considering “it” above other possibilities.
“We simply do not have the evidence to settle on either side of this equation yet. I’ve looked closely at the different possibilities and cannot see how anyone could conclude either way with honest certainty. “
Have you concluded that with honest certainty? Your position is a firm and dogmatic, “I don’t know” or “I can’t know” – is that right?
“Pretending to be able to validate such a view is a result of knowingly or unknowingly engaging in confirmation bias through selective inductive reasoning.”
Which is precisely what you are doing here. Or as you say, “This statement betrays your overwhelming bias towards one specific option.” Your option being, “ I am in a position to decide whether or not something is knowable.” That is just a biased and dogmatic as, “I believe God exists.”
“I grew up religious and have no real issue with religion besides the fact it simply claims to know something it can’t.”
I am wondering how you can say that “religion” can know anything at all. People know things, not religions. (Unless English grammar on your side of the pond has different rules.)
“I’ve also considered the alternatives and see no reason to assume there is no God.”
You’ve considered ALL the alternatives? Well……wow!
“Therefore, our only practical move is to further ….”
You have decreed that there is only one practical move? Well, considering all your sweeping affirmations, I can understand you having no need for God. You’re already talking as if you were God!
@Richard Morgan
“Did you rather mean to say, “I have not encountered any reason which could be acceptable to me”?”
You are correct to point out the mistake of me saying “absolutely no reason”. However, you have gone to the other extreme and made the statement subjective. My position is that, at this time, I have not come across any information, argument, or evidence that objectively proves or disproves the existence of a God.
“Have you concluded that with honest certainty? Your position is a firm and dogmatic, “I don’t know” or “I can’t know” – is that right?”
Incorrect. My position is that I have yet to see an argument that settles the dispute. You might choose to categorize that as “I don’t know” or “we don’t know”, but I hardly see this as a firm dogmatic view. If we don’t have the evidence yet, that doesn’t mean we never will… or that we should jump to conclusions using selective inductive reasoning. It simply means there is more to learn.
I’m sorry you’ve decided that it requires a bias to conclude that neither side has objectively proven that there is or is not a God. IF I stated “we will never know”, you would have a case for making such an accusation. In fact, if I said “we will never prove ____” you would have a case. I didn’t say either of those things. Your desire to demonize me for waiting for objective evidence is quite confusing.
“You have decreed that there is only one practical move? Well, considering all your sweeping affirmations, I can understand you having no need for God. You’re already talking as if you were God!”
You appear to revel in pointing out statements that can be misinterpreted, and then intentionally interpreting them in the worst possible way. I don’t find that to be a productive way to discuss things. Feel free to point out my errors for the sake of clarity, but I would ask that you please refrain from demonizing my views based on assumed interpretations.
You say that anything which is immaterial must be indivisible. But mathematics is both immaterial and divisible, I think.
Is there no division between the math that is known today and the math that will be discovered tomorrow?
So, math is both immaterial and divible – thus contradicting a key part of your argument, it seems. You said that anything that is immaterial must be indivisible.
I said anything you can’t draw a circle around must be indivisible.
You can’t draw a circle round math (as it’s immaterial). However it IS divisible, thus contradicting your argument, it seems. Some immaterial things ARE divisible.
Also, math is immaterial, but it is not an uncaused cause (because it is not a cause) – which appears to contradict your statement “Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause”.
My “circle” could be a mathematical set. Something with either physical or ideological boundaries.
Math is not outside the biggest circle. I’m sorry but your comments make it clear that you have not understood my original statements. I never said that immaterial things are not divisible.
Please re-read the article.
@Perry – What leads you to conclude there is something outside the circles or that the circles don’t go on to infinity? What leads you to conclude what is outside the circle is a conscious being? Furthermore, how do you even begin to define the characteristics of a being/intelligence/consciousness that somehow doesn’t require a system around it?
The big-bang could literally be the equivalent to popcorn popping in a significantly more complex world… especially if all we are relying on is selective inductive reasoning to determine what is going on.
Not to take away from the validity of the above questions, but assuming you choose to reconcile such a potential “God” with the theistic view of a loving and personal God that created us in his image, how would such a being not require his own support structure?
I can’t help but get the sense you assume the potential existence of an intelligent creator validates the very specific definition of such a being provided in Christianity – one of many possible religions (which also assumes that such a being is accurately described in any human religion). How do you make this connection while also refuting the connections believers of other faiths would make? Why do we assume such a “God” is a personal one or is even capable of forming relationships? Are all of these connections being made based on selective interpretation of texts that are already selectively chosen from one specific religion… all while dismissing texts, information, and insights within your own religion and others?
You accept evolution, so does that mean you reject the biblical creation story? Is the story simply allegorical? If so, how do we know the concept of an “afterlife” isn’t allegorical? Obviously the selective interpretation and acceptance of certain verses is not an accurate way to determine if there is a God, what he is like, if there is an afterlife, what it might be like, etc.
I promise to give you the responses that your questions deserve some time in the next week or two. Meanwhile the reason I don’t accept circles going to infinity is because that’s infinite regress. Re: some of the other items you mention, most questions are addressed on various articles at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm and http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/genesis1/
Math is boundless and immaterial and incomplete and yet you say you can draw a circle round it. Am I correct in thinking that you are saying that?
Math is incomplete. It is not boundless.
There is an infinite amount of math – in other words it is boundless.
Richard @
You claim: “There is an infinite amount of math – in other words it is boundless.”
“Amount of” is just absolutely unassignable to “math”. I hesitate to even guess as to what you might imagine is the wisdom or verity of even using these words together : there + is + an + infinite + amount + of + math.
Number of equations known to man? Number of “values” known to man? Number of “unknowns” expressible in math?
Technically, math has no volume and no units in and of itself that can be measured unless you want to simply count the words and symbols so far written about math and in math, I suppose.
But that takes us farther away form the complete inapplicability of your implausible, if not impossible, statement that the “amount of math” is infinite.
What mathematician would ever, to continue past this point, claim that math is “boundless”?
The most accurate thing to say, is, as Perry points out: math (The study of the measurement, relationships, and properties of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols) is INCOMPLETE.
Boundless means having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude.
Math is necessarily constrained from being boundless because, for one reason, it is the construct of a limited mind, our own.
When we take imaginary flights, say in metaphysical mathematical thought experiments, we can “pretend” to go to boundless infinity but we have no present empirical proof that we indeed have calculated for boundless infinity.
So, in a very real way even our abstractions are hampered by incompleteness in math, the math we think we know and use at present.
Here is what Stephen Hawkings had to say when he weighed in on whether he thought there would be an ultimate theory (Explanation) for the Universe and its life. He centered his change of attitude to now doubting that physicists can find an ultimate mathematical unification that explains the creation and all that is init it and he used his own acceptance of Gödel’s theorem to explain-
The following are some paragraphs from Stephen Hawkings, Cambridge University, in a Talk Entitled: “Gödel and the End of Physics”
I lift paragraphs here and there that stand on their own–
In the standard positivist approach to the philosophy of science, physical theories live rent free in a Platonic heaven of ideal mathematical models. That is, a model can be arbitrarily detailed, and can contain an arbitrary amount of information, without affecting the universes they describe. But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models, are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory, is self referencing, like in Gödel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent, or incomplete. The theories we have so far, are ~both inconsistent, and incomplete.
Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory, that we will eventually discover. Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon. However, M-theory has made me wonder if this is true. Maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the universe in a finite number of statements. This is very reminiscent of Gödel’s theorem. This says that any finite system of axioms, is not sufficient to prove every result in mathematics.
Gödel’s theorem is proved using statements that refer to themselves. Such statements can lead to paradoxes. An example is, this statement is false. If the statement is true, it is false. And if the statement is false, it is true. Another example is, the barber of Corfu shaves every man who does not shave himself. Who shaves the barber? If he shaves himself, then he doesn’t, and if he doesn’t, then he does. Gödel went to great lengths to avoid such paradoxes, by carefully distinguishing between mathematics, like 2+2 =4,and meta mathematics, or statements about mathematics, such as mathematics is cool, or mathematics is consistent. that is why his paper is so difficult to read. But the idea is quite simple.
First Gödel showed that each mathematical formula, like 2+2=4, can be given a unique number, the Gödel number. The Gödel number of 2+2=4, is *.
Second, the meta mathematical statement, the sequence of formulas A, is a proof of the formula B, can be expressed as an arithmetical relation between the Gödel numbers for A- and B. Thus meta mathematics can be mapped into arithmetic, though I’m not sure how you translate the meta mathematical statement, ‘mathematics is cool’.
Third and last, consider the self referring Gödel statement, G. This is, the statement G can not be demonstrated from the axioms of mathematics. Suppose that G could be demonstrated. Then the axioms must be inconsistent, because one could both demonstrate G, and show that it can not be demonstrated. On the other hand, if G can’t be demonstrated, then G is true. By the mapping into numbers, it corresponds to a true relation between numbers, but one which can not be deduced from the axioms.
Thus mathematics is either inconsistent, or incomplete. The smart money, is on incomplete.
Even Stephen Hawkings is in Perry’s corner on this topic.
For example, there is no bound that can be placed on the number of theorems or the number of proofs or the number of equations.
Richard, that is quite a theoretical construct but it does not focus on the powers of math to predict or explain, does it?
You say, “For example, there is no bound that can be placed on the number of theorems or the number of proofs or the number of equations.”
It will first take a human being to construct a theorem or a proof. They do not write themselves. And if you program computers to write theorems and proofs as fast as their little processors can crank them out these computers will have nothing but our own observations according to our understanding fed in to them in the first place.
And if you can round up everyone mentally and experientially equipped to also crank out theorems and proofs, you are still bounded by their numbers and the minorities of human population available.
So, theoretically, since only humans and computers can do this, there IS a Bound, practically speaking if you follow the logic to its inevitable conclusion.
When the last human and computer is counted you have an in-built limit, a boundary.
But discovering whether this is or is not a true boundary on the “number of theorems or the number of proofs on the number of equations” such a theoretical inquiry is in a completely different direction than the topics at hand.
Even if you could prove that there is NO LIMIT to the Number of Equations or Theorems that could be theoretically generated in (what framework of Time??) this would have nothing to do with proving that ten-gagoogle gillian theorems would ever en-masse close the inherent INCOMPLETENESS of MATH ITSELF.
There is no limit to the number of equations and theorems.
Also there are plenty of math theories which are based on consistent axioms and which do not apply to the real world. In those theories, “true” statements do not apply to the real world. They are “true” because they are valid deductions from the axioms. But they are not true statements about the real world.
In those theories there will also be “true” statements which are unprovable.
By introducing constructs that are not in the real world, e.g. imaginary numbers, one can describe more of the real world (as well as other possible non-existent worlds).
So I think that it is not impossible that there is some mathematics that can describe the whole of our finite universe and much more, although, as all consistent math theories are incomplete, there will be some unprovable statements which are true given the axioms.
But maybe those “true” unprovable statements may not apply to the real world, but only to the “much more” in the previous sentence.
@DavidH
“Even Stephen Hawkings is in Perry’s corner on this topic”
Except according to you, he’s not: “The theories we have so far, are ~both inconsistent, and incomplete.”
Where as Perry is saying:
consistent, therefore incomplete.
If incomplete, there must be more outside the universe.
The more must be God.
Roger Wilcocks,
Pick up your books and come sit up front where we can keep an eye on you to make sure you’re actually paying attention.
Stephen Hawkings took paragraphs to present and develop his thought. The payoff, the ultimate truth of what he professed was contained a few more paragraphs below, which I included.
But, in keeping with standard development of ideas in books or lectures he warmed to his topic by presenting some things that seem to be self-evident in the theoretical quests of science, physics, mathematics.
He first stated what things presently looked like —
“Thus a physical theory, is self referencing, like in Gödel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent, or incomplete. The theories (my note: of what created the universe) we have so far, are ~both inconsistent, and incomplete.”
Roger, this is self evident to anyone in his field of math.
Hawkings was referring to the CONFUSION reigning in math and science, the many conjectures, the widely ranging opinions about how this whole shebang got started.
And THIS is TRUE, and Perry will wholeheartedly agree because he has been talking about the logical implications of Gödel’s theorem, a DIFFERENT issue, Roger.
And then Stephen Hawkings continued his train of thought completely wrapped around one thing that “made logical sense” in the midst of everyone’s confusion and expectations regarding the expected revelations to come from theorists.
Hawkings focused on Gödel’s theorem of incompleteness and resolved his own intuitions this way, in the popular vernacular:
“Thus mathematics is either inconsistent, or incomplete. The smart money, is on incomplete.”
Roger, this is an “either or” conjecture from Hawkings. Hawkings, while confessing he is not omniscient, is siding on, betting his expertise to accept ONE condition, NOT BOTH —
Mathematics is incomplete. That is what Hawkings has decided until he is convinced otherwise.
Or maybe you interpret English in a completely different fashion?
“Roger Wilcocks, Pick up your books and come sit up front where we can keep an eye on you to make sure you’re actually paying attention.”
This intentionally personal bashing should not be a part of such an important debate. You may not agree with someone, their logic, or their conclusion… but that is no excuse to make this personal or to attack their intellect.
I regret falling into this trap a little in my replies to you, and I want to apologize for that. I think its obvious everyone here is seeing further understanding, so we should acknowledge our shared interested an make progress in productive debates.
Dear Perry, Roger, Rick, etc,
You are correct, Perry, when you quote Paul, who also said in his first letter to the Corinthian believers –
“For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate’.
So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish.”
I know you have wrapped up a large part of your life in debating with the debaters, Perry. But the debate is foreordained by God Himself not to convince or to prove ultimately.
If this were so, Perry, you would have enjoyed the fruits of it bountifully by now. But the debate, for all the words of opinion and counter opinion expended here is evidently for little or naught.
I understand that you welcome the debate and you are apparently resigned to the immutable reality that you are not processing atheists to believers here. Not if what I have read in your forums over the past five or six years is an accurate accounting.
Atheists and agnostics and believers are born and bred and thrive on debate. No subject besides politics attracts such diversity of opinion.
And we believers earnestly love to argue that we are not insane and actually carry a few logical thoughts in our heads.
Hence the debate. But I as a believer come to the table not merely curious or objectively neutral.
Believing in God is in itself no big deal. Not a bit. Many “believe” in God and it does not make a whit of difference in their lives.
Your own years in this arena have shown you, Perry, that the fruit of this debate, the ultimate harvest after the seeds have been sown and planted is vanity for the debaters.
If you want a similarly fervent debate start it on SIN. Is it a wonky concept of some deluded Jehovah believers or is it truly a characteristic that operates in this world?
Is it a false man-contrived concept or the most important necessity to examine in ourselves?
Why does the Bible hinge its central message on such a simple concept called “sin”?
The entire history of the Bible since God first declared, let’s get this party rolling, has been following how sin entered a pristine world and chronicling what God and we are going to do about it.
Sin? Delusion or reality?
I understand that for a person to know God requires God to reach out and touch that person. Like you having that experience of JOY that you described. You can’t give that to Rick (so far as I know), God has to.
I also understand that seldom is the person I’m debating with won over. They are predisposed to not like anything I say.
But I also understand from my own experience, and my brother’s experience, that facts, information and arguments do make a lot of difference. Why? Because I was almost convinced myself. Had someone proven that random mutations really do produce new biological features (they don’t), things might have gone much differently.
I also know that most of the results I get aren’t from the person I’m debating with, it’s the curious onlookers. I know that from the emails I get from people who’ve spent hours on my site investigating.
Furthermore there’s a long string of people who have come here, engaged with me, and backed themselves into a corner. They didn’t want to believe and nothing I say can MAKE them believe. But you can be certain that their inability to find any counterargument gives them pause.
You need to be careful not to discount philosophy, facts and debate entirely based on a small passage of Paul. Yes, I do understand what he is saying. Still, Paul loved to debate and argue and you see him doing it many places. Heck, Romans itself is one big grand case of theological reasoning. As is Galatians. I don’t know how anyone could read Proverbs or Hebrews (or even read Jesus arguing with the religious leaders) and conclude that facts and information and logic are irrelevant to Christianity.
It’s no accident that modern science was born and flourished in Christian culture, that the scientific method originally came from theologians, even after science was stillborn everywhere else. Why? Because the Judeo-Christian worldview asserts that God made a world that operates according to fixed, discoverable laws. No other culture had a theology and a philosophy to support a naturalistic understanding of science.
You put me down for debating, yet you debate people yourself – right here on this page. Not only that, you debate me about the usefulness of debating. If this is really so useless, why are you even here?
One last thought, from Acts 6:
8 Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed amazing miracles and signs among the people. 9 But one day some men from the Synagogue of Freed Slaves, as it was called, started to debate with him. They were Jews from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and the province of Asia. 10 None of them could stand against the wisdom and the Spirit with which Stephen spoke.
11 So they persuaded some men to lie about Stephen, saying, “We heard him blaspheme Moses, and even God.” 12 This roused the people, the elders, and the teachers of religious law. So they arrested Stephen and brought him before the high council.
DavidH: “Sin? Delusion or reality?”
Sin is a natural result of choice, and is initiated by irrational decision making. We all make choices based on what we think is best for ourselves and those we love. Some of these decisions are irrational (theft, murder, greed, seeking power, etc.) because they do not ultimately achieve the true result intended (personal happiness for ourselves and those around us). In the moment, people may *think* their actions will lead to positive results for them, but obviously the outcomes aren’t what they anticipated. It’s short sighted irrational whims that guide such decisions and ultimately create “sinful” results. Most theists blame the failed outcomes on “sin” due to further irrational thinking – instead of fully understanding the root of the problem.
I’ve never heard of a decision where the ultimate catalyst, however irrational, wasn’t based on expectation of personal gain. Even an act out of “spite” is an attempt to make the world a better place in some twisted way… much like a small claims court trial is an indirect effort for social justice (even with the knowledge that a financial judgement won’t make up for the specific situation). It’s a way to warn others that similar behaviour won’t be tolerated – mixed with a little irrationality based on “end justifies the means”.
Perry: “They are predisposed to not like anything I say.”
While I recognize we all have some level of bias due to our past experiences, I generally disagree with the underlying message here – as I think that bias can be reduced to the point where it is a non-issue. I’ve been back and fourth on this debate in the past, and honestly feel as though I do not prefer one outcome over the other. In the end, I sincerely think the most important aspect of life is to be 100% open and honest with ourselves and others as we seek understanding. If there is a God, or more specifically a “personal God”, I have no doubt that he will recognize my honest intentions. People like DavidH may choose to proclaim that I am “lost”, but it doesn’t bother me in the least. I’m quite certain any God worth worshipping would expect me to use the logic and reason that, if he exists and created this world, he has provided me with.
Hey Rick,
I’m not saying YOU are predisposed to not like anything I say. Actually you’re much more neutral than a lot of people who come along. I was especially thinking of the people at Infidels when I wrote this. I most certainly agree with your last statement.
@Perry – Thanks for the clarification. I enjoy our debates and look forward to your replies on the CF website. I think it’s fair to say my replies there are sometimes, I’m sorry to say, a little aggressive. My apologies as I do respect your opinions and enjoy the back and fourth.
No worries. If we didn’t get a little heated up sometimes this wouldn’t be any fun, would it?
“Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove.”
Yes. Given a set of axioms, there are true statements you can make within the theory that cannot be proved from the axioms.
For example, given a minimal set of axioms describing the integers, then there are true statements about the integers that cannot be proved from the axioms. The set of axioms is said to be “incomplete”. This does not prove that the integers themselves are incomplete. You can still “draw a circle” round them. It also does not prove that there are any “things” other than integers.
Applying this to the universe – there would be statements about the universe that you cannot prove from a given set of axioms. The set of axioms is said to be “incomplete”. This does not prove that the universe itself is incomplete. You can still “draw a circle” round it.
This argument also does NOT show that there are any “things” other than things in the universe.
See the syllogism at the upper right hand side of this article.
I’ve seen it. You appear to be using the word ‘incomplete’ in two different way.
Yes, the universe is incomplete in the sense that the are true statements about the universe that you cannot prove from a given set of axioms.
No, the universe is not uncomplete in the sense of there being things outside the universe.
The universe is incomplete in the sense that the are true statements about the universe that cannot be proven in the universe. They can only be verified by going outside the universe.
Therefore there is something outside of the universe. Or else the universe is illogical. You get to choose.
The universe is incomplete in the sense that there are true statements about the universe that cannot be proven from a given set of axioms. That does not mean that the universe is illogical.
By the way, do you consider mathematics to be inside the universe or outside it?
It means the universe is illogical only if there is nothing outside the universe.
Your second question is excellent. Answer: I consider mathematics to be independent of the universe. Mathematics would be true even if the universe didn’t exist. Thus mathematics is not physical, it is metaphysical. 2+2=4 is true both physically and conceptually.
Mathematics also stems from a finite set of axioms thus it is also finite.
The universe is incomplete in the sense that there are true statements about the universe that cannot be proven from a given set of axioms. That does not mean that the universe is illogical.
If there is nothing outside the universe – that doesn’t mean the universe is illogical either.
I agree that mathematics would be true if the universe didn’t exist. Mathematics is immaterial and infinite – there is an infinite number of mathematical statements that result from a finite set of axioms. For that matter there is an infinite number of different sets of axioms.
Likewise there is no limit on the number of possible computer programs.
Yes, there is an infinite number of possible statements. But there is not an infinite number of actual statements. Nor is there an infinite number of axioms, so far as we can tell.
Any way you slice it, Mathematical systems, if true, are incomplete. They rely on something on the outside.
Now you’ve lost me. Given that mathematics exists even if the universe didn’t exist, then all of mathematics exists – all the infinite number of statements and axioms. How could you say that just a finite part of mathematics exists?
Again, “incomplete” when refering to mathematical systems merely says that there are some statements which are true but unprovable. That does not mean that they rely on something “on the outside”. Mathematical statements are not “inside” the universe in any case. They are all on the outside.
What you’re describing as infinite isn’t really infinite. It is very, very, very large. Remember, if it omits or excludes anything, it’s not infinite. Remember what Gödel is saying about mathematics in the first place – that all mathematical systems are incomplete. There is a boundary between what is provable and what is not. That which is not provable is ostensibly an example of the finitude of what is probable.
It seems logically inescapable to conclude that every conjecture regarding the origin of the universe must tread through the realm of metaphysics at the very onset.
I will use Wikipedia to define metaphysics.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world, although the term is not easily defined. Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:
1. “What is there?”
2. “What is it … like?”
No matter where we start, no matter what theory, no matter what we philosophically imagine or believe is true, talking about the universe takes us to some notion of a beginning.
In all discussions regarding what process is responsible for the universe we instinctively quest to know what happened “in the beginning”. And what “made” it happen or did it “just” happen?
We all– believer in a “God cause”, or atheist or agnostic–have to come to the same place in this discussion. Like it or not, we all have to stare across the campfire at each other “in the beginning”.
Right now most scientists seem to be fairly agreed that what is here now started at some infinitesimally small point. Already, of course, this is spooky supernatural stuff. And I say “supernatural” to acknowledge that at this point of origin the laws of “nature” did not exist. So, technically, any thing that happened from that point was by all definitions superseding nature.
Baffling to all of us– atheist, agnostic, Biblical believer– is to behold nothingness for all intents and purposes. A speck tinier than a grain of sand but filled with so much potential energy that when it exploded it created a universe, running on energy that seems inexhaustible even to this day.
But does this not by all we know describe a state of overwhelming compression? What FORCE contained this speck of power? How could it build to a point of explosion without a FORCE first containing it?
But scientifically it is required that not only did some Force contain the nascent Universe-to-be but further, this Force COMPRESSED the universe before Gravitation could have existed.
What scientists routinely believe is a proposition so outrageously beyond present theories to explain that it has to count as a religion in and of itself.
After all, if you cannot PROVE, simply offer “logical” theories, then you are a “believer” in every sense of the term until you can conclusively prove all of the mechanisms that would account for the Big Bang.
What scientists have at the moment is a theory only because they have to accept what seems most “logical”. Yet in this theory no one has a hope right now of explaining how the elements of an entire universe were packed into this tiny spot in “nothing”. And scientifically, mathematically, the odds are seriously stacked against a universe that just mysteriously sorted this all out with no more intent or decision making power than a rock.
We are deluged with such evidence of delicately balanced powers, forces, particles, waves that richly combined simultaneously to create a universe with all necessary properties coalescing almost immediately.
Yet believers in a God cause, scientists who do not believe in a God cause, atheists who are quite curious, we all must return over and over to ask at the point of creation why were such forces and compressed supermass ALREADY in EXISTENCE?
And if you want to completely avoid the question WHY, you cannot avoid the question HOW? How can Force and Mass exist outside of the universe?
People question that there can be something outside of the universe. Yet scientists seem to mostly agree that the universe is here one way or the other because forces,any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape, preceded the universe or it could not be here.
It then seems logical that this powerful force is co-existing with the universe. That it never lost its property to contain the universe before a Big Bang or after. In fact, is this Force still absolutely necessary for the sustainment of the Universe even at this scale of expansion?
Is there, in fact, a protective “membrane” around the universe that is still in force just as it was when the universe was a proto-seed?
This Force self-evidently did not NEED the universe to exist for itself. Scientifically, the universe needed the existence of this Force before it was “born”. The Force had to be in place holding the seed of the universe under unbelievable compression.
Some believers in God might say that the Force itself decided just when the Universe was “ripe” and allowed it to erupt into life as a conscious decision.
We can all agree that whatever started this wild ride we have been having together it is an awesome contemplation of spooky mind concepts to wrap our imaginations around what the Big Bang requires.
And take any other theory and we wind up with the same ultimate question, at some point forces that pre-existed determined what would happen next.
Do we contain in ourselves a question that was also pre-ordained to come into being just as inevitably as gravity and light and weak attraction popped into existence? Is this question an implant from the other side of the “boundary”.
Do our questions — who are we?, where are we?, why are we? — exist by necessity? Have we been TOLD by this Force, that was evidently existing before our concepts of time, to ask just these questions?
We call it “human nature”. Maybe this presumption sells ourselves short.
“No matter where we start, no matter what theory, no matter what we philosophically imagine or believe is true, talking about the universe takes us to some notion of a beginning.”
I find this to be a false assumption. It may be difficult for us to fathom something existing forever, but it’s no more difficult than accepting that *something* can come from absolutely *nothing*. In fact, many peoples notion of a “God” is that he existed forever… and that is not compatible with a true “beginning” at all. We simply don’t have the information to conclude either way. If we think God existed forever, then we have no reason to conclude the laws governing our universe couldn’t have existed forever. If we believe in a true “beginning” than there is no reason to conclude God had to evolve first in order to then create much simpler beings… we should at least consider the possibility that we evolved directly.
“What scientists routinely believe is a proposition so outrageously beyond present theories to explain that it has to count as a religion in and of itself. After all, if you cannot PROVE, simply offer “logical” theories, then you are a “believer” in every sense of the term until you can conclusively prove all of the mechanisms that would account for the Big Bang.”
This brings up a very important question:
What would it look like if we could have proof of our origins, where we came from, and how we got here?
What results is a recognition that we need to enhance our understanding before we can reach the stage of proof, evidence, and certainty. Science may not have all the answers yet, admittedly, but the scientific method is a systematic approach attempting to find and present those answers in a logical framework. Simply asserting that everything requires “belief” or “faith” ignores the many tangible advancements we have made (medical, technological, etc.) and in many ways attempts to destroy the concept of “knowable knowledge”.
Unfortunately many scientists, and many theists as well, overstate their position and create the illusion that have more answers than can really be confirmed – especially in areas as complex as origins of the universe. We as human beings are not perfect, and it is wrong for us to overstate conclusions. However, I find significantly more value in the scientific method, because it addresses the question I posed above… it is a model for which we gain practical understanding. Everyday the human race is making tangible technological and medical advancements due to that structure of understanding… and in deeper more complex topics, we are still trying to make connections although with less reliable information at this point. It’s a move in the right direction – rather than simply asserting we can’t know and never will be able to know, we move forward thinking we can know and we will know – we just need to gather more information, consider new possibilities, find further evidence, and enhance understanding.
“People question that there can be something outside of the universe. Yet scientists seem to mostly agree that the universe is here one way or the other because forces,any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape, preceded the universe or it could not be here.”
As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, the universe could literally be the equivalent to a flower seed blooming in some far more complicated universe. It could be as simple as a bubble flowing down some massive cosmic stream. Obviously these comparisons are hugely limited by my human experience/perspective/creativity, but the point is… we really don’t understand anything about the many possibilities of what lies beyond our universe.
My understanding of the “big bang theory” is that its NOT considered the “beginning” of everything at all. It’s considered the origin of the known universe, because scientifically that is really all we can work with at this point. Is it extremely frustrating that we can’t theorize much beyond the start of our universe (without turning to pure speculation)? Yes, of course – but there is no reason to pretend such speculation, outside of science, is any more valid or likely to result in tangible progress of understanding. It all amounts to guesswork – most of which is typically based on a massive assumption that our universe is one-of-a-kind and/or makes up everything that exists. Go back far enough in history and we used to think that of our continent, then planet, then solar system, then galaxy… oh, but now we are certain our universe is one-of-a-kind
.
There are some weak theories (read: speculation) attempting to explain things outside of our universe, but admittedly we are limited by science and it’s built-in prudence. Some seem to think the universe might be a repeating cycle where black holes eventually pull everything in, merge, and then hit a critical mass that explodes back out in to a universe (something resembling the big bang). Others propose a multi-verse concept. All wonderful ideas, but they really don’t lead anywhere tangible yet. It’s like trying to complete a sudoku puzzle… you need to lay the groundwork before you can start to fill in some of the more complex answers. All ideas should be considered, but only those backed by evidence, observation, and supporting facts should be considered as progress (while remaining, like advanced sudoku answers, open to adjustment when new information becomes available).
Theological arguments, while they attempt to bypass the prudent limitations of science, are no more actionable. They are merely ideas – most often limited by human understanding, creativity, and experience. Trying to prove such ideas, through selective inductive reasoning, doesn’t seem productive to me. If it results in the seeking of additional knowledge and understanding, than that is a different story. However, I don’t think it should ever be claimed as “proven” when based on such a flawed inference. Such assertions limit further progress by pretending to have answers we don’t actually have.
I agree with the underlying theme of your statement: “We can all agree that whatever started this wild ride we have been having together it is an awesome contemplation of spooky mind concepts”. This is why I enjoy these discussions, want to peruse further learning, and hope that human knowledge and understanding continues to advance. We don’t have all the answers yet, but we certainly have the ability to seek further understanding
Rick,
If you walk into a room and find a burning candle, you know it was lit a finite time ago. Entropy alone is proof that there had to be a beginning – because the universe is not frozen and dead.
The only way you can escape an infinite regression – which philosophers universally reject – is that some transcendent source is inevitable.
If you disagree, then make a counter-argument.
Your statements here of “but we just don’t know” contradict known scientific facts, like entropy and cause and effect.
Your characterization of God needing to evolve first assumes that God has to have a beginning. You are rejecting this as illogical, yet insisting that the universe itself didn’t have to have a beginning. You can’t have it both ways. Every single thing we know about the universe is that it has a beginning. And everything we know about logic says there has to be something preceding it that did not have a beginning. That something would necessarily be a very different kind of thing than the universe.
I’m saying God doesn’t have to have a beginning but the universe does. I know you want to tell me I can’t have it both ways. The empirical evidence says the universe has a beginning and both logic and theology say that God is Wholly Other and doesn’t have a beginning. The transcendent argument for the existence of God is logical and is also supported by inference. The counter argument has no evidence support it. Therefore your accusation that we are making unwarranted inferences is not correct.
You are right, any speculation about what is outside the universe is outside of science. We have to rely on philosophy and logic. Which is the whole point of this blog entry about Gödel in the first place. At some point in order to posit a logical universe you have to invoke something transcendent which is not a system of component parts.
The value of theology at the very minimum is that it offers grounds for positing testable theories. The idea that the universe is logical and rational and obeys laws came from theologians. Science itself originally came from theology. It’s no accident that the majority of the early scientists in Europe were deeply religious. (It’s not like everyone in Europe was deeply religious.)
Your “we don’t know” theme sure doesn’t sound like most atheists I’ve met. Based on everything you have said so far, I would put you firmly in the agnostic camp.
“If you walk into a room and find a burning candle, you know it was lit a finite time ago. Entropy alone is proof that there had to be a beginning – because the universe is not frozen and dead.”
Yes, but all entropy indicates is that the universe as we know it has a beginning. It may be a repeating cycle or perhaps an offshoot of a significantly more complex process outside of our universe. I’m not suggesting we can be certain about either idea, only that there are numerous possibilities that we simply do not have the knowledge or evidence to rule out.
Attempting to apply this “burning candle” logic outside of our universe is inductive reasoning at best and, while it is certainly possible, doesn’t eliminate many alternatives that may not be affected by entropy.
“Your characterization of God needing to evolve first assumes that God has to have a beginning. You are rejecting this as illogical, yet insisting that the universe itself didn’t have to have a beginning. You can’t have it both ways.”
If you read the context of my statement, I’m not attempting to have it both ways. I’m merely suggesting that either argument (everything has a beginning or something existed forever) can lead to a non-God conclusion as easily, if not more easily, than a God-required conclusion.
I’m letting you pick the argument and then pointing out that God is not required either way. You seem to reject my argument based on an assumption that the universe is everything that exists and thus that entropy affects everything that exists (of which your concept of “God” is outside). I find this assumption to be baseless. As soon as we admit the possibility that something (in your case “God”) existing outside of our finite universe – we unlock numerous alternatives that, like God, may not be affected by the entropy of our universe.
“I’m saying God doesn’t have to have a beginning but the universe does. I know you want to tell me I can’t have it both ways. The empirical evidence says the universe has a beginning and both logic and theology say that God is Wholly Other and doesn’t have a beginning. The transcendent argument for the existence of God is logical and is also supported by inference. The counter argument has no evidence support it. Therefore your accusation that we are making unwarranted inferences is not correct.”
I’m fairly certain that I understand your argument clearly. It just doesn’t seem reasonable to conclude that of the practically limitless options that could have initiated the existence of our finite universe – you choose to pick one single possible inference… and not only consider it is “viable” but assert that it is proven. I can’t even begin to imagine how you close the gap of alternative possibilities so easily… other than a very strong sense of confirmation bias and a need to solve the question regardless of a lack of observable evidence or contradictory inferences that are possible.
I’ve already suggested a very clear alternative based on your same inductive reasoning, and even pointed out how self-sustaining codes pre-date any objectively verified forms of consciousness (waiting for your reply on the CF website). This is just one of seemingly limitless possibilities… many of which, I can only imagine, are outside of the scope of what we can even dream up at this point.
Make no mistake, I agree its a viable option to consider the existence of God, but there is just no reason why a truly objective mind would conclude something so specific with any honest sense of certainty. The possibilities are far too endless to be so selective.
“You are right, any speculation about what is outside the universe is outside of science. We have to rely on philosophy and logic.”
I fundamentally disagree with the underlying message. We’ve discussed this before, and I never really got a reply as to how you continue with this logic. If science is being held back – it is due to its prudence, a lack of observable evidence, etc. It’s not that science will never have answers, its that the high standards in science don’t allow us to speculate so wildly.
What exactly allows for theology to somehow skip these steps and still reach any meaningful conclusions? The very reason science doesn’t try to answer such questions with certainty is not because of an arbitrary limitation on science, but because we simply realize such wild speculation is just that… speculation.
Asserting that theology “offers grounds for positing testable theories” doesn’t differentiate it from anything else. Theists do not have a monopoly on selective inductive reasoning, taking things on gut-instinct and faith, or making random speculations about our existence. Anybody can do this… it’s just that the scientific community, for the sake of making tangible progress – has a higher standard by which they accept things as true advancements in understanding. Skipping these standards isn’t a “benefit” of theism – its a flaw that allows for self-serving conclusion that have no objective verification (again, something we are all capable of doing, but that we ought to avoid asserting as being “proven”).
“Your “we don’t know” theme sure doesn’t sound like most atheists I’ve met. Based on everything you have said so far, I would put you firmly in the agnostic camp.”
For me personally, there are two distinctly different components of being an atheist. In my experience, it is a blending of these two ideas that creates a basic misconception of what exactly it is to be “atheist” – what our stance is on various topics, etc.
On one hand, when it comes to understanding our origins – we are simply waiting on objective evidence before making a final decision. There may or may not be other life forms out there (including one complex enough to have contributed to our existence), but we have no reason to accept or reject such speculation at this point. In a sense, we are simply waiting for evidence and see no value in jumping to one conclusion over the other.
On the other hand, when it comes to theism, religion, and concepts like heaven and hell.. I am significantly more definitive (a-theist = non-theist). I see absolutely no reason to conclude that bronze age mythology, mysticism, or random beliefs have any supernatural origin. Furthermore, I have no objective reason to conclude any God has interacted with us in a meaningful or “personal” way. Human ideas like heaven and hell are not only extremely unlikely to be true, but seem to also be quite destructive in the effect they have on people. As an atheist, I see a distinct difference between concepts like “blind faith” and “faith based on observation”. In that sense, I see faith and reason being on opposite ends of a spectrum… with religious faith being presented as an alternative to reason for many theists. Blind faith alone has no practical value… as soon as it has any basis in objective reality, then it is no longer “blind faith”. It begins an important transition into “faith based on observation” that is rooted in logic and reason. So long as such faith is fuel for further understanding, it is a good thing. As soon as “faith” itself becomes an answer – it is purely destructive.
When these two ideas (uncertainty of origins and relatively high certainty of non-theism) are blended… you get a common theists view of Atheism. That the high level of certainty we have about theism being false somehow carries over in forming certainty that no God-like being could exist. I can’t speak for all atheists, but that is absolutely not my position. I see this as two distinctly different issues. One pertaining to the possibility of an intelligent designer and the other is theistic beliefs, definitions, and interactions regarding such a being. When it comes to the second point, I find “theism” to be a very powerful delusion that erodes critical thinking, reason, logic and objectivity.
Rick,
I am making a very specific hypothesis. I am showing that my hypothesis and definitions logically fit the requirements. I am prepared to defend my specific thesis in much more detail (with respect to science, objective morality, history and other criteria) as we go forward. The specificity of my claims makes me an easy target for criticism. Nonetheless, as you have indicated, yes, God as I have defined Him does fit the bill.
You speak loosely of “limitless possibilities.” What possibilities? You haven’t made any particular assertions yet. I am asking you to be specific.
Entropy rules out a repeating cycle unless you can refer to some sort of “entropy reset button.” I am unaware of any such thing. Are you?
Can you show any inferential support for any other particular idea that you are advocating?
If inductive reasoning is sufficient for the scientific method it’s good enough for this. Do you have something better than inductive reasoning for any alternative theory?
I challenge you to pick an alternative theory, any alternative, and advocate it.
“I am making a very specific hypothesis. I am showing that my hypothesis and definitions logically fit the requirements. I am prepared to defend my specific thesis in much more detail (with respect to science, objective morality, history and other criteria) as we go forward. The specificity of my claims makes me an easy target for criticism. Nonetheless, as you have indicated, yes, God as I have defined Him does fit the bill.”
It fits the bill of simply being one of many possible inferences, but is a far stretch from being “proven”. I don’t want to get repetitive, but we seem to be debating the same points over and over again. You assert your inference meets some set of requirements, and I point out that this doesn’t make something “proven”. You admit this is an “inference” as opposed to “proof”, but continue to state publicly that you have “proof” of God. To be honest, I’m getting a little frustrated by the never-ending semantics debate between you stating “proof” with a later admission of “inference” hiding in the fine-print (in pages of pages of comments that were only posted in response to people challenging your claims of “proof” in the first place). This is my greatest issue within our debate… you claim “proof” while knowing your conclusion is an “inference” at best. I enjoy the discussion, but find the semantic-based assertion of “proof” to be intellectually dishonest.
“Entropy rules out a repeating cycle unless you can refer to some sort of “entropy reset button.” I am unaware of any such thing. Are you?”
I could just as easily say “Entropy rules out the possibility of an intelligent designer unless you can refer to some sort of “external designer not affected by entropy”. Can you?”
See how easy it is to make assertions when you get to choose exactly how your solution works and have no need to back it up with observable facts? Why is an “entropy reset button” any more unlikely than an “all-powerful God that created us in his image, wants a personal relationship with us, and isn’t affected by entropy”. Either could be possible, either has unexplainable origins, either sits outside the affects of entropy… unfortunately theism didn’t raise everyone to pray to the great “entropy reset button” in the sky
.
“You speak loosely of “limitless possibilities.” What possibilities? You haven’t made any particular assertions yet. I am asking you to be specific.”
The point I made above shows just how simple one of these possibilities can be created virtually out of thin air. When we make use of mystical logic and side-step the scientific method, observable evidence, or objective facts (which I would never advocate)… we can reach all sorts of wild conclusions that are somewhat self-confirming, but still fundamentally broken.
As soon as we determine there is something outside the finite universe that doesn’t play by the same rules… the possibilities are truly endless. Science readily admits the big bang isn’t necessarily the “beginning” of everything – it’s merely a theory for the beginning of our finite universe.
“I challenge you to pick an alternative theory, any alternative, and advocate it.”
I will restate my previous example (from the CF website) for the purpose of serving up an alternative. Furthermore, I will back it up with your same style of selective inductive reasoning for the purpose of debate. However, I will not “advocate” it as I find such selective reasoning to be a flawed method to reach a definitive conclusion. I do NOT know where life originated or claim to have such answers… this is simply a theory designed to demonstrate how easy it is to come up with alternative inferences if one is so inclined…
*Our specific universe was created by laws of physics that are different to those affecting our finite universe. These laws govern the creation of matter as well as self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-improving codes that drive evolution to varying degrees throughout this universe. These laws have no beginning, didn’t evolve, and have no intentional goals beyond simply creating matter and starting these codes.
These laws do not exist in “time” and, depending on your counter argument, can be re-defined to side-step any flaws you choose to point out in them. Fortunately, I don’t have an entirely separate theistic definition of this theory that I need to selectively reconcile with this argument… like the laws wanting a personal relationship with me, that I was created in the image of these laws, or that these laws want to send me to hell to punish me for not having faith in some selective inductive inference regarding the un-proven existence of such laws…
.
Every objectively verified form of intelligence requires these self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-improving codes (DNA)… and therefore, through inductive reasoning, we should conclude that such codes pre-date all intelligent life. By your argument, we have never observed intelligence create self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-improving codes. This would suggest that, while we may think intelligence and self-improving codes may hold somewhat of a “chicken and egg” relationship… the codes necessarily came first due to inductive reasoning (what we have objectively observed).*
Dictionary definition of Proof:
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
I have been emphatically clear that when I say “If you can read this I can prove God exists” I have proven design only to the extent that science can prove anything:
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
Thank you for offering a specific hypothesis. Please enunciate the nature of said physical laws. What are these laws?
Specifically, what kind of laws create codes? Even codes all by themselves don’t create new codes. When have you ever seen a brand new code created from scratch, apart from a conscious being?
How does inductive reasoning allow you conclude that such codes pre-date all intelligent life?
*When have you ever seen a code created from scratch without an intentional goal existing first?
This raises a vital question about codes: Which came first, the video camera; or the TV; or the code they use to communicate?
It appears you have stopped attempting to address the flaws I’ve point out in your argument (both here and on the other website). I’ll take one more go at pointing out your slight-of-hand use of the word “codes”… please address these points directly to further the conversation. I’ll be more than happy to address your questions about my fake-hypothesis assuming you can provide answers to these substantial flaws:
–
“1. The pattern in DNA is a code.”
Clarification: The pattern in DNA is a self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-improving code.
“2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.”
Correction: We have absolutely no idea where self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-improving codes come from.
“3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.”
Correction: We have absolutely no way to infer that such codes are designed as we have never observed, participated in the creation of, or even verified the “beginning” of such codes.
Addition…
4. We observe that all self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-improving codes pre-date all objectively verified forms of intelligent life. Therefore, by the power of inductive reasoning, we have 100% inference that intelligence requires such codes and 0% inference that it does not.
–
The fundamental trick that made your argument appear to work is the blending of two different definitions of the word “codes”. You have strongly argued that we, the highest form of objectively verified intelligence, have never and will never create self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-improving codes. Therefore your inference is fundamentally broken. Not only does your argument use selective inductive reasoning, but your argument turns out to be rooted in a play-on-words.
For the sake of intellectual honestly, I would like to clarify that I don’t necessarily accept such limitations on the human mind. I think the day may come when we will create self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-improving codes. If and when that day comes, your interference may regain its legs as being a selective inductive inference, but until then the entire argument is fundamentally broken… and the exact opposite inference remains stronger than ever. Ironically, you now have a “theists riddle” to solve… “provide an empirical example of self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-improving codes being created by an intelligent being”.
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
The codes in biology are exactly the same as codes in computers. This is no trick. There is no sleight of hand here, Rick. All codes map symbol to referent in a Claude Shannon encoder / message / decoder arrangement. Including DNA transcription and translation. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/dna-code/
The only difference is that the system DNA is part of is so vastly superior to human technology, it’s staggering.
-Simple codes infer a simple designer.
-Sophisticated codes infer a sophisticated designer.
-Fabulous, wonderful codes infer a fabulous, wonderful designer.
They do not infer anything else.
I am personally doubtful that humans can create something as amazing as a cell from scratch. However, I admit I could be wrong.
You take the position that it is possible. To the degree that you challenge me for doubting humans ability to expand our intelligence and capability to create life, you reinforce the inference to a Designer who is smarter than we are.
You said:
I could just as easily say “Entropy rules out the possibility of an intelligent designer unless you can refer to some sort of “external designer not affected by entropy”. Can you?”
I have no choice but to posit one. It’s the only way you avoid infinite regress. If you have an alternative, offer it.
*Our specific universe was created by laws of physics that are different to those affecting our finite universe. These laws govern the creation of matter as well as self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-improving codes that drive evolution to varying degrees throughout this universe. These laws have no beginning, didn’t evolve, and have no intentional goals beyond simply creating matter and starting these codes.
These laws do not exist in “time” and, depending on your counter argument, can be re-defined to side-step any flaws you choose to point out in them.
Then please articulate these laws of physics and explain how they exist apart from time and space.
Every objectively verified form of intelligence requires these self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-improving codes (DNA)… and therefore, through inductive reasoning, we should conclude that such codes pre-date all intelligent life.
Explain how this works.
By your argument, we have never observed intelligence create self-replicating, self-sustaining, and self-improving codes.
True. We have only observed intelligence create much more limited codes. Which infers that the intelligence that created life is greater than us.
This would suggest that, while we may think intelligence and self-improving codes may hold somewhat of a “chicken and egg” relationship… the codes necessarily came first due to inductive reasoning (what we have objectively observed).*
Explain where these codes came from.
I cannot reply to the original thread in-line… there are no “reply” links there…
“The only difference is that the system DNA is part of is so vastly superior to human technology, it’s staggering.”
This is the whole point. You seem to have no problem dismissing the “staggering” difference between codes and self-replicating, self-generating, and self-improving codes. Your argument that “simple codes infer a simple designer” and thus “sophisticated codes infer a sophisticated designer” takes inductive reasoning to a whole new level. I’m sure there is a technical term for this kind of multiplied extrapolation, but regardless… it makes for an overwhelmingly flawed argument.
You can’t have it both ways… saying that the different is so staggering that you doubt humans will ever be able to create such codes, but yet that human intelligence infers a more advanced intelligence could create such codes. This is a blatant contradiction no matter how you try to dodge around it, and while I’m beginning to doubt I will convince you of this… it’s quite clear your argument here is fundamentally broken.
At this point I see little reason in continuing to debate this specific point. For me, it isn’t about convincing you of my perspective, but rather about fleshing out all possibilities. This possibility has clearly ended in a flawed argument – whither I can convince you of that or not.
“To the degree that you challenge me for doubting humans ability to expand our intelligence and capability to create life, you reinforce the inference to a Designer who is smarter than we are.”
My subjective speculation is not evidence for your cause. Until we observe human intelligence actually creating such codes – your argument is entirely flawed. If and when we do observe such codes being created – your inference will still only be based on selective inductive reasoning.
Human intelligence creates codes.
No codes have ever been observed being created apart from conscious choice.
Codes existed before humans.
Therefore an intelligence capable of making choices existed prior to humans.
You are welcome to offer an alternative explanation.
“Then please articulate these laws of physics and explain how they exist apart from time and space.”
I might as well ask you to please articulate God and explain how he exists apart from time and space – beyond merely asserting that he does. Your vague definition seems directly applicable to any other concept of what might be outside time and space. You just happened to arbitrarily choose the chicken over the egg.
“Explain how this works.”
I did explain how it works. Similar to your assertion that codes require intelligence… all objectively verified forms of intelligence require structural codes. Back to the chicken and egg idea… as soon as you explain to me how an intelligent creator exists without the need for codes – I’ll explain how the codes exist without the need for an intelligent creator.
You define your creator as not needing codes, and I define my codes as not needing a creator. Through inductive reasoning… both appear to rely on each other, so we’re not getting anywhere.
“Explain where these codes came from.”
Please explain where God came from… your answer should carry over nicely.
Surely you recognize the fact that all of the questions you are bringing up can and should be applied to your own inference. Why do you choose to ask them to me, but find no problem ignoring their implications to your own inference? This is the problem with confirmation bias and an overwhelming acceptance of pre-existing beliefs. You do a wonderful job of pointing out potential flaws in my argument, but fail to apply the same logic to your own inference. Remove confirmation bias, and there would be no need for me to point out flaws in your argument – as you seem to readily point them out when facing an alternative inference.
Rick,
I have posited a boundless, indivisible, conscious intelligent designer outside of space and time. I have shown this is entirely logical and consistent with all known facts.
I have shown that the closest thing in the human realm to DNA is TCP/IP and human language. You have acknowledged that DNA is actually much more sophisticated than either of those things. I assert that this level of sophistication raises the bar for a designer. All of this points to the solution that I have presented. I have readily acknowledged that the only direct evidence we have for the creation of codes is humans. That’s the closest we can come. When it comes to DNA the only inference we have is fact that you and many others point out, that we would have to be much smarter than we are right now to make a code that good.
If you do not feel that is adequate inference then there is nothing I will say which will convince you. The only response I can make is that thus far you have presented no particular alternative theory that you seem willing to defend.
You have asked some questions that I have not gotten to but I will get to them.
I have asked you a series of questions that you have not answered. For example: Which came first, the video camera; or the TV; or the code they use to communicate?
Still can’t reply in-line properly.
I honestly can’t do this all day… got lots of work to do. I’ll take one more round at these questions because honestly – I really don’t want to leave you with the impression that there are no answers to your questions. That said, unless I read something new in your replies – this is probably it for now
. No hard feelings… enjoyed the debate.
“You are welcome to offer an alternative explanation.”
Codes are the foundation for human intelligence.
No intelligence has ever been observed without being supported by a structure of codes.
Codes existed before humans.
Therefore codes existed prior to intelligence.
–
Any flaw you’ve ever pointed out in this kind of reasoning can and should be applied to your own reasoning.
All codes in biology are paired with intelligence. This is because all cells are intelligent, according to the following definition:
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, especially secret information.
Therefore codes have never been known to exist prior to intelligence. This is the flaw in your argument that codes came first. There is no chicken and egg problem; All known scientific observation – from computer science and linguistics – is that codes come second.
a) Information theory infers DNA is designed by a conscious being.
b) Information is immaterial. Therefore the original source of information is also immaterial.
c) Basic philosophical principles exclude infinite regress.
d) Gödel’s incompleteness theorem infers the source of everything is boundless and indivisible.
e) The Big Bang was necessarily caused by something outside of space and time.
f) Entropy eliminates possibility of an eternal universe.
My description of God as immaterial, boundless, conscious being existing independently of space and time has come from a process of elimination, because we can consider the alternatives as follows:
A) If you say DNA wasn’t designed, you violate communication theory.
B) If you say the source of information is material, you must prove that matter create codes.
C) If you invoke infinite regress you reject philosophy.
D) If you demand deductive proof and reject inference, you reject the scientific method, which is inductive; and you reject Godel, who proved some statements must be taken as axiomatic.
E) If we insist that God would have to be confined to space and time, we make God smaller than the universe. (And we ignore everyday experience, which is that a design is always lesser than the person who designed it.)
F) If you insist on an eternal universe you violate entropy.
If you demand that whatever caused the universe be nearly identical to things you are already familiar with (i.e. “the only designers we know of are human, therefore to speak of any other kind of designer is nonsensical”), you reduce the origin of the universe to the poverty of your own imagination.
Everything I have stated above is not deductively proven but it is reliably inferred. If inference is a valid form of reasoning, then we have a catalog of good reasons to believe in God and no reason to not believe in God. If inference is not a valid form of reasoning, then science is invalid.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” -St. Paul
Rick, you had said I made selective, unwarranted inferences. If you would offer any alternative theories, I would certainly be willing to consider them.
@Rick Kettner
I absolutely agree with your point of view about pretty much everything that you said. Mostly with the fairness part. The thing that mistifies me most is that many people hate being in the gray area – the not being able to know if something is true or false area. I don’t see anything wrong with not knowing answers to critical philosophical questions.
Another thing that I struggle with to understand are opinions like that of mr. David H. It seems like many theists believe that scietists choose not to investigate into the questions of afterlife for some reasons other than there is little progress to be made there.
If there were progress to be made there are outstanding technologies to help with the process but there just isn’t any at this point.
On the other hand, I’ve been helping my friend with a scientific article about paying for parking by cell phone. In just two years it became very popular and will soon probably become a standard in bigger towns in Croatia.
My point is when observable and solvable issues arise science deals with it swiftly. When the questions presented are beyond the grasp of our current point of technological development I see nothing wrong with admitting ignorance.
Entropy rules out any possibility of an infinite repeating cycle.
If there are alternatives not affected by entropy, explain how these can be defended as scientific.
You are right, the high standards of science do not allow us to speculate widely. They do not even allow us to escape entropy. But logically the universe has to come from something that transcends entropy in order to avoid infinite regress. Which only shows you what any philosopher already knows, which is that philosophy and logic raise questions that science cannot by definition answer. Thus science is subservient to philosophy. At some point science hits a dead end and any thinking person has no choice but to step outside of science. This is the most fundamental problem of scientific materialism.
“There may or may not be other life forms out there (including one complex enough to have contributed to our existence), but we have no reason to accept or reject such speculation at this point. In a sense, we are simply waiting for evidence and see no value in jumping to one conclusion over the other.”
You are not an atheist, Rick. You’re an agnostic.
I agree, blind faith is of no practical value. We must exercise faith the exact same way mathematicians do. Faith is the application of unprovable axioms to see if they work. We look for inference that those axioms are correct. I posit that something intelligent designed DNA and when I find something that appears to have no function, I have faith that a function will be found. Atheists label it Junk DNA and 30 years later we find out they were circumventing the scientific method and overlooking major discoveries with their arrogant anti-scientific assertions. No creationist or ID person would ever posit a theory of “Junk DNA.”
In the case of Junk DNA, it is clear that “atheism” is a very powerful delusion that erodes critical thinking, reason, logic and objectivity. Which ostensibly short circuits scientific research.
I’ve addressed most of these points in my last post regarding codes/creator and the whole chicken/egg issue there. Lets maintain that discussion there.
“You are not an atheist, Rick. You’re an agnostic.”
I’ve previously explained how this statement is based on a common misconception of what it is to be an “atheist”. Atheists don’t “believe” there is no God. Atheist = non-theist. There are two separate issues here… one is the existence or non-existence of a God or creator (in which Atheists are waiting for conclusive evidence either way) and the other is the acceptance or rejection of theistic/mystic beliefs (in which Atheists find absolutely no reason to accept such unsupported claims).
Theists like to paint this as a dogmatic view, but it isn’t. Being non-theist is simply not blindly accepting theistic belief systems. We are completely open to new evidence, but based on modern understanding, reason, critical thinking, and logic – see no reason to accept theistic beliefs.
I dislike the word “Agnostic”, because it gives the impression that atheist and theist are both systems based on dogmatic beliefs. As pointed out above, this is not true. Atheist is the middle position of seeking information, evidence, and objective facts. If there are people that “believe 100% that there is absolutely no chance of a God”… they would be the opposite extreme to theism. Theists try to paint atheists in this light to give the impression that atheism requires faith, but this is inaccurate propaganda.
Some atheists do believe there is no God. If you think otherwise, you haven’t met many atheists.
Atheists are dogmatic. They’re zealots. I know, I’ve been debating them online for 7 years. And they all have faith in a long list of unprovable things. Like Dawkins when he said, “Life was a happy chemical accident.” Ever read Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens or Daniel Dennett?
“Some atheists do believe there is no God. If you think otherwise, you haven’t met many atheists.”
I think you mean “some people do believe there is no God”. Subjectively defining them as “atheists” doesn’t change the word. Atheist = non-theist… there is no atheist bible or atheist set of beliefs.
“Like Dawkins when he said, “Life was a happy chemical accident.” Ever read Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens or Daniel Dennett?”
Just because someone defines themselves as “atheist” doesn’t mean ever word out of their mouth is to be considered part of the definition of “atheism”. Are you suggesting everything a theist has ever said is part of theistic belief? Wouldn’t that make these debates interesting
.
God did not “exist forever.” God is outside of space and time. The concepts of beginning and end do not apply to God.
All systems of knowledge rest on unprovable axioms. Everything that you call knowledge is still subject to questions of epistemology – ‘how do you know what you think you know?’
You are consistently criticizing my position yet persistently resist offering any specific theory of you own. The only thing you’ve offered is vague, fuzzy speculation.
Yes, when you attempt to offer anything concrete I will cross examine you. Stop being so shy and let’s get going with that.
The Big Bang is the beginning of matter, energy, space and time. Since science operates only within matter, energy, space and time, whatever is outside the universe is also outside of science. Welcome to Metaphysics, Rick.
Theological arguments are axioms. They produce theories that you can test, criticize and evaluate. I’ve made my arguments and you have not demonstrated them to be false or inconsistent with anything we know.
“You are consistently criticizing my position yet persistently resist offering any specific theory of you own. The only thing you’ve offered is vague, fuzzy speculation.”
I am sorry that you don’t recognize the similar vague fuzzy speculation within your own inference. I do not claim to have answers that are vastly different to your own inductive reasoning. My point is only to show how your logic absolutely requires selective reasoning and confirmation bias to reject obvious alternatives.
“Theological arguments are axioms. They produce theories that you can test, criticize and evaluate. I’ve made my arguments and you have not demonstrated them to be false or inconsistent with anything we know.”
I have consistently demonstrated them to be flawed and contradictory to similar inductive arguments. At this point it is abundantly clear that you aren’t willing to ask yourself the same questions you are willing to offer against contradictory theories. If you did – there would be no need to ask me to repeatedly point them out. The whole codes/creator and creator/codes argument makes this abundantly clear. Any holes you point out in the “codes first” example carries over directly to challenge your own theory. That you choose not to acknowledge this makes the debate quite frustrating.
“Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being”
Unfortunately for me perhaps, I don’t understand this. All the conscious beings I know are caused and divisible. I literally cannot comprehend the idea of an uncaused, immaterial, indivisible conscious being.
I can break that down: I cannot comprehend the idea of any of
- an uncaused conscious being
- an immaterial conscious being
- an indivisible conscious being
particularly remembering that this being is said to have designed the universe – a task which one might thing would require the designer to have more complexity than that which is designed.
You don’t have to understand this. I don’t comprehend an uncaused being. I’m not sure anyone ever said you could – welcome to theology, which thinks bigger thoughts than any other discipline. But I can define it. All I’m asking you to do is apply the logic and definitions. The logic requires this. We’ve talked about the complexity of the designer ad infinitum here.
Well, if these ideas are incomprehensible then there is no basis for discussion.
In theology we make a distinction between the language we use to refer to something and the thing itself. NLP does the same thing. My idea of God is not God. God is larger than me, larger than my ideas. But that doesn’t mean some ideas about God aren’t more accurate than others. The ancient Jews would not pronounce the name YHWH because it was too holy. But they considered discussion about God to be the highest form of thinking. Considering the Jewish race is the most successful and enduring civilization in history, I think there is merit to their philosophy.
As I say, if these ideas are incomprehensible then there is no basis for discussion.
“You don’t have to understand this. I don’t comprehend an uncaused being. I’m not sure anyone ever said you could – welcome to theology, which thinks bigger thoughts than any other discipline.”
@Perry – Welcome to theology, where we are free to speculate because we are not held back by prudence, observation, or objective evidence. If we can think it – it’s possible… so long as it lines up with pre-existing theological beliefs
.
Why do you think theology has an exclusive right to speculation? Why is this an advantage over science which bases it’s arguments on observation, objective evidence, and prudence? Why does your selective inductive reasoning revolve entirely around confirming theological beliefs when it could just as easily be used to support contradicting inferences?
Theology has the same right to speculate as anyone else does. You can speculate too, and I invite you to. As soon as you do, you step into the realm of metaphysics. Which means you have no grounds to criticize theology for being metaphysical. Everything we are attempting to discuss takes us outside of science. As Gödel’s incompleteness theorem leads us to expect.
“Theology has the same right to speculate as anyone else does. You can speculate too, and I invite you to.”
Inviting me to speculate with equal bias doesn’t validate your position in any way.
“As soon as you do, you step into the realm of metaphysics. Which means you have no grounds to criticize theology for being metaphysical.”
I can certainly choose not to step into a real of such arbitrary speculation and selective reasoning. Furthermore, if I do… and am willing to be critical of my own ideas, I can certainly be critical of others. IF I was stating my perspective was “proven” – you might have a case to assert my position as being contradictory.
As a believer in the Judeo-Christian God I believe that He has promised “To reveal all things:” And that He will one day actually sweep away time itself and even the law of entropy.
I believe that He has said that there will be no moon, no stars to give light because God himself will provide all energy, all light, and the body of a person will be internally fueled, never needing to eat to provide motive energy.
Very intriguing is the concept of our time and the arrow of time being completely removed from our lives.
That God has essentially said that He will remove some of the principles that we rely on in our present science. Entropy? Done away with forever.
That we will move into his realm, or more accurately, that he will move us to where He is and has always been, and that the laws of our reality will be REWRITTEN as He recreates this universe and we get a massive UPGRADE to God Class living.
Now this all sounds like so much pie-in-the-sky religiosity with no scientific grounds to stand on. And, that is partly what I am saying that I believe. That some very significant natural rules will change in the universe.
That what we have always known to be “reality” will be lived under some very different rules.
Time will not be a concept. Completely done away with and replaced with an Eternal NOW.
We will finally know what it is is to truly LIVE IN THE MOMENT.
Yet, I think it is a fascinating concept that deserves scientific conjecture.
Why not consider a universe literally reconstructed with different rules and principles?
Why not, as a scientist go with that idea and treat it as matter of serious inquiry? INQUIRE into such theories. I believe that there is a logic to not leaving out any possibilities especially when these ideas have been communicated for thousands of years and actually drove the explosion of science and medicine in the Western world?
A steady state existence where entropy has been left behind, having fulfilled its universal purpose — to create dissolution and change until it has achieved its mission in this present universe.
This would be a scientific inquiry that sets up hypothetical models and runs the numbers, so to speak.
This is done with every other theory or conjecture.
What is a serious ARGUMENT or OBJECTION that this is not as worthy a line of scientific inquiry as any of the other myriad investigations of physicists and scientific philosophers?
“Why not, as a scientist go with that idea and treat it as matter of serious inquiry? INQUIRE into such theories. I believe that there is a logic to not leaving out any possibilities especially when these ideas have been communicated for thousands of years and actually drove the explosion of science and medicine in the Western world?”
If you have a legitimate way by which to scientifically “inquire” about such possibilities, nobody is holding you back. The problem is, beyond selective inductive reasoning, there is very little progress to be made. We can certainly wonder about alternative possibilities… but simply “wondering” about something isn’t “science”. It is just random speculation… because we cannot observe, prove, or make any significant progress with such ideas.
Science isn’t the big anti-theism conspiracy some theists like to believe. If you have a legitimate way to inquire about these ideas – go for it. This seems to be what Perry is trying to do, although I have pointed out significant flaws in his logic (my last post has yet to be approved or responded to).
“Now this all sounds like so much pie-in-the-sky religiosity with no scientific grounds to stand on. And, that is partly what I am saying that I believe. That some very significant natural rules will change in the universe.”
You are certainly welcome to believe whatever you want. That said, I don’t understand how or why religious people feel “I believe” is still a legitimate form of justification (even just as personal justification). You seem to openly admit such beliefs are a substitute for facts or evidence, but never explain why “belief” should hold any weight personally or publicly. These subjective concepts are not sufficient to back extraordinary claims, and lend no credibility to the statements they support. At the end of the day, beyond the possibility that you were raised in a specific religion or were converted at some point… WHY do you “believe”?
“What is a serious ARGUMENT or OBJECTION that this is not as worthy a line of scientific inquiry as any of the other myriad investigations of physicists and scientific philosophers?”
I don’t see anything specifically wrong with the idea – so long as you find legitimate ways of scientifically inquiring into such ideas. In Perry’s case, he believes he has a sound scientific argument for the existence of God. Again, my last reply addresses this argument directly… but he is certainly open to seeking solutions for the flaws I’ve pointed out.
I was hoping that my previous 2 comments would appear on the site.
They will, they deserve more attention than I can give them this week. Same w/ Rick.
@ David H.
I have stopped posting on account of you. You say everything that I would want to say, and you do it better than I could have done.
Could we exchange e-mails?
richard.frabjous@gmail.com
“What you’re describing as infinite isn’t really infinite. It is very, very, very large. Remember, if it omits or excludes anything, it’s not infinite.”
That is not the case. Even just looking at the integers, there are an infinite number of them – otherwise you could tell me what the largest integer is. There is not a finite number of integers. There is an infinite number of them.
An infinite number of integers – which in proper mathematical lingo is “limit as N goes to infinity” is not infinity itself. There is still a boundary between all those integers and real numbers.
There is not a finite number of integers. If there is a finite number of integers, please tell me how many integers there are.
“-Simple codes infer a simple designer.
-Complex codes infer a complex designer.”
Is God complex or simple?
As soon as I wrote that I changed the word “complex” to sophisticated. Because in the context of this conversation, God IS simple. God is also infinite and infinitely capable thus sophisticated. But God is nevertheless boundless and indivisible.
Piling contradiction upon contradiction. So now we have complex codes and a simple designer. I can’t make any sense of what you are saying at all.
Why do complex codes contradict a simple designer? Especially when you know that very complex proofs and deductions are made from simple theorems?
Something that is indivisible is modelled in mathematics by a point. A point can’t do much.
All the persons I know are divisible and not immaterial. All the designers I now are divisible and not immaterial.
I don’t know what an “indivisible immaterial person” could possibly mean. It seems like a contradiction to me.
I don’t know what an “indivisible immaterial designer” could possibly mean either. It too seems like a contradiction to me.
“I have posited a boundless, indivisible, conscious intelligent designer outside of space and time”. Unfortunately for me this is contradictory and therefore illogical. For example, intelligence requires a brain. All designers I know are not immaterial. Etc.
@ Rick Kettner : You said, as if you were delivering the coup de grâce, “Any flaw you’ve ever pointed out in this kind of reasoning can and should be applied to your own reasoning.”
You were referring to this “alternative explanation” of yours :
“Codes are the foundation for human intelligence.
No intelligence has ever been observed without being supported by a structure of codes.
Codes existed before humans.
Therefore codes existed prior to intelligence.”
There are no flaws in the reasoning there, because it is not “reasoning”. Calling that reasoning is so dishonest it should be called politics!
You started off by referring to “human intelligence”, then for some reason you dropped the “human”. This means you are no longer talking about the same thing. However, something quite interesting happens if we correct your wording to make it clear that we are talking about human intelligence at each stage.
“Codes are the foundation for human intelligence.
No HUMAN intelligence has ever been observed without being supported by a structure of codes.
Codes existed before humans.
Therefore codes existed prior to HUMAN intelligence.”
Sounds good to me. The alphabet existed prior to the poem; counterpoint and harmony existed prior to the B minor Mass; Divine Intelligence existed prior to humans, and thus prior to human intelligence. That Divine Intelligence created codes in creating DNA – life – the birds and the bees and you and me – all that sounds fine to me.
@ all those who resort to the silliness of asking for “scientific” description of God (“What caused God? You can’t answer that one, can you?” snigger, snigger), can I remind you of an axiom that is so fundamental, I shouldn’t even be having to remind you here – “The creator is greater than the creature / creation.” Whatever we can describe or explain with our “human” intelligence can NOT be God. Even ignorant, Bronze-age goat-herders understood that.
In attempting to describe God, the best I could come up with would be a SuperRichard; And not even I would give up my Sunday mornings for a Richard Morgan 3.0.
That we are allowed minute glimpses of the nature of God, glimpses that can be squeezed into the conceptual capacities of human intelligence, is a wonderful fact : we call it “revelation”. That even tinier clues – fingerprints / signatures can be detected in nature / God’s creation, is frankly enthralling, riveting, mind-boggling…. whatever. It should at least be eye-opening and humbling.
But so many seem to wilfully keep their eyes shut tight, then say, “You’re not showing me anything, because I can’t see anything.” To those of them who post here I say, “Thank you very much for your cleverly-presented descriptions of the insides of your eye-lids.”
Could I just reiterate what Perry has said a million times? Yes, we can join hands with generations of scientists who made progress by accepting the principle – “Every time we have encountered X, we have found Y as the explanation. It is reasonable to infer that for this new case of X, then Y is is not very far away.”
Unless you want to say that the DNA code is a special case, which requires special pleading. Nah, you wouldn’t do that, would you? I mean, you’re always calling our team out for doing that.
Aren’t you?
“If you demand that whatever caused the universe be nearly identical to things you are already familiar with (i.e. “the only designers we know of are human, therefore to speak of any other kind of designer is nonsensical”), you reduce the origin of the universe to the poverty of your own imagination.”
I never demanded that whatever caused the universe be nearly identical to things I am already familiar with. I merely demand that words like “designer” are not used in an apparently meaningless way. An immaterial, indivisible designer is incomprehensible to me.
In E you say that a design is always lesser than the person who designed it whereas previously you said that God was simpler than the universe.
I believe that you are using all the following words in a non-standard way, or in different ways in different parts of your proposition: cause, designer, person, infinity, indivisible, simple, incomplete. For me, this invalidates your argument.
So, as to some of the other points in that post, I believe a, c, d, e, f, A, C, D and F to be incorrect.
On what grounds do you say an infinite God is lesser than His finite creation?
Please explain how I have abused the terms cause, designer, person, infinity, indivisible, simple, incomplete.
If you cannot comprehend the theistic conception of God, then use the definitions and logic and accept the conclusions as axiomatic.
On what grounds do you say an infinite God is simpler than His creation?
I can’t accept the logic because it relies on using various terms in different ways in different places.
For example: infinite. You say that the set of all integers is a finite set, whereas Gödel’s theorem relies on it being an infinite set.
Indivisible: Please explain how a person can be indivisible and immaterial.
Designer: Please explain how a designer can be indivisible and immaterial.
When did I say the set of all integers is a finite set?
I’ll bet money you’ve read a fiction book which contained a spirit being and you had no problem following the plot. Am I really to take you seriously when you say you cannot conceive of this, or are you refusing to accept an idea that every single human being is familiar with.
My children – and most children – have no problem conceiving of an immaterial person. If you cannot conceive of this, I cannot help you. Let me remind you that there are many things in mathematics and physics that we cannot “conceive of” (whatever that means), yet they are still taken to be true. Jesus did say, “Unless you become like this little child, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
The indivisible, immaterial designer is given as axiomatic – this is the end of the inferential chain. I cannot explain this to you, as though this could be deduced from something even more primary. Rather, I have demonstrated that this is the only possibility.
@ (the other) Richard : I can not believe that you are implying that “simpler” is synonymous with “lesser”! Perhaps you might like to re-word this sentence : “In E you say that a design is always lesser than the person who designed it whereas previously you said that God was simpler than the universe.”
Old Welsh proverb : “Sometimes less is more.”
I said that mathematics is infinite. You said
“What you’re describing as infinite isn’t really infinite. It is very, very, very large. Remember, if it omits or excludes anything, it’s not infinite.”
Clearly the set of all integers “omits something” Nevertheless it is an infinite set.
I am sorry that you doubt my seriousness.
I note that you failed to address my requests for explanations.
If you are taking the existence of an indivisible, immaterial designer to be an axiom, then there is nothing more to be said (other than “indivisible” and “designer” seem to be contradictory). This is faith rather than reason.
I do not agree that you have demonstrated that “an indivisible, immaterial designer is the only possibility”.
The set of all integers is infinitely large. But is it boundless? No. If you lined them up East to West, they would occupy no space going north to south. The universe and all the propositions of mathematics rely on something that is boundless in all respects. The set of all integers is boundless in only one respect. The set of all integers excludes real numbers – and most other mathematical concepts.
Quite clearly there is more in mathematics than the integers. For example, the real numbers. But at last we can agree that the set of integers is infinitely large, and therefore so is mathematics. The next question is: does the universe contain the set of integers?
@Richard Morgan: I am trying to find out what Perry means by God being simple and indivisible. But he’s not responding. You have to agree that human designers are not usually characterised as simple or indivisible. So it is perfectly reasonable for me to probe this.
Beoming like children: when this quote is look at in context, it can be seen that it is about becoming humble, not about children’s beliefs. After all, many children believe in Santa Claus.
Ghosts: Yes I can follow the plot. These fictional ghosts are material, divisible and finite. They are material because they react with stuff in the world and so science can measure those interactions. Even the ghosts you can see but not touch (like holograms) are open to science: the light coming from them can be analysed. However, this does not in any way help me to understand the concept of an immaterial, indivisible designer.
Richard,
Are ghosts divisible?
Are people? Can you saw a person in half and have two people?
No, the universe does not contain the set of all integers.
The set of all integers is not boundless – there are many things it does not contain. Therefore it is contingent on something else that is axiomatic.
I think this discussion is coming down to the fact that something can be infinite and still be bounded in some respect. There’s a difference between infinity and boundlessness.
If the universe does not contain the set of all integers then Godel’s theorem does not apply to it.
Mathematics as a whole is unbounded.
Any material object with extension in space can be divided. Dictionary definition of divide: Separate or be separated into parts. People have parts. You can divide someone’s head from their body with an axe.
Mathematics – which is immaterial, infinite and unbounded – can also be divided.
It is true that mathematics is built on unproveable axioms. (These axioms are part of mathematics).
It is also true that (in mathematics) truth outruns provability. However, the true-but-unproveable statements are still mathematical statements.
You’ll need to explain your first sentence.
Mathematics is incomplete.
If something does not contain everything – if there is anything which it does not contain – it is not boundless. This is not to be confused with infinity, which in the case of integers only applies in a very narrow context. “Boundless” is vastly larger than any specific mathematical instance of infinity. Boundless encompasses ALL.
“You’ll need to explain your first sentence.
Mathematics is incomplete.”
Godel’s theorem applies only to systems which contain the integers, and the universe (you say) does not contain the integers. Therefore Godel’s theorem does not apply to the universe.
Mathematics is incomplete ONLY in the sense that mathematical theories contain mathematical statements which are true but unprovable from the axioms.
Integers come into consideration when we measure the universe. Read what I said about the church turing thesis. The universe when subjected to measurement performs computation. If computation is incomplete so is the universe.
The Church Turing thesis applies to systems that contain the integers. The universe does not contain the integers, you say. Therefore the Church Turing thesis does not apply to the universe.
Also you have again incorrectly applied the word “incomplete”. But we do know that the universe is incomplete in another sense: for exanple, mathematics is not in it.
Also:
God is Truth, God is complete, therefore Truth is complete.
Since every true statement can be represented as a mathematical statement, and Truth is complete, then mathematics is complete (in that sense), as well as being infinite and boundless.
The universe does not contain mathematics per se. It operates according to mathematical rules.
Definition of Church-Turing Thesis:
Every effectively calculable function is a computable function.
Integers are peripheral to this definition.
I suggest you go back and read Gödel’s original theorem, he clearly shows that mathematics is incomplete. If you have used my statements to conclude that mathematics is complete then you have misunderstood me.
I do understand Godel’s theorem, but it seems you don’t. The theorem says that in every mathematical theory that contains the integers there are true statements that are not provable from the axioms. That is all. Therefore the set of AXIOMS is said to be incomplete.
But you go on to use “complete” in a completely different way.
Godel’s theorem is not contradicted by the following:
God is Truth, God is complete, therefore Truth is complete.
Since every true statement can be represented as a mathematical statement, and Truth is complete, then mathematics is complete (in that sense), as well as being infinite and boundless.
Church-Turing Thesis:
Every effectively calculable function is a computable function.
According to the Church-Turing thesis, computable functions are exactly the functions that can be calculated using a mechanical calculation device given unlimited amounts of time and storage space.
No such devices can exist in a finite universe.
Also the definitions used in the thesis – of Turing machine, effectively calculable function and computable function all rely totally and fundamentally on the integers.
You are trying to tell me that the universe is complete and consistent. If you are saying that, then you don’t understand Gödel because Gödel said a system is either one or the other. Your statement “Since every true statement can be represented as a mathematical statement, and Truth is complete, then mathematics is complete (in that sense), as well as being infinite and boundless” is an explicit contradiction of Gödel.
The universe relies on axioms which cannot be proven within the universe. They have to be assumed.
You only think it contradicts Gödel because you don’t understand the usage of the word “complete” in Gödel’s theorem.
“Since every true statement can be represented as a mathematical statement, and Truth is complete, then mathematics is complete (in THAT sense), as well as being infinite and boundless” – is a true statement.
In any event, my other arguments show that your whole thesis is false.
If truth includes a correct mathematical statement referring to the universe, and if that statement is not the universe itself, then the truth is not complete because it refers to something outside of itself.
Perry says “If truth includes a correct mathematical statement referring to the universe, and if that statement is not the universe itself, then the truth is not complete because it refers to something outside of itself.”
Strictly speaking, mathematical statements do not “refer” to anything outside the mathematical system. However, if mathematics is not the whole of reality, it is true that mathematics is not complete in THAT sense. Of course, I didn’t claim that mathematics is complete in THAT sense.
However, your argument also shows that God is not complete – if you believe the universe is outside of God, which you must do, as you say that God is wholly immaterial.
That definition of God appears to be too small, as God + universe is greater than God.
I did not say that the universe is outside of God. “in him we live, and move, and have our being” . God + anything is not greater than God.
Crude analogy:
Let’s say we take the sequence of numbers 012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789…..
and we say “select every ninth digit and string them together” then you get 09876543…
The second set has come from the first set and it’s a new pattern. But it doesn’t subtract anything from the original pattern.
Perry: “I did not say that the universe is outside of God”.
In that case, God is not wholly immaterial.
There is the incarnation.
Perry: “There is the incarnation.”
Therefore God is not wholly immaterial.
Correct.
“And the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us.”
Perry said : Correct.
If, as you say, the universe is not outside God, then the universe is part of God.
That’s not what I said. Something in the universe became God. I didn’t say the whole universe is part of God.
@ Richard : You said : “You have to agree that human designers are not usually characterised as simple or indivisible.”
Perry is not claiming that God is a human designer. This sounds like you are still looking for a God who is a Super(hu)man. Therefore it is not “perfectly reasonable” for you to “probe this”.
By divisible, I suppose that you mean “is composed of parts”?
I wonder if you can you run with this: Christians regularly make the claim “God is love.”
I believe love is indivisible.
I believe love is simple.
Saying that God designed the universe or DNA does not mean that calling God a “Designer” has exhaustively described His nature. No more than describing you as a software engineer completely defines you.
I understand that defining God as “love” creates problems for you, because love engages the heart, and most of the folks here are averse to inviting the heart to the party, as if it would be betraying the head. Excluding the heart is like rowing a boat with one oar (paddle). It’s great for going round in circles, but you don’t actually get anywhere.
As we have noticed.
There are some things that need to be understood by the head AND the heart, otherwise they are not truly understood at all.
All of Perry’s endeavours (and mine) are designed , ultimately, to enable you to open your mind to the possibility of the existence of God. That same God that we describe as “Love”. Not as a Superman.
Love IS simple.
Love IS indivisible.
God is love.
Perry’s right.
@ Richard : Oh dear. In fact I believe that the statement “God IS love” is correct. And the statement “God IS a designer” is incomprehensible. God is indeed not a Superman.
Let’s go settle just one thing before we go on with our “discussion” — just what IS a “cloud”?
Pack a picnic lunch and let’s take the bikes on a day where lots of those critters seem to be floating overhead. Find a nice hill, a beautiful landscape, lay out the blanket, grab a chilled something for our thirst, lean back and let us finally reason together and AGREE on ONE DEFINITION for “clouds”.
That way, every time you and I talk about clouds from now on until the cows come home, we will know precisely what we are talking about and not have to repeat the definition and meaning of clouds. Just achieve that and we can move on to, oh, such stuff as dreams are made of.
So, friend, discussion buddy, let’s take a look up there…
There, right there, see where my finger is pointing? THAT IS A CLOUD.
What? Oh, that fluffy white mass that looks like a snow man. See the rounded shapes stacked on each other like the legs, trunk and head? Yep, you got it.
Okay, so do you agree with me that we are both looking at a cloud? Good. So, let’s agree that from now on we know what we both mean when we say “cloud”.
Ahhh, you point out that we should write it down to record what we mean. Great idea. We will have a written reference to read and refer to. Our personal dictionary for “cloud”. So, you ask, does it have to look like a “snowman”? Seeing as how our snowman is now looking more like a gorilla you ask a relevant question.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem here.
This discussion is fruitless.
If it is meant to simply be a bantering barbershop customers’ back-and-forth of “that’s not what I mean” followed by “that’s not what I mean, either” then you have achieved this goal brilliantly, if tediously.
This is a game of badminton where the shuttlecock is smacked furiously only to travel a a paltry few yards to be smacked in return.
Only in this discussion points count for nothing.
The last tools to PROVE the “possibility of God” are “discussions” and “forums”. The very, very, very lowest investigative tools on the totem pole of rationality and reason and logic are “open to discussion, let’s all share” talkarounds.
That is because, Perry, as you obviously know, science and logic and metaphysical conjecturing in the context of a “discussion” is blatantly similar to defining a “cloud”.
We may see white streaks in the atmosphere but we are going to immediately have a debate as to whether they are truly “clouds” every single time. Where does that thin streak end, where does it begin, does it have enough mass or “cloudiness” to be labelled “cloud”?
Yet, we all know there are clouds. Maybe not in your sky at the moment, but we have all seen them.
However, in a “discussion” like this you will have the perpetual dissenters who enjoy taking EVERY single word and phrase and “definition” and naysaying it because, here is the crucial point, because words allow us to say and unsay everything.
Give me an apple. And in a “discussion”, since we are imagining the apple in the first place, it is patently, demonstrably easy to say, as if making a deeply profound point, ahh, but you “say” you have an “apple”, but how do WE KNOW? We cannot see and independently verify this apple you present for us to dissect in a “discussion” online.
This is because science is science in practice mostly.
To talk “of” science is not science, so we can not apply “scientific reasoning” to any conjecture in a “discussion” conducted by remote keyboards.
Math, whatever it may be, is too deep, too profound, for most of us to be able to make a point, prove a point, argue a point, negate a point because we do not, for the most part, understand the very language of math.
If I present a Sanskrit syllogism that excellently makes a philosophical point, unless you intimately understand Sanskrit I have made no point at all to you.
And if you do understand Sanskrit you then have all the freedom in the world to say, nope, don’t agree, and I object to your definition of megha – cloud.
God gave his own rules for finding Him.
He is not interested in proving Himself to you if you are not interested in accepting who you will find.
If you WANT to find God then He will not hide.
He has already revealed Himself over and over and over, millions of times.
But you cannot come through philosophy, through math, through theorems.
You will not find God here. No matter how many times the POSSIBILITY is discussed and wrangled over.
Perry, as you well know, this forum is one of the LAST places that someone will FIND God.
A charitable nice expression of “openness” to “discussing the possibility” is not ever, ever the same thing as wanting to know, truly know God.
You have to lay down your arguments to the contrary because your arguments will be crushed to powder when you find God.
Your intellect will be reformed and improved upon tremendously but first you have to be willing to sacrifice what you think you know, your “opinions” about anything and everything.
If I am looking for gold in a Brazilian mine I have to put away my flippers, wet suit, depth finder, mask, air tank, and BOAT to find gold in the jungle. These tools work perfectly fine for finding other things– but not for this particular expedition.
The tools DISCUSSED in this forum are words that loosely, all too loosely REPRESENT tools of science, math, philosophy, astrophysical theorems, etc, etc, but they themselves are useless to find the “possibility of God”. This is why a discussion goes nowhere even though valid points are made. A theoretical discussion in this forum is not even conducted on the same level of reason and logic. We go wildly up and down the staircase of logic from post to reply to post to reply.
This is Plato’s allegory at work right here–the prisoners in the cave are not seeing reality, but only a shadowy representation of it.
In this thread of discussion we are debating not reality, but a shadow of it. And there is no way to break out the cave in this discussion.
If you want honestly and truly know about the “possibility of God” you cannot just stick your toes timidly in the water, ready to pull away if God stirs the water.
You have to jump in but it calls for a personal willingness to accept what you find.
And this PARTICULAR WAY TO KNOW GOD once and for all, to settle the question for yourself, is simply not up for a debate no matter how many objections you make to the contrary.
There IS a way to know if there is a living being outside the boundary, on the other side of infinity.
Bless you, David H. – you can be so right, yet so wrong sometimes. Your error can be called “not seeing the wood for the forest”, or “failing to distinguish the relative merits of the container and the contents.” Sometimes the container alone (the fact of there being a discussion) is what really matters, what really makes a difference and can be a catalyst with astonishing effects.
If I accompany you to a mountain-top to observe and discuss the identifying characteristics of clouds, we may just end up with a mountain-top “debate” or a “forum” of two. But what we will remember ten years later is not any revelation about the nature of clouds, but the communion of two people exchanging…something.
God, the Bible and human beings are all about relationships, not theorems or proofs.
See, even Richard II and I have ended up agreeing that “ the statement “God IS love” is correct. And the statement “God IS a designer” is incomprehensible. God is indeed not a Superman. ”
And as a fully paid-up, card-carrying human being, I sense that for both of us there is a very special value in that coming together. Neither of us winning or losing points, just two people finding themselves together on some common ground.
I don’t think anybody ever comes to a forum believing that he/she is going to convince other folks to change their minds. Forums thrive, and always will thrive because ordinary human beings want to be in communion with others, almost regardless of the subject matter of the discussion.
If an atheist debates a theist, they are both talking about God, aren’t they. I sense that it must be more “pleasing” to God to be talked about than ignored.
Maybe some future dictionary of antonyms will suggest this : “indifference – antonym : internet forum.”
Come, David H, let us have a good cappuccino together on the sunny square in the centre of Toulouse. In the shade of the plane trees, we will discuss the problems posed by the “no true Scots-cloud” fallacy. And our being together as two individuals will create a special third entity – a friendship, or may just a moment of communion. Unknowingly we will be following in the steps of Christ, who broke the good/bad strangle-hold on the human condition by inviting us to a third place : Himself.
I love the trinity of these discussions – The Ayes, the Nays and the Forum itself.
Richard Morgan, thank you for your kind invitation to Toulouse. I live in Vienna and have been to Toulouse, so I can well imagine the scenario.
And now, friend, let me address my errors, as you see them:
My Richard Morgan Error No. 1:
“Your error can be called “not seeing the wood for the forest”, or “failing to distinguish the relative merits of the container and the contents.” Sometimes the container alone (the fact of there being a discussion) is what really matters, what really makes a difference and can be a catalyst with astonishing effects.”
My reply:
My viewpoint is this–to enter into this discussion in the first place, is choosing to fall down the rabbit hole. Unlike Alice I know my way back through the mirror quite well.
Where I have been in my own supernatural, whether you will or you will not, spiritual experiences, is outside of the container and its contents. The “astonishing effects” you allude to I have already experienced. Quite astonishing. I mean QUITE Astonishing. ASTONISHING in all CAPS.
Do not misunderstand, I do most certainly understand the concept here.
Let’s debate and debate. Let’s all keep an “open mind”. The important thing is to COMMUNICATE and ruminate and cogitate to our heart’s content.
Wheeee, isn’t this Fun?!
Yet…
Entering into this discussion forum, for me, is like walking into a room where everyone is huddled around a package of brownie mix. Incredulous expressions on everyone’s faces because the brownie mix cover shows a plate full of juicy, moist brownie squares oozing delectableness. The claim printed on the box “In just half an hour you can make the World’s best Dessert–super chocolate-fudge brownies, perfect every time!”
You are so close, but so determinedly far…
The brownies will never be made.
First, everyone in the discussion group will rage heatedly over whether the claim on the box is true. Picking apart “perfect”, picking apart “every time”, picking apart “in just half an hour”, picking apart “the World’s best dessert”, picking apart “super”, picking apart “chocolate-fudge”, etc. etc.
Another group will break off into a side discussion as to whether this photo is digitally enhanced.
I will stick in my two cents to this hypothetical scene:
“I have actually MADE these brownies, not once, but many times. I can’t always make them look as attractive as the picture and I can’t vouch as to whether they are “the World’s best”, but they are delicious–if you love chocolate.”
In this discussion forum everyone contends over the powder inside the box with very passionate or dispassionate “arguments”– but there will never be brownies without opening the box, removing the powder, and performing the extra steps to actually verify that what we have in the box has the potential to be moist, rich, chocolatey brownies.
There is your “container”, there is your “contents”.
In my life I want the brownies, hot, luscious, satisfying. Not the dry box. What you are saying, Richard, is that you are quite happy to discuss the container and the contents.
You just don’t want to go quite so far as to actually move beyond the discussion and simply make the brownies and eat them.
My Richard Morgan Error No. 2
?”If I accompany you to a mountain-top to observe and discuss the identifying characteristics of clouds, we may just end up with a mountain-top “debate” or a “forum” of two. But what we will remember ten years later is not any revelation about the nature of clouds, but the communion of two people exchanging…something.?God, the Bible and human beings are all about relationships, not theorems or proofs.”
My reply:
I appreciate the sentiment, Richard. You seem to be a great guy and a good friend to all who enjoy your company. Friends can be more important than family and are a great, great love and comfort. The communion you speak of is rich. As it was intended. I believe, by the maker of such possibilities.
I contend that “communion” is exactly what you, as a human being, are supposed to be having with God.
Not to exclude friendships, but to ENRICH friendships.
If you can go beyond contending over the container and the contents and just BAKE the BROWNIES according to the INSTRUCTIONS on the side of the box, then, whether you can believe it or not at the moment, God will come out of the oven, every time.
Perfect. No matter how sloppily you may have followed the instructions. INTENT IS EVERYTHING in this case.
You will have communion not just with me, but with the MAN.
Literally.
Then you will have so much more strength, wisdom, LOVE, and nurture to give freely to friends.
Once that communion is established the very last thing you need to ask God about is whether Gödel’s Theorem proves that he exists.
He may chuckle and simply say, “Gödel exists because of me.”
I like your inductive reasoning…
•In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.5 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
•The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time
•All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
•Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.
Let’s change one true statement with another and see if the conclusion still holds true.
•In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.5 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
•The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time
•All codes we know the origin of are designed by human beings.
•Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a human being.
I guess it must be true then that humans created the genetic code? Either that or your arguement is logically flawed.
If you insist that the only form of intelligence that can possibly exist is human beings, then this would be true.
On what basis do you make this assumption?
James Clark,
Your substitution of “human being” for “conscious beings” falls completely apart in your summation:
“•All codes we know the origin of are designed by human beings.?•Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a human being.
I guess it must be true then that humans created the genetic code? Either that or your arguement is logically flawed.”
Since you insist that logic be used here to point out what is “logically flawed”, let’s use logic.
“All codes we know the origin of…”
Languages, words, writing, computer programs, math, geometry… Got it. All made by humans, or at least claimed openly to be of human origin.
This is like saying “All blue jeans manufactured in Chicago”. We know and logically claim and have the evidence to state “All blue jeans manufactured in Chicago”.
“All blue jeans manufactured in Chicago have a label saying ‘Made proudly in Chicago’. Okay. Let’s say that is true. NO argument. True, logical, proven in this hypothetical example.
now back to “All blue jeans we know the origin of …”
“All blue jeans we know the origin of are made in Chicago”.
No, not quite so fast, there is a leap, an illogical leap there.
Okay, you say you can clean that up …..
“All blue jeans we know the origin of are made by …
hmm,
Chicagoans?
human beings?
Blue jeans made in Indianapolis? What shall you say then?
Richard, “all codes we know the origin of” is vastly different from “all code is”.
Vastly, hugely different.
No matter how you try to force it in your example, it all hangs on the fact that we do NOT know the origin of the DNA code. The origin of what you agree is code cannot be confined, in fact, is immediately excluded as soon as you insist on premising your argument by “All code we know the origin of”.
DNA code gets excluded automatically by your term “code that we know the origin of” because we do NOT know the origin of that code to begin with and to end with.
DNA cannot belong, it is already outside your “logic” unless you claim we DO KNOW the origin right this moment without a doubt.
Here is where we stand:
All codes that we know the origin of are designed by human beings.
Human beings, as they are presently created, cannot exist without DNA, which is a highly complex coded structure composed of organic living matter.
DNA code existed before human beings, as they are presently created.
Human beings could not have had any part in designing their own code.
DNA code could not have been created by human beings.
Human beings have yet to scientifically explain the origin of DNA code.
James Clark : Perry’s syllogism has been accused of committing the Black Swan fallacy. Could be true, couldn’t it?
So, what should we do with the atheist’s rebuttal, when he says, ” All codes that we know the origin of were created by a conscious mind, but DNA is a special case, because we don’t know its origin.”
Yeah, I know, special pleading makes us all a bit jittery, so let’s remain realistic.
Can YOU prove that it wasn’t created by a conscious mind?
Can we prove that it WAS created by a conscious mind?
James, can you set up an investigatory protocol that would enable either side either to prove its assertion, or, in the absence of probative evidence, make a compelling case? The kind of stuff that wouldn’t look ridiculous in a court of Law?
I’m not asking you to do any proving at this point, I just want you to determine what method you would use. And how it would convince a judge to at least give it a fair hearing?
One condition – no philosophy, OK?
Then somebody on this side of the debate (maybe me) will apply your criteria and methodology and run with it as far as we can.
Deal?
You might as well say (by “induction”) -
All conscious beings that we know of have brains.
Therefore whatever designed the genetic code has a brain.
In any event, the original argument is a “God of the gaps” argument. What if a physical process that creates codes is discovered? Science keeps on filling those gaps.
With respect to the genetic code being symbolic and immaterial – such immaterial things cannot have any effect in the universe unless they are instantiated in matter.
With respect to God being A being, the great Christian philosophers, from Aquinas (and before) to Tillich say rather that God is being itself.
Aquinas, 3 times in ST I Q4 A2:
God is being itself, of itself subsistent.
God is subsisting being itself
God exists not in any single mode, but embraces all being within Himself, absolutely, without limitation, uniformly. He is very being to subsisting things.
On the topic of Turing machines, a Turing machine has an infinite memory capacity (Turing 1936) – and so there are no Turing machines in a finite universe.
Yes, it is a god of the gaps argument.
In the history of science, the gaps have never been closed. They’ve only moved backwards in time. And grown bigger. For example the origin of life question has never been more daunting than it is in 2011. (Remember when people thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm? Now we know they’re supercomputers more complex than New York City.)
This time next year the mystery will be even greater, because we will know more.
If we discover a physical process that creates codes, ie a new law of physics (option #4 in the DNA syllogism) then our understanding of the universe will make a fundamental change and quantum leap. The universe itself will now be more wondrous than it was before. The gap will move backward and it will become larger than it was before.
I agree with your Aquinas quote. God IS being.
I will reply to your earlier posts (not yet approved) soon.
The universe is a Turing machine with finite memory capacity.
“The universe is a Turing machine with finite memory capacity”.
The universe may be such a machine (vast numbers of things are). But a Turing machine is useless unless it is running some computer program. Are you really saying that the universe is running a computer program? This would be a very exotic theory indeed, although others have proposed it. Can you show me the program?
Are you saying that human beings are actually only computer program objects?
I am not saying the universe is ontologically a Turing machine. I am saying that it performs computation because the interactions between particles are logical.
I do not believe human beings are computer program objects because we have free will. We are selves. Self transcends physical laws because of the ability to act volitionally.
I can’t derive any meaning from your first paragraph.
In other words the universe is not a machine that processes a piece of tape. But it performs computation in the same manner that the church-turing thesis demands.
Perry: “In other words the universe is not a machine that processes a piece of tape. But it performs computation in the same manner that the church-turing thesis demands.”
I don’t think so. Please show me the program it is running.
A Turing machine is useless unless it is running some computer program. Are you really saying that the universe is running a computer program? This would be a very exotic theory indeed, although others have proposed it. Can you show me the program?
Are you saying that human beings are actually only computer program objects?
The church-turing thesis says:
“everything computable is computable by a Turing machine.”
The Turing machine is just a concept that describes computability by logical processes. The idea of the universe running a tape is completely beside the point.
My original statement above is:
Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)
Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.
The “program” that it is running is the laws of physics.
Human beings are not only computer program objects because we have free will. That means that our ability to choose is above mere physical laws or deterministic physical processes.
Perry said “The church-turing thesis says:
“everything computable is computable by a Turing machine.”
The Turing machine is just a concept…”
This is all incorrect.
- The laws of physics are not a program.
- I never mentioned “tape”
- The universe is not a Turing machine running a program which comprises the laws of physics
- The universe cannot contain the integers, as the universe is finite. This by itself invalidates your whole argument.
I don’t really understand what you say about moving gaps.
You agree that God IS being itself. And yet you also say that God is A being.
Aquinas is very much into the immanence (omnipresence) of God, as well as God’s transcendence.
You say God is boundless and boundless encompasses ALL. But you also say (I think) that God is entirely immaterial. The universe is material and so not within God. Therefore God is not ALL. Contradiction.
The Godel and Church-Turing stuff does not apply to “a Turing machine with a finite capacity”, but only to a Turing machine proper.
But in any event, we know the universe is incomplete, because the whole of mathematics and logic is outside it.
Long ago some people thought the thunderstorm came from God.
Turns out thunderstorms come from the outworking of ‘simple’ physics and chaos theory. But physics isn’t necessarily all that simple and chaos itself is so fine-grained, you can’t predict the weather more than a week in advance, even with precise measurements and supercomputers. Butterfly effect.
Nobody knows why the laws of physics are what they are, why they’re not different. And it turns out they have to be fine tuned to 100 decimal places or life could not exist; if the big bang wasn’t tuned to 100 decimal places stars wouldn’t have even formed.
Did the gap get smaller, or bigger?
How could anyone legitimately say that science got rid of a gap? All it did was give us more explanatory power, more ability to predict, and present us with even more daunting questions.
Have you ever noticed that every answer science produces brings up 3 more questions?
God is boundless. God is unrestricted. God is not physical but in Christian theology God can be physical – the incarnation. God becomes man. Or as Paul said in Acts 17:27: God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
In trigonometry, a conclusion that you can come to based on the axiom is not the axiom. But the conclusion is derived from the axiom. So you can say that the conclusion is contained in the axiom.
The question you ask is a lot like the conundrum in mathematics – “the set of all sets that do not contain themselves” ie Russell’s paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_set_of_all_sets_that_do_not_contain_themselves
“God is not physical but God can be physical” is a contradiction.
As the universe is finite, the description of how it works is finite. As science provides more scientific explanations, so the amount left unexplained necessarily gets smaller. Therefore the knowledge “gap” is necessarily decreasing.
Newton (who believed in God) could have said that the heavenly bodies were miraculously moved by God. But he didn’t. Equally we could say that the genetic code was miraculously created by God. It would be very disappointing if scientists started taking that view. It is fundamentally anti-science.
It is not I who has stated anything related to Russell’s paradox. Perhaps you have though. Paradoxical statements are necessarily not true, as they are meaningless.
Why is it a contradiction to say that God can do something at some point in time that He is not doing at another time?
Newton wondered how the planets could stay in place. Now we wonder how matter and energy space and time could come into existence all at once and expand at a precise rate that had to be fine tuned to 120 decimal places just for stars to form. And you say the knowledge gap is necessarily decreasing? From a human point of view what we know we don’t know grows exponentially.
Acts 17:28 does not refer to the incarnation, but rather makes a general statement:
“26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.”
‘In him we live, and move, and have our being’ applies universally, at all times, to all people.
Richard,
And to that I would add, this statement “in him we live, and move, and have our being” explains how the space that we occupy does not exclude God, yet we are not the same as God.
Yes. We are certainly not the same as God. Interestingly, Orthodox belief majors on the remarkable doctrine of theosis (deification, divinization), which is also not seen as heretical by Catholicism nor by most Protestant sects.
I would like to beg to differ slightly with Perry here. (That makes a nice change, doesn’t it?)
Perry said : “Yes, it is a god of the gaps argument.”
I would prefer, “It is a God-of-the-gaps inference to the best explanation. Today.”
However, I am uneasy with “a Turing machine has an infinite memory capacity.” This is likely an example of anthropomorphism. Sounds exactly like my ex-wife.
And I will finish with a swift, drive-past, swipe-card rebuttal of “You might as well say (by “induction”) -
All conscious beings that we know of have brains.
Therefore whatever designed the genetic code has a brain.”
Not so, my dear Richard. We are allowed to posit the axiom “The Creator is greater than the creation. The designer greater than the design.”
Using the terms “intelligence” or “consciousness” does not commit this error.
Your induction is pointing in the wrong direction.
As I see it the first two commandments directly speek against bowing before ideals created by our own hands/minds. If the creator, if there is one, is boundless and imaterial, a sophisticated something beyond our comprehension how can our atempts at understanding it, and atributing it properties be anything more than ideals?
consider this statement to make it more simple
we have a universe to look at that is either infinite or not infinite
1.if infinite we have an infinite number of infinite things and cannot exclude god as everything must happen
2.if not infinite then has boundaries which can only be placed there by god or maths(quantum maths in the 10th dimension)
therefore god is math
“God is not physical but God can be physical” is a contradiction.
As the universe is finite, the description of how it works is finite. As science provides more scientific explanations, so the amount left unexplained necessarily gets smaller. Therefore the knowledge “gap” is necessarily decreasing.
“The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.”
Although I may not share your enthusiasm regarding this statement, let’s run with it a second. Let’s have a look at what is NOT being said but IS being implied.
…belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary…
Therefore there is a God.
So the bible has to be true.
Therefore Jesus is Lord.
Yahdah, Yahday, etc.
Ah… bull-fritters!
Because, somewhere else in the world, a very bright man who was raised as a Muslim comes to the same conclusion.
…belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary…
Therefore there is a God.
So the Koran has to be true.
Therefore Mohammad is the true prophet.
Praise be to Allah.
And somewhere else in the world… ad-nauseam.
Is there a God? Possibly. Did he come from the sons of Abraham? Doubtful.
Joe Mobley
Joe,
God exists, therefore the Koran is true doesn’t necessarily follow. One would have to connect a lot more dots than that, to come to that conclusion.
Gödel won’t get you to Christianity or Islam. It’ll only get you to monotheism.
But it does get you that far, and shows atheism to be irrational.
Joe, God loves you intensely. I don’t know that from logic, I know it from personal experience. I invite yourself to open your heart to having such an experience, because after that you will KNOW.
Perry
Perry: That’s not what I said. Something in the universe became God. I didn’t say the whole universe is part of God.
You said previously “I not say that the universe was outside of God.”
Either the universe is outside of God or inside of God. Which is it?
If any part of the universe is outside of God then God + Universe is greater than God.
Isn’t it interesting that in Christianity this isn’t a simple yes/no answer.
The universe is not God. The universe is contingent on God. Before God created it, it didn’t exist.
Then God entered the universe.
Colossians 1:16-17: “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He himself existed before anything else did, and he holds all things together.”
God is not the universe, but at the same time the universe cannot exist or hold together apart from God. It is not conceivable for God to be completely uninvolved. So the statement “If any part of the universe is outside of God then God + Universe is greater than God” doesn’t apply.
The universe is incomplete. God is not.
Though I suspected there to be many flaws in this proof, let me just start with one facet of your argument:
” (1)In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.5 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
(2)The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time
(3)All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
(C)Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.” -Perry Marshall
Let’s focus on premise three:
“All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.”-Perry Marshall.
Citation not needed of course, because as any master debater, you included this link: which links to yet another one of your arguments, an extremely similar one. Though of course you linked to this argument because within it you attempt to prove the above third premise. Your argument is as follows:
“We can explore five possible conclusions:
1) Humans designed DNA
2) Aliens designed DNA
3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.
(1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. (3) may be a remote possibility, but it’s not a scientific explanation in that it doesn’t refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It’s nothing more than an appeal to
luck . (4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is (5) a theological one.” -You again.
Again, let’s focus on your analysis of possibilities of three and four:
“…(3) may be a remote possibility, but it’s not a scientific explanation in that it doesn’t refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It’s nothing more than an appeal to luck. (4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code.” -Marshall, Perry
These analyses, my dear friend, are argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies (i.e. the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.) Though these are persuasive to the inexperienced reader, it is easy to to see that the conclusion that all codes come from conscious beings is invalid, and though this argument appears to be logically valid, validity and truth are not synonymous, and your logically valid argument stands on invalid premises. It only works if you accept the premises you’ve proposed.
Show me a code that’s not designed.
Three things:
1)Can you give me a single example of a code that wasn’t designed by a human being? Follow your logic through to it’s conclusion. I feel like I have to caution you against “begging the question” or reasoning in a circle. It’s fallacious and invalid. lrn 2 logic.
2)You just shifted the burden of proof. That’s a argumentative fallacy–a type of argumentum ad ignorantium, to be exact. Your logic seems to be inherently fallacious, albeit persuasive. It’s tantamount to someone saying:
“I have a pink unicorn in my back yard.”
Well, prove it.
“Well, you can’t prove that I don’t.”
I can’t prove these claims positive anymore than you can prove them negative. Your argument employs the syllogism from an invalid claim, therefor it is invalid, which is not to say your conclusion is right or wrong, just logically fallacious, that’s all.
3) You contradict “DNA was designed by a conscious being” logic within your proof. Doesn’t DNA require an outside observer? Who was outside the circle of DNA? Man. We called it a code. We do not have the letters “ACGT” floating around in the nuclei of our cells. Any high school biology student will tell you so.
We have DNA, and it was DNA before we observed it and it was not a code until we called it one. We call DNA a “code” because DNA is an appropriate parallel to what man calls a “code.” Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom create water. H20. It’s a code! All water must be created by conscious beings! Chemical reactions never happen autonomously in nature!
Again, I feel like you’re going to reason circularly in your response. Don’t. It’s logically fallacious and if you want to be taken seriously, you need to avoid these doing it. We’re arguing your conclusion, which is that a conscious creator created the universe. Don’t use your conclusion as one of your assumptions.
DNA was a code before we ever called it one, before anyone recognized it as such. Why? Because the four nucleotides have a symbolic relationship with the amino acids they produce. GGG codes for Glycine, but GGG is not Glycine. The fact that we showed up 3 billion years later and were intelligent enough to recognize it as a code (and award two men a Nobel prize for doing so); the fact that digital systems that very smart people invented in the 20th century turned out to be isomorphic with DNA, only confirms the fact.
Was H20 not chemistry until humans figured out the periodic table? Did hydrogen only exist after we gave it a name? Consider what you’re attempting to say here!
Note what I said: The starting point of my argument is the fact that we do not know the origin of DNA
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
Please show me any place where I have inserted an a priori conclusion of design.
H20 is not a code because it contains no encoder or decoder. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/faq for clarification. From your comments it is clear do not understand Shannon’s model or exactly why Watson and Crick are some of the most celebrated scientists of the 20th century. Please apprise yourself of these facts and definitions before attempting to argue this further.
I didn’t shift the burden of proof. Everyone knows that communication systems don’t just happen by accident. The idea that life happened as a natural process of physics and chemistry is a hypothesis that has never been scientifically proven or demonstrated in any way, shape or form.
All codes we know the origin of are designed. The burden of proof has been on the naturalist all along to demonstrate that machinery so fantastic did not have to be designed. Show me a code that’s not designed.
“Show me a code that’s not designed.”
DNA.
And you know this… how?
Well, we can wait and see how the scientific approach will discover more about the origins of DNA. Your anti-science view that DNA was magicked into existence is a possibility, but the magical view has always been proved wrong in the past, e.g. that the earth was magicked into existence or that human beings derived from Adam and Eve who were magicked into existence, etc. Fortunately the proponents of magic have been unable to snuff out scientific progress so far, although they tried hard by persecuting the likes of Galileo, etc, etc. and continue relentlessly today.
Richard,
If you think my view is anti-science then name one non-scientific fact that I have presented in favor of my argument.
The anti science people are the ones who deny that it’s a code; who deny that codes are always, to our knowledge, designed; those who advocate Junk DNA; those who make it sound as though an answer is just behind the next corner.
All codes we know the origin of are designed. That is a fact. Inference to anything BUT design is anti-science.
It may be entirely possible that there is a natural explanation for the origin of DNA and the genetic code, but it will require the universe to have properties that are more wonderful and amazing than any we know now. Which will then only further provoke the question “And where did the universe come from and why is it so exquisitely orderly?”
David H’s reply to Richard Morgan in this thread is excellent, by the way. Bravo, David H.
At some point, all world views invoke magic. ALL of them. I just happen to be willing to admit it.
There is one point that has been hinted at by others, but never fully developed. It concerns Perry’s third premise : “All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.”
To illustrate my point, and in order to see to what extent the qualification “we know the origin of” is valid and useful, let us replace “code” with something else and see how far we can run with it. To do so, I will fall back on our old pal William Paley.
“All watches we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.”
Interestingly, that would only be true for someone who knew what a watch was, and who understood the nature of its purpose. To a primitive tribesman who had never seen anything that was designed to measure the passing of time, finding a watch on a beach would not indicate the existence of any intelligent being who would have created it. He could have taken it for a very rare precious stone, and worn it around his neck as a decoration.
Today, almost everybody would recognise it as a human artefact, and would be entitled to presume that it had been designed and made by a conscious being. This allows us to extend the premise thus:
“All the objects which we recognise as watches AND which we know the origins of are designed by conscious beings.”
Let’s take this addition back to Perry’s premise:
“All the phenomena that we can recognise as codes according to the criteria which define man-made codes and which we know the origins of are designed by conscious (man-like?) beings.”
This introduces a new and vital proviso : our ability to recognise something as a code. Obviously it must be intelligible to the human mind in order for this identification and recognition to take place.
One could surmise the possibility of other forms of communication which do not involve codes, and which our brain/mind could NEVER identify or recognise.
So now we are back to the old problem of the limitations of the human brain processing data received through only five senses. As I have said elsewhere, if ever I got “beamed up”to a planet where everybody had TEN senses, I would only ever be able to have half as much fun as them Communication would be extremely difficult because I would only possess half of their terms of reference.
Let’s give that pesky premise its final facelift:
“All the phenomena that we can pick up with our five senses, and which can be processed by our brain, and which our brain matches with information identifying it as a code (it precisely resembles man-made codes) and which we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.”
But even with that, in order for the comparison to work, we would have to be able to identify the encoder and the decoder, then determine the contents of the information being communicated and the reason it is being communicated. Why? Because we can do this with “all the codes we know the origin of”. So we would need to be able to do that with DNA before the syllogism works.
Using the reasoning, “It’s yellow, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and avoids oranges” could perhaps lead us to use the inference to the best explanation and say it’s very probably a duck. It would take rather more verification for us to scientifically identify it as a duck. The four bits of information certainly point us in the direction of “duck” but they are insufficient as proof.
Similarly, pointing out that DNA behaves in a way that corresponds exactly (or almost) with the Shannon criteria for communication is inadequate for claiming it as “proof” that DNA is a code in precisely the same way that the English language is, or uses, a code. We lack some vital bits of information:
i) the identity of the inventor of the code;
ii) the identity of the encoder and
iii) his motivation/purpose in emitting a message.
Any suggestions…without invoking God?
Hello Richard, I will do a little cut-and-paste quoting from your last forum offering:
‘To do so, I will fall back on our old pal William Paley.?“All watches we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.”’
We seem to be hung up on the overly qualified modifying clause, “we know the origin of”.
A watch, whether we know the ORIGIN of it or NOT, demonstrates by its very crafted existence and PURPOSE, which is to mark the passage of time, a DESIGN.
Agnostics and atheists intentionally overlook, as they must, that everything we see, including ourselves and our world, and our universe, is ALREADY Designed. This world we speculate about has its design built in from the start, just staring us nakedly in the face. That is a point that theists feel or insist is already self-evident before going into hocus-pocus land for other explanations.
Returning to the watch, you do primitive tribesmen everywhere a great injustice, Richard, to automatically surmise that they, would, of course, fail to recognize a watch as a Design. You premise your allegory on the complete incomprehension of a “primitive” to recognize that this watch was most assuredly NOT a natural object such as a precious stone!
But, let’s give you the credit for simply “making a point”.
So, let’s say to extend your allegory further, which seems to depend upon, for your purposes, the NON recognition of this watch — make the discoverer a rather dullwitted beach crab who scuttles away with the watch in its claws.
But, fascinatingly enough, whether the watch is “recognized” as Designed or as a Natural object , NEVER EVER CHANGES ITS CREATION FACTS. Does it?
No conjecture about “recognition” even for the sake of a specious argument can ever change the essential truth: the Watch was CREATED not inanimately formed. A million forum posts in denial cannot alter the Facts. The intent is irrevocably demonstrated and embedded in its physical structure.
If a tribal council, afraid that this watch indicates that some superior intelligence lies just over the waves and will show up one day soon, proclaims in their secret cabal that the Truth about this Watch must be hidden and lied about for fear of causing panic in the village, it DOES NOT CHANGE THE WATCH’S ORIGIN IN THE LEAST.
No amount of preaching against or arguing against the obvious design (conscious intent or plan to create an object for a purpose or utility that could only be useful to the mind containing that consciousness) changes how the watch came to be. Looking for other explanations will never ever ever in billions and billions of years change the facts of the watch’s design and construction, let alone, how it arrived on this beach.
It is brainwashing against even accepting a superior consciousness that drives people to flee the OBVIOUS origin of DNA and RNA. It should be the most astounding revelation of all history that math and science have PROVEN that we are programmed by a super intelligence, irrefutably.
It is only rebellious theorists who run from the light to darkness to fiddle with Dark Matter and Dark Energy and multiple realities as some sort of scientific refuge from the truth.
Richard, you say: “One could surmise the possibility of other forms of communication which do not involve codes, and which our brain/mind could NEVER identify or recognise.”
Oh, could we now? The definition of CODE, just in case you seem to have forgotten, will always apply to “communication”, “other forms” or not. Communication, which you necessarily must draw into the fray, is an intent, a transmission of consciousness to another consciousness.
Wikipedia helps out:
“Communication is the activity of conveying meaningful information. Communication requires a sender, a message, and an intended recipient, although the receiver need not be present or aware of the sender’s intent to communicate at the time of communication; thus communication can occur across vast distances in time and space. Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality. The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the message of the sender.
Essential to all of this is a “code” of some sort where the mechanism of “decoding” is perfectly synchronized with the Coder. And entities, corporal or etherial, can not be “entities” without Structure. ”
Richard, finally, you close with this declaration of need — what, according to your analysis, we have to know first, before we can finally assign DNA to a conclusive origin :
You declare, Richard –
“We lack some vital bits of information:
?i) the identity of the inventor of the code;
?ii) the identity of the encoder and?
iii) his motivation/purpose in emitting a message.”
The other day I went into a bookstore and came across books written in Sanskrit.
These books contained lines such as this:
‘??????? ????’ Satyameva Jayate
Although I did not know that in English we might translate that as “Truth alone triumphs” I could be confident that although I did not the know the author, I did not know who invented the code I was seeing, I did not know who had typeset these pages, I had no idea about the motivation/purpose of any of these people, I knew most assuredly, undeniably, not open to scientific debate, that it was a MESSAGE. I.E., from an Intelligence To an Intelligence.
Yet, I could not read it. I did NOT know the identity of the author or before that the identity of the inventor of the code. I did NOT know the identity of the encoder. I did not know the motivation or purpose in emitting this message. I could not pronounce it or decode it. I could not completely receive the code as it was intended, to be read and understood.
But my pitiful incomprehension will never ever negate or erase or eliminate the life and intent of the writer or their purpose in writing it. It did not negate the obvious existence of an Author with thoughts and purpose and a plan to communicate and create this book and its pages and its words and intent to teach and inspire or to simply record thoughts of intelligent consciousness.
That message was sent quite a while ago. It will await the day that I learn Sanskrit to fully unlock all the meaning. But, the meaning is pure, intact, stored, recorded, waiting for me to discover its fullness.
I do not believe DNA to be a “message” from God to us. It is a means to an end. To get the job done. But, “job” it is. It has a purpose. To replicate extremely complicated forms of life.
If there was not a Bible. If we had never ever heard of “God” or “Jesus Christ”. If there had never been a belief system called Christianity. If all over the world not one single culture ever looked to the “spirit world” or created legends over evening fires of Great Spirits in the Sky.
If to this day there did not exist a single cathedral or temple or mosque. If “religion” in any conception had never existed. If we had a “clean slate” to write on when it came to scientific discoveries, no readily made “anthropomorphic” framework in which to couch spooky suppositions for why we are here.
It would be a world that, of course, necessarily had constructed and understood the necessity and intention of code for language communication and manufacturing and storage and retrieval of vital information.
Each nucleus in the cell of a human or other mammal contains some 6 billion base pairs of DNA which, if stretched out, would form a very thin thread about 6 ft (2 m) long. This DNA has to be packaged into the chromosome within a nucleus that is much smaller than a printed dot.
In that hypothetical “non religious” world the discovery of DNA and its immensely complex, astronomically unlikely chain of “letters” written into a 6 foot strand of chained molecules that directed the assembly of a human being or an elephant or a fish, would have rocked the scientific world.
A discussion of DNA–the HOW and WHERE and WHO and even WHY would have consumed scientific forums without prejudice. They would have reached some inescapable conclusions based purely on likelihood and mathematical probablities. They would have accepted as “scientific” what such a discovery unmistakably portended.
Then, and only then would these scientists have turned their eyes towards the heavens, perhaps fearfully, or in hopeful wonder, and speculated as to Who was watching and for what purpose.
David H,
Thank you for taking the time to write all that. I’m not quite sure what you are arguing with me about.
What is your point?
I was not questioning the origins of the Universe and all things therein. I was simply doubting the usefulness and validity of the syllogism.
I am a Christian. Several times a week at Mass I recite , “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. Et seq.
In a gentler way I was echoing Eddie Nuno’s concerns about the use of logic.
Is all.
Richard Morgan,
“Any suggestions…without invoking God?”
Ahhhhhh….. gotcha. Yes, then, you are mostly correct.
However, I think you are being overly constrictive with this conjecture :
“Similarly, pointing out that DNA behaves in a way that corresponds exactly (or almost) with the Shannon criteria for communication is inadequate for claiming it as “proof” that DNA is a code in precisely the same way that the English language is, or uses, a code. We lack some vital bits of information:
i) the identity of the inventor of the code;
ii) the identity of the encoder and
iii) his motivation/purpose in emitting a message.”
“in precisely the same way that the English language is, or uses, a code” is an almost farcical underestimation of the complexity of the DNA structure. The superior intelligence is revealed in the monstrously complex precision and efficiency of DNA far more than the intelligence revealed in the English language, even though both obviously reveal an intelligent origin.
All of our own examples of coding, even the code running through my MacPro to access the internet and interface with yourself, are pitifully simple and “childlike” compared to the code already sitting in place inside my DNA.
It is like a child first playing with paints at the age of four splattering watercolors onto paper and holding it up proudly to say, “LOOK, what I made, Mommy!” We are so proud of ourselves in 2011 and have the arrogance to look around and declare that we have reached such a level of scientific sophistication that we can conclusively maintain that the conception of a super creator is itself child’s tales.
Even as a Christian apologist, Richard, I think you do the full significance of DNA’s structure and operation dreadfully short service.
The sequencing of genomes is only further exposing the unfathomable GENIUS of DNA and RNA. Sequencing is only opening up more and more mysteries beyond belief. Beyond belief.
But, as you say, Richard, to paraphrase — God, superior outside intelligence, not “nature” or “forces”, has to be necessarily invoked to discuss this at all.
“God, superior outside intelligence…”
You’ve got into a loop here. Intelligence, as we know it, requires a brain, and that is built via DNA.
God is not some sort of superman.
Or else you are using the word “intelligence” to mean something very different from its usual meaning.
Richard,
My brother Bryan asked me a great question once, he said, “Perry, what do you expect scientists to do? Do you expect them to throw up their hands and say “God did it” or do you want them to do the jobs they’re paid to do?”
I would like to submit to you that one need not abdicate science in order to acknowledge the evidence for that which is transcendent. Rather I believe that the transcendent is the very thing that gives us philosophical grounds for methodological naturalism in the first place. This entire article and thread about Godel is about precisely that. That the universe, if it is logical, cannot explain itself.
Science cannot explain itself, mathematics cannot explain itself and the laws of physics cannot account for themselves.
Remember what the question is here. The question can be phrased in any and all of the following ways:
Does science give us a reason to believe God exists?
Can the universe explain itself or does it require a transcendent cause?
Was Paley right with his watch argument or was Hume right in his later argument for natural causes of everything?
Is there design in biology, or only the appearance of design via natural selection?
Those are the questions.
I must be blunt: I am not caught in a loop. You are. This is because you are denying, before we even start, that evidence for the supernatural is possible. This leads you to deriving your premise from our conclusion, when you say that there cannot be a designer because the only designers we know of are humans.
We all already knew that before this discussion began. That’s implicit in the setup of the whole conversation. But the question is, does science give us inference to any other kind of external Designer?
The fact that DNA is a code makes the answer to that question a clear and unambiguous yes. Once you allow for science to INFER (not deduce) things larger than itself, you’re out of the loop. You can then accept what Godel was already telling you all along, which is that the universe requires an immaterial boundless cause. The existence of codes proves that this cause is also conscious and capable of language and making decisions.
Richard raised the question of how valid my conclusion of design, from the syllogism, is. It’s exactly as valid as the isomorphism between Shannon’s system and the operation of the genome. The intricacy and elegance of the genetic language, which is found in the layers far above the simple ACGT/amino acid code, is further proof that we are dealing with a Designer and not merely a designer. Random processes have never been observed create such fabulous languages such as we see in DNA.
I am completely in favor of finding a naturalistic explanation for DNA. Perhaps someone will do so. If they do they will probably solve the artificial intelligence problem at the same time. But right now the naked truth is that there is not a single origin of life theory that properly qualifies as science.
Richard, in Romans 1 Paul said this:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
This is a statement you can take to the bank. The fact that the universe is finely tuned and the product of deliberate design can be directly inferred by EVERYTHING we know about computer science and information theory. There is no ambiguity about this. The only way to deny this is to preclude the possibility before the conversation even starts.
This is the default atheist position, but it is demonstrably illogical. You and I have every logical and rational reason to believe in God – because of the order of the universe. And if someone discovers a natural process that creates codes, then they will have discovered even more order in the universe than before. And St. Paul’s words will still stand true.
“does science give us inference to any other kind of external Designer”
I’ve no idea what you mean by some “other kind of external designer”.
Perry said : “Richard raised the question of how valid my conclusion of design, from the syllogism, is.”
Wrong.
As I have said to David H twice, I was simply doubting the usefulness and validity of the syllogism itself.
A syllogism is an exercise in Logic and in order to be valid, it has to respect certain rules.
Your first premise talks about a code. However your second premise talks about a code that we know the origin of. The logic breaks down at that point. The premises no longer have a common term. This means that no conclusion can be drawn.
Let’s look at a syllogism from Logic 101.
Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: All Greeks are men.
Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
If we change it to include the error you make, we get:
Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: All Greeks are men that I know.
Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
To make your syllogism work (as an EXERCISE in Logic) you would have to do something with the qualifier you have added to the term “code”.
That leaves us with the choice between:
P1 : DNA is a code we know the origin of;
P2 : All codes that we know the origin of are designed by a conscious mind.
C : DNA is designed by a conscious mind.
OR
P1 : DNA is a code;
P2 : All codes are designed by a conscious mind.
C : DNA is designed by a conscious mind.
When I was a student, I had a friend who was very successful with women, even though he received a fair share of slaps. His attitude was based on a false syllogism, something like this;
P1 : Céline is a woman;
P2 : All the women I know want to sleep with me;
C : Therefore Céline wants to sleep with me.
Of course, I agree that we can infer that it is highly probable that DNA was designed, since all the codes we know the origin of are designed. The point I am making is that it is not a syllogism which gets us there. By changing one of the terms, the major and minor premises are not referring to the same subject. This means that no logical conclusion can be drawn.
Just as a point of interest, we fall into the same fallacy if we use the same term twice, but change the meaning of that term.
P1 : All reds are commie b*st*rds;
P2 : All tomatoes are red;
C : All tomatoes are commie b*st*rds.
I believe, with an intensity that makes me treat my belief as a certainty, that God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. , that. But it wasn’t human Logic that got me there.
P1 ; Gods loves all his creatures;
P2 I am one of His creatures;
C ; There fore, God loves me?
Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: All Greeks are men that I know.
Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
That’s not the actual logic of immortality. The actual logic is:
All men that I know the fate of are mortal.
Everyone named John is a man.
Therefore everyone named John is mortal.
This syllogism, and mine, are equally reliable. Both are inductive. Neither can absolutely prove mortality.
It is possible for there to be an exception. Christianity claims very emphatically that there are exceptions to mortality, as you know.
The reason that you can say “I agree that we can infer that it is highly probable that DNA was designed, since all the codes we know the origin of are designed.” is because even though it is not an absolute proof, it’s a probability: Millions of codes we do know the origin of vs. one code we don’t. We cannot draw an logical deductive conclusion but we most certainly can draw a logical inference.
David H: Thank you for finally reading the last line of my comment.
You say, “I think you do the full significance of DNA’s structure and operation dreadfully short service.”
I had previously said :”I was simply doubting the usefulness and validity of the syllogism.”
If I dared to discuss “the full significance of DNA’s structure and operation ” I would probably do far worse than “dreadfully short service”.
I can’t even begin to understand the “FULL significance” of DNA. I was simply doubting the usefulness and validity of the syllogism.
(Also I think it would be a sad day for Christian apologetics if ever I claimed to be a Christian apologist!)
“All codes we know the origin of are designed. That is a fact.”
We don’t know the origin of DNA. Therefore we cannot deduce that it is designed.
All designers we know of are material, have brains and are complex. God has none of those properties, so God is not a designer in the same sense as the designers we know of. It is not helpful to be like Humpty Dumpty when using words like ‘designer’:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
I am extremely thankful to you (Mr. Perry) because you gave me new insights into life. But while I was going through the article, I see many similarities to what Buddhism says (I am a Hindu by birth though). I think you must have read his works on “Duality”. I feel may be Einstein is right “If there is any religion which would meet the demands of science, it has to be Buddhism”. I don’t belong to or believe in a religion though I am a believer of God.
“The reason that you can say “I agree that we can infer that it is highly probable that DNA was designed, since all the codes we know the origin of are designed.” is because even though it is not an absolute proof, it’s a probability: Millions of codes we do know the origin of vs. one code we don’t. We cannot draw an logical deductive conclusion but we most certainly can draw a logical inference.”
Of course this is entirely wrong. You might as well say that all the billions of animals we know were born on earth, therefore we can draw a logical inference that there are no animals on other planets. A probability of billions vs. zero.
DNA in fact differs in all sorts of respects from codes written by humans or machines, and therefore it would not be in the least surprising if it had a different origin. In fact we know it has a different origin. Of all the codes that we know of, it is unique in not being designed by a human being or a machine made by a human. Other than the codes in people’s brains of course.
Actually different animals have different codes in their DNA and so in fact there are billions of different DNA programs.
Intelligent Design belittles God
I don’t know whether I can put a URL in this box, so I’ve put it in the box above.
PS, I am not a Roman Catholic
I am entirely in favor of a theory of evolution. What I am not in favor of is the anti-scientific proposition that it is random and accidental.
I see that the URL I supplied has been omitted.
The theory of evolution does not contain the proposition that it is entirely random and accidental. It describes a natural selection process which is neither random nor accidental in the main.
Your link works for me, I hope there’s not a technical glitch.
The mutations aren’t accidental either, they’re algorithmic. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/new-theory-of-evolution/
Oh I see, the link is from all occurrences of my name. I really just wanted it to be a link within the text of that one post.
Anyway, the idea that many mutations are not accidental makes sense to me.
Whereas the idea that a wholly immaterial entity can be a programmer makes no sense to me.
Richard : in the standard theories of evolution, without mutations, there would be nothing for natural selection to work on. These mutations are claimed to be random. So all the rest could not happen if the ‘random’ events did not occur.
No scientific theory can be based on randomness which, like “God-did-it” is a strict synonym for, “I don’t know.”
It is worse than saying E=M(tralala)^2
The writer seems biased towards a belief in god in these writings and I feel it’s a little off putting. He is correct that assuming something that hasn’t been proven is a breach of logic but the same hypocrisy he almost repeats towards the end of his writings. He seems to want to say that a belief in god is rational when it isn’t. To assume that there must be a creator when a creator isn’t necessary is just banking on the fact that science isn’t complete.
I mean, if you found a tree would you assume that someone built it or that it grew? Of course you’d assume it grew because we see little trees that are growing. Well we can see galaxies being born right now. Do we see a massive man with building them? No. This is why there are very few atheists out there who claim to be Gnostic Atheists aka positive there is no god. The evidentialist atheists claim that on a scale of 1-10, they’re around a 7 or 8 and therefore there is probably no god.
What I always say is that if I ever saw definitive evidence of god, I would believe. Until then, I’m claiming the most rational conclusion: there is probably no god.
Yessir, I am banking on the fact that science isn’t complete. Gödel proved that it’s impossible for it to be complete.
No, he didn’t.
Blaine, it’s amazing to me that you actually think you have made an “argument” against the existence of God based on your own “experiences” created from your own senses.
To quote you : “Well we can see galaxies being born right now. Do we see a massive man with building them? No.”
The truth is, Blaine, right now as you read this and as I type this response, there is a vast world of images and sounds and words passing completely through my body.
There are incredible symphonies and funky blues tunes and old time rock and roll tunes, songs, sounds passing completely through my tympanum, completely invading my ears and yet I cannot hear a single note and have no idea that my ears are being flooded with millions of sounds that I cannot hear.
There are millions of pages of books complete with illustrations and colors and type fonts and words of every language under the sun passing through my eyes, literally PASSING THROUGH MY EYES, and I can NOT see a single word or color, not even the tiniest pixel or bit of all this miraculous transmission occupying the same space I am sitting in, the same space you sit in.
There are millions of simultaneous conversations passing through my ears but my ears hear nothing but silence in this room. Nothing but the clicks of my keyboard.
This is indisputably happening “they” say, but I am deaf to it.
Millions of movies of moments in past times, in sound and images, flow about me but I only hear my fingers on the keyboard. I only see the monitor screen in front of me.
My urban space is permeated by thousands and thousands of electromagnetic transmissions of movies via wi-fi and telecommunications radio frequencies, cellphone conversations, television and radio broadcasts, wireless internet streams, of microwave frequencies.
But, I can tell you unequivocally, I hear nothing, I see nothing, I perceive nothing like this at all.
My experiences, my senses, tell me UNDOUBTEDLY, without reservation (because if I can not trust my own senses, then what CAN I trust?) that these “claims” that I can view a movie, an entire MOVIE with a title and music and loud thunderous sound effects in surround sound and beautiful actresses and dramatic actors running down the streets of New York City in the rain simply by sitting in this very same room …. well, get REAL, this is absolute NONSENSE!
Who are you imbeciles who claim to see and hear and EXPERIENCE such things any time you want!?
Now, let me get back to my stargazing. Oh, look, a galaxy, a “young” galaxy.
Nope, by the same reasoning I proudly and confidently proclaim there is NO GOD up there, either.
You and me, Blaine, WE know better, don’t we?
I suspect that you DO in fact have some evidence of “thousands and thousands of electromagnetic transmissions of movies via wi-fi and telecommunications radio frequencies, cellphone conversations, television and radio broadcasts, wireless internet streams, of microwave frequencies”, otherwise why do you talk about them?
Well, Richard, I would say the the whole point of my reply to Blaine is summed up in my opening sentence.
“Blaine, it’s amazing to me that you actually think you have made an “argument” against the existence of God based on your own “experiences” created from your own senses.”
And you, Richard, missed the comparison? Really?
It, obviously, had nothing to do with whether I have or do not have “proof” of these transmissions. They are obviously proven and a common place fact-of-life in this era.
It had to do with INVISIBILITY to our 5 senses. We have thousands of examples to show how unreliable our senses truly are when it comes to exposing every day reality.
So you can not SCIENTIFICALLY argue against the possibility of God merely based on not having seen God at work or maybe dozing off in a celestial hammock.
Or are you experiencing life differently, Richard?
Electromagnetic transmissions relate to a scientific theory supported by evidence. Contrast this with statements about God.
Blaine : You say : “Well we can see galaxies being born right now.”
Strictly speaking, this is not true. If we can witness the birth of a galaxy that is only 1,000 light-years distant fro; the earth, it is NOT happening “now” but one thousand years ago. (Sorry, but I tend to insist on correct language.)
“Do we see a massive man with building them? No.”
Who on earth has ever claimed that a “massive man” built galaxies? This is just another very silly straw man argument : paint God as a “massive man”, look into the cosmos for a “massive man”, can’t see any “massive men”, therefore – no God.
Good grief……
One of the wonders of science and our knowledge is its incompleteness. That means that anything remains possible, including stark contradictions and invalidations of ALL that we now call “facts”.
Ah, the massive man is a straw man! Perhaps as seen in the 1973 film ‘The Wicker Man’?
Richard, you are farther and farther off track. INVISIBILITY, Richard. How many times must I proclaim this?
Blaine’s statement was that God is not SEEN and there is no VISIBLE God working in a new galaxy’s formation.
Why do people have to go to such excruciating lengths to break things down into such simple verbal components for you?
As JESUS said, you strain out a gnat from the water you drink but swallow a camel.
The mathematical evidence and algorithmic evidence for a vastly superior intelligence at the core of all life and creation far far exceeds what is normally posited to create a theory that is ACCEPTED as a scientific “fact”.
Einstein’s “theories” had to await decades for some aspects to be “proven”. Nevertheless, scientists raced out to create a nuclear bomb by FAITH. At the time there was still debate over whether Einstein had overstated some of his conclusions.
But two nations poured huge amounts of money into seeing if Einstein’s math could translate into an explosive fission reaction. Einstein’s math, however, gave no instructions on HOW to release the energy.
The equations that calculate the series of events that would have to occur for us to be here chatting in this forum eons later are in a “scientifc” sense, irrefutable. Simply as math without philosophical attachments.
The reason, Richard, that you feel free to refute the evidences for God’s existence is because you don’t understand them.
The astounding and awesome depth of them.
The reason people stay non-believers, even highly trained scientists, is because they let their prejudices negate what the science and the math have ALREADY demonstrated.
And this is why you will year after year strain at your gnats in this forum and swallow the camel that there is NO PROOF of God.
The shadow and the light that looms over you is God and his intentions, which shape everything you live and breathe. Not too long ago God was ON THE SCENE talking openly, doing things in a big literal demonstration of his power. But, he has chosen to hide himself away for a season, to let his words and the people who truly believe his words and act on his words be His witness.
And for now, Richard, it gives you great freedom to spend literally years in this forum circling like a buzzing fly inside a fruit jar, banging endlessly against the glass until life fades away.
Must be frustrating.
Frustrating for you maybe. But I rather dislike being preached at – and you make a lot of assertions without backing them up in any way. So there is nothing for me to respond to.
Good. No response is appropriate.
David, I will perhaps be forgiven for pointing out that when Jesus said “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” he was specifically addressing the remark to religious teachers such as your good self.
Gödel’s Theorem Will End In The Future!
Richard said:
“David, I will perhaps be forgiven for pointing out that when Jesus said “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” he was specifically addressing the remark to religious teachers such as your good self.”
Hello Richard. You are certainly forgiven. Thank you for bringing up more discussion on that point.
When you dip into the scriptures a bit further you will discover that Jesus was not speaking to me or “religious teachers” like me.
I believe in Jesus Christ. I accept his teachings completely.
Jesus’s verbal zinger was addressed to “religious teachers” who quite obviously did not believe his teachings. They were the sects who had become bound up in their own writings filled with niggling fine points and man-made interpretations and even “new commandments”.
Jesus was constantly in a philosophical battle with these various sects that had subverted and distorted the purity and intent of the original commandments and the scriptural “examples” of David in Psalms, as one of many other examples of God’s continual revelation of his nature and what man’s should be towards God.
Jesus made it clear over and over that “religion” as he found it practiced in the region of his ministry was profoundly perverse and off-the-track.
I am also convinced that “religion” is still completely off-track. And has been way, way off the mark for several thousand years. Even our “religions” that claim some affiliation with Christ, however tightly or loosely their bonds may seem to be, are sadly, tragically missing the boat. It is the very act of trying to place a man-made structure around the Gospel, the Good News, that ultimately will always, always destroy the intent and power of that Good News.
And this happens, unfortunately, in the “best” of churches as diligently as they try and pray to be “in the will of God”. This is not to condemn all churches, but to simply say we must be alert and cognizant of how our own resolutions to stay “together” in a church structure at a physical address by our flawed humanness begin to introduce error and mistakes despite our most fervent intentions otherwise.
Jesus was a revolutionary and a radical in the sense that He flatly rejected ALL FORMS OF RELIGION that he found operating in Galilee. He, in fact, ridiculed these “religious” leaders and “religious” teachers to their faces when he said “You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” This was a smack in the face to their supposed authority to represent what we may collectively today call “Judaism”.
Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews and Jewish High Authorities about the existing Jewish Religious structure and synagogues he found in operation during his time on Earth.
And his rebuke still holds true and relevant and applicable to “Christianity” today. True Christianity, by the was, is inextricably and irrevocably bound up and descended from Judaism. As such a True Believer in Jesus Christ is spiritually a Jew and a brother and sister to Jews. Even if Jews today may not understand that and even despite an early so-called “Christian” movement to reject that truth. There were always some true believers in Christ throughout history who never ever denied their spiritual Jewish family roots.
Simply put, a Christian in every sense of that term can not be an Anti-Semite. This is a complete contradiction. And, pro-actively, a Christian must be an ally of his fellow Jews even if they are not believers in Christ. To accept Jesus Christ is to accept, indeed, gratefull y welcome and rejoice that our spiritual blessings forever and ever come through a Jewish tree and that we with all our spiritual guarantees are always indebted to the fact that Jesus came first as a Jew offering salvation to the Jews even though it was always His intention to freely offer salvation to the whole world.
So, with that spirit in us, a Christian can not join in with anti-semitic, anti-Jewish feelings or statements or actions. They should not even exist in our hearts or we have, in truth, not accepted the full spirit of Christ.
Jewish leaders felt that Jesus’ teachings were sinful because he disregarded traditional Jewish religious laws. Jesus scared them because he seemed to be gaining popularity as he declared that He himself superseded existing and firmly established “religious beliefs”.
It was to these Rabbis of various competing sects, the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Zealots, and even Jesus’s own Essenes sect, that he directly spoke when he stated: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,”
All of this hoohah would not have meant too much — many crazy things can be claimed by any schizophrenic or deranged person, as we well know — but Jesus deliberately cemented his authority to make these claims by almost daily miracles for three-and-a-half years straight. It was the weight of his miracles, defying “science”, walking on water, speaking to storms and calming the seas and the winds and the sky instantaneously, telling dead bodies to live and breathe again, multiplying loaves of bread and fishes by factors of 100 or more, healing blindness, healing deafness that convinced people that Jesus must have more true authority than the High Priests and Rabbis.
Jesus put an exclamation point on that Authority and claim to literally be God as much as the Father God Himself, by rising from his own grave after he was convincingly dead, and walking about appearing to large groups of people over a period of 40 days. Then he in plain sight left the earth before a crowd and without any effort overcame gravity to rise straight up and disappear into another realm.
This is quite a bit of “religion” for this forum but it is very relevant to your insistence, Richard, that Jesus surely was addressing people like me.
As long as I believe Jesus is the final authority on what is true and not even the prevailing “religious leaders” of this day, then the Good News is for me and those who also accept and welcome Jesus over Religion, is that I am, for all my faults and stupidities and ignorance, Eternal. And that my life is guaranteed Forever when “science” comes to an end.
Even Gödel’s theorem will come to a conclusion, according to what Jesus plainly states. Even the present laws of thermodynamics will be changed and done away with. That is amazing!
And, finally, Richard, Religion itself will pass away forever. Good Riddance.
As a matter of fact, according to Matt 23, Jesus did not object to what the religious leaders said (“you must be careful to do everything they tell you”). His objection what that they did not practice what they preached (“do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach”).
It is not enough for a person just to claim that they believe everything Jesus said (“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven”).
What is important is to ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Gal 5:14 and 7 other places).
Hi Richard,
It is exactly true that Jesus was objecting to and scorning the Pharisees and the scribes openly for preaching one thing and yet doing completely the opposite of their own priestly admonitions to the temple worshippers.
At that time all Jewish worship centered around the temple, what Jesus called Moses’ seat. Jesus himself revered the practices of worship in the Temple which is why he was so incensed when he “cleaned up” the Temple from all of the merchants who had set up shop inside the temple and profaned the holiness of the Temple.
That is some of the background when Jesus spoke to the multitudes and said: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.”
Because of the scribes’ and Pharisee’s Position, solely and only because of their Position, Jesus said “therefore”. His message was: Because they hold this position “in the chair of Moses” that is why I do not tell you to oppose them and rebel against the sacraments as practiced in the Temple.
But, it is obviously not so that the ONLY objection Jesus had was that the Jewish religious leaders did not practice what they preached. Far from it, far far from it. He made it too clear too many places in the scriptures to contend otherwise.
Their biggest failure according to Jesus was that they professed to be scholars, to know God and His Will, to worship and serve the God of Abraham and Moses, and yet, they opposed the Son of God who was foretold in the very scriptures they professed their expertise.
He scorned them that they did not believe his testimony and that they condemned his works of good as evil. And Jesus scorned them that they REFUSED to believe that the scriptures of his coming had been fulfilled in front of their own eyes.
But, here is a critical point, Jesus repeatedly said that the FIRST sign of a believer was that he or she professed with the mouth. The beginning of faith is to profess with the mouth what you believe.
Yes, Jesus acknowledged that not all who have said “Lord, Lord..” will be saved. But he made it clear that they are a sub-set, a portion of all who have said “Lord, Lord” . The ones who Jesus will acknowledge and welcome are those who meant it, after saying it, with all their hearts.
That is why Jesus said that the gate is narrow. Not everyone will pass through that gate who thought they were going to. But, at least Jesus gave us fair warning to stay vigilant and “in the faith”.
When you say, Richard, that what is “important” is to “Love your neighbor as yourself” you seem to endorse a popular “Christian” theology that leaves what that means up to the individual and that “as long as you are a good person” you are a Christian and a believer.
Jesus said that the RESULT of accepting him as Lord would be that your heart would be transformed, your very inward nature would be changed, sometimes immediately, sometimes over the course of time, but it would be changed so that the laws of God would be “written on your heart”.
With that spiritual transformation it is not a chore or a duty to “Love your neighbor” as it was before the change.
To Love your neighbor is a reminder to believers, not another way for non-believers to profess that they are “just as good” as Christians.
The sad truth is that they are exactly correct. Too many “Christians” are going through the motions because they are not actually believers.
You have it exactly back to front. Everyone who is following the commandment to love their neighbour as
themselves is a believer and therefore a Christian whether they acknowledge it or not.
Perhaps I can state this more formalistically. We agree that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord, ” will enter the kingdom of heaven. But what about the converse? Can anyone who does not say “Lord, Lord” enter? Clearly mutes and those who have never heard of Jesus cannot say “Lord, Lord, ” – but they are thereby not to be consigned to hell.
One counterexample is enough.
It is entirely back to front to say that to love your neighbor is a merely a reminder to believers. You could say that it is a test of whether you are a believer.
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven …”.
Jesus said to the religious leaders: “You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You
yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”
Hello Richard, thanks for your reply.
You stated: “You have it exactly back to front. Everyone who is following the commandment to love their neighbour as themselves is a believer and therefore a Christian whether they acknowledge it or not.”
Richard, this is exactly the “Christian myth” I am referring to.
Jesus did not spend 3 and a half years asserting his Godhead, His Divinity, His Authority over Hell, Death, and the Grave itself simply to say at the end, “Oh, in case, you want to follow me, Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Oh, well, gee, Lord, why do you have to Die then? What is the point of this “sacrifice”? Isn’t that kind of overdoing it if all we have to do is to “Love my neighbor as myself” and I do whatever I think you mean by that?
Do you need to die on the cross and then raise from the dead just to deliver a homily: “Love your neighbor as yourself”? Couldn’t any human religious guy come up with that one?
As so many people do, Richard, you have used a scripture as an Hors d’oeuvre So many people treat the Bible as a smorgasbord. Pick up a little salad here, a little olive oil and lemon there …. don’t like tuna grilled, so I think I’ll have the roast beef.
Let’s look at what Jesus actually said:
And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?”
Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
“The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (NAS, Mark 12:28-31)
A Christian’s relationship with our fellow men, women and children is inseparable from our relationship with God. Love of God and love of our neighbors are two aspects of the same calling. But which did Jesus proclaim was FOREMOST?
With “all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” !!! WOW! Jesus said in no uncertain terms, you cannot SKIP one commandment, the FOREMOST commandment, and claim your “dessert”, “You shall love love your neighbor as yourself”
Jesus said they are inseparable. Does this sound like God is going to pat you on the head as long as you proclaim to “Love your neighbor as yourself”?
Either you are able to say with a full heart and complete utter sincerity that you have committed all that you have to follow his first commandment or you can skip thinking God honors your intention to “Love one another.”
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (NIV, John 13:34-35)
Jesus said that this LOVE ONE ANOTHER admonition was a discipleship issue. That being a Christian meant first that you fulfilled what it means to be called a “disciple” of Jesus — refer to Commandment One.
Discipleship STARTS up with the Foremost Commandment. Loving your neighbor is bound up and inseparable with ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
Do you honestly think that you could enter into a relationship with a woman, stand on the altar of marriage, and when asked “Richard, do you take Cynthia for your lawful wedded wife, to live in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love, honour, comfort, and cherish her from this day forward, forsaking all others, keeping only unto her for as long as you both shall live?
And you answer, “Uh, you know, Reverend, I will have to get back to you on that … someday. In the meantime I just want to assure everyone here that I love them very much and love them as much as myself. Cynthia, darling, I hope you can accept that as all the assurances you really need that I am sincere when I say that I am your Husband.”
If Godel is right, then it is impossible to prove, because as stated, we can only work in from outer circles. As the outermost axioms are, by definition, not proven, we can accept that the inner ones cannot be irrefutably true.
Q.E.D. Godel seems correct, but it cannot be known.
Gödel proved his theorem was correct.
Yes, but his axioms cannot be proved to be correct – which I think Meteor was getting at.
What about the spiritual?
what about demonic manifestation?
what about the power in the word “Jesus Christ”
and its effect when is mention?
what about spiritual gift?
Cuz all of this shit is happening outside while you “scientist” try to explain existence locked up in a lab.
Here is a personal experience, i was at a church youth group, during worship the pastor asked if anyone wanted the “Gift of Tongues”, i thought- sure.. what is there to lose, should be interesting. i was the only one to raise my hand, they prayed for me, when the leader said as final words “i now impart you the gift of tongues” as soon as the last letter ended out of his mouth, my tongue felt like is swelled up the size of a lemon, i couldn’t speak fluently English but i was too overwhelmed by everything and everyone to speak the gibberish that felt was all i could say. the feeling in my mouth lasted a little more than 20 mins.
That for me was a clear and overwhelming objective evidence by personal experience.
My question is; How do you explain that??
and where does it fit in a “scientific reasoning” towards objective evidence of the spiritual existence ?
What if the spiritual is more real than what we perceive as an absolute and only reality, “planet earth and everything else..
Existence is a result of cause and effect. tracing all existence back as the effect, inevitably leads to Divine creation as the cause. period.
Any skeptic can come up with some “just-so” explanation for what you experienced. But that person was not there, they did not experience it, and they cannot defend their explanation with any substantive facts. I’ve had many experiences somewhat like this myself, and eventually you come to realize that something much greater than you is at work. I’m in your corner on this one.
The problem with experiences such as these is that believers in all religions have such experiences – including devil worshippers. Therefore one cannot legitimately conclude that these experiences prove that the religion you believe in is correct.
NO, NO, Richard. You are so obviously out of your depth on this subject.
NO OTHER RELIGION, not ONE, NOT ONE, has “these” experiences.
This is one of those myths that gets perpetuated and restated so glibly, that “all religions” have basically similar experiences and therefore…therefore..ergo…
ONLY Christianity, distinguished from all other “religions”, and I mean, Richard, in no uncertain terms, ONLY THE BELIEVERS IN JESUS CHRIST who have made a conscious decision to turn from unbelief or skepticism, which is the same thing, get these kind of experiences.
Especially, Richard, come on fellow, the Scriptures are a special case where it is ROUTINELY, so routinely a distinctly CHRISTIAN experience reported over and over and over almost ad infinitum — in case you are not aware of the literature and the testimonies — that the Scriptures were “illuminated” and “opened up” to constant revelations and awesomely soul-rocking mind and heart expansion simply from READING plain Words.
This is so distinctly a Christian-only phenomenon.
Devil worshippers never receive this. You may Google to your heart’s content and search every library and for any one “testimony” of a “devil” or Satan worshipper who claims anything remotely as revelatory in reading whatever Satan worshippers claim is “scripture” you will find, on the other hand, endless testimonies in print, in biographies, in online testimonies, in television stories of something far far more numerous and widespread in the “Christian” or “born again” realm.
Some distinctly different and powerful is going on and has been going on in the relatively small community of “believers”… and I do not mean church goers or denominational members. I mean in the individual testimonies of people who experienced something dramatic and powerfully transformational in their lives that is labelled “Being Saved” or “Accepting Christ as Lord” or just “Accepting Christ”.
Read some of the testimonies of former Muslims who were transformed in their faith to belief in a God, Jehovah, not Allah, that they formerly repudiated. You will find their stories often, so often, bear similar characteristics.
My experiences are “classical Christian” motifs, if you will.
But I wanted God up close and real, not motifs. And I got much more than I bargained for or imagined ahead of time.
I was “Surprised by Joy”.
You miss the point I was making.
The experience reported was that of a swollen tongue, and that is hardly Christian-specific. Please read what was said.
Nevertheless, it is true that people report experiences that relate to their religion. Believers in Krishna have visions of Krishna, Roman Catholics see the virgin Mary, etc.
Bible literalists will tell of experiences related to Bible literalism. And so on.
Quite clearly these experiences do not prove that these religions are true.
I am pleased to hear that you were surprised by joy. But I have to say that it isn’t joy that is coming across in your posts.
Mike, I know exactly what you are talking about.
In this world there are people who have been trained as astronauts. They “routinely” sit on top of huge rockets and are shoved into Earth orbit. They see the world from hundreds of miles above us. These astronauts see the stars with no atmosphere to block the view. They gaze into Eternity and routinely take pictures of it. These astronauts watch the Earth pass through an entire day, what would take us dawn to dusk to experience, and they see it over and over, hour after hour, encompassing the whole earth in just one of their own “days”.
Just a routine day in space for astronauts.
To say that they know more than us about “God’s eye view” is not just conjecture to be debated or pooh poohed with logic and rationale in a forum.
An astronaut does not have to think themselves better or superior to one of us to simply state “There are some things I know and that I have seen that you cannot possibly imagine.”
So it is with being on the other side of the Gate, the one Jesus offered, the Door into Eternal life.
Since choosing to accept that invitation and making sure that God and Jesus knew that I was SERIOUS, incredible things came back from a Godly realm to let me know that I had made the right decision.
Miracles happened that cannot be explained simply because you have not had them happen to you.
I became an “Astronaut”, if you will, experiencing just a little peek beyond the veil where the Spirit of God lives and breathes, and that breath was breathed into me. Simply by choosing to believe, asking for forgiveness for not believing and not acting before, for not accepting what was freely offered by my own Creator.
On the day I made that decision, a simple prayer that finally acknowledged that I was and did know that I was a “Sinner”. Not an easy thing to say when I considered myself a believer already. And I asked for God in the name of Jesus to Forgive me for everything. Please. Then I, with complete depth of desire, said that I wanted Jesus Christ to BE the LORD of my life and to come into my heart and to save me as He promised.
The words were being given to me by a man I had never met. I had to humble myself before him and several other people joining in. So, while I was being “led” in the very prayer I was making, the words were being put into my ears and mouth, the intention as I myself said them, repeated them was totally original and sincere within me.
When the prayer was done I looked around and everyone was inspecting me closely to see if there was any “change”. None that I could tell. I thanked them sincerely, a bit embarrassed for not being able to give them a Dove from Heaven alighting on my shoulder.
I felt slightly “relieved” to get out of there and get on about the day, and I had friends who had been patiently waiting in a car for me out in the parking lot.
Everything about me seemed to be the same despite my earnest but slightly bashful prayer. I had pride and I had humbled myself in a way that I had sworn an hour earlier I would not do. Okay, so that “vow” had not worked out. I was ambushed by God, apparently.
It was a beautiful Spring day. Sun shining. Birds twittering.
About half way across the parking lot SUDDENLY … totally by surprise, I began to feel as if I was being lifted off the ground. My feet began to leave the concrete as if I was ascending. I assume I was still on the ground but it felt as if gravity itself was being suspended by at least 50%. I was feeling lighter and lighter physically.
As I floated towards the car I looked up and at that moment it was like a tinted window had suddenly been peeled of its plastic tinting. I saw a corner of my vision on my left side brighten and the effect swept across the sky in front of me, as if a gauzy tinted veil were being pulled back and removed from everything I saw. Immediately the leaves of the trees were GREENER than I had ever thought possible. The sky was BLUER than I had ever remembered seeing.
In a split second I had my first revelation — a communication from God in the classic sense of old — I was conscious, supremely conscious that the world up until then, my entire life, had been a series of jigsaw puzzle pieces jumbled in a pile, and NOW “someone” had put them all together for me. The puzzle of my whole life had been instantaneously SOLVED and I had nothing to do with it. It had been done FOR me.
But this “instant knowledge” confirmed itself somehow. I knew it was not just my random thought. I KNEW.
I climbed into the car where people looked at me anxiously. “So, David, what happened?”
Before I could think of how to describe things or make up a “nothing, really” response, I heard the words blurted from my mouth, “I think I have been Saved.” Then I knew that was PRECISELY what had happened to me.
The next miracle many of you will greet with especial skepticism:
As soon as I was dropped off at home I was itching to get my hands on a Bible I had been given years before.
I found it quickly, flipped it open, skipped around and flipped open to John.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
My heart began to race: something was making those words mean more than I had ever imagined or known.
As soon as I began to read of Jesus picking his disciples I was suddenly THERE. As if I had transcended time and space. I was in His presence, behind Jesus, walking down a dusty road. There were stones and dust as our sandals slapped against the ground. I felt as if I was inside a movie, a 3D movie. I saw everything CLEARLY, in DETAIL. I could see the grains of dust in the footprints of Jesus as He walked in front of me. My heart was pounding. Nothing even remotely like this had ever happened. Miracles and revelations did not happen to ME.
I was in Galilee on some day in history during the time of Jesus and I was walking with him, behind him, Him leading the way, me following.
So many more experiences I could share. But, this is why disputations over Gödel and number sets mean nothing, absolutely nothing important to me. I have been beyond and I know.
Mike’s experience I have had as well.
David H, I have to say that I thought your reply to me was remarkably cynical.
What does it mean, to love God?
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” – 1 John 5:3.
And we know what his commandments are – to love God and to love your neighbour. A virtuous circle here.
Richard,
I have read everything you have written for the last couple of years in this forum.
Nothing you have said in all that time, truthfully, would ever get me closer to what I consider are answers to the most important questions.
Is there a God? Yes, as I explain many many times, there IS and you can KNOW.
Your answers to me never give me the feeling that I am talking to a fellow believer.
You never settle down to testifying that you are a believer and that the question is settled once and for all with you.
Not at all.
When a believer writes, Richard, you profess not to understand.
And, yes, I am quite willing to accept that you do not understand.
But, the scriptures also predict that you will not understand. Words don’t work because there is a deeper meaning and a deeper dimension to these words that you look up in the Bible. I have been telling you that there is a Spirit in those words that is ready to reveal itself and the meaning of those words in a way that is deeply STIRRING and breath-taking. It is a POSSESSION, a spiritual flooding of the person, even your person, that literally, not metaphorically, but really, truly comes INSIDE YOU once you accept that Jesus Christ asks for your heartfelt commitment since He has already made His own to you.
If you don’t feel the deep impact of the scriptures you quote then you have another journey to take.
The “virtuous circle” you speak of is not a virtuous circle at all. If you say that what I write is “cynical” then you have firmly stated your case for not “understanding”. No, Richard, I am sure by your own repeated testimonies in this forum that you just don’t “get” it.
You are the naysayer, naysayer, naysayer on so many topics. But naysaying ultimately leads you farther and farther away from the truth.
“Loving God” is not a bumper sticker phrase or a piece of literary fluff. It is the very STUFF of lIFE. It is the Door into Eternity starting NOW and extending beyond Gödel’s theorem and beyond all talk of whether we are “coded by God”, or not.
Of course we carry the mind and conscious intention of God in our genes! It cannot be otherwise. Impossible to be otherwise.
So, Richard, go back and take the Foremost commandment that Jesus gave.
Quote it in its entirety as I did and then you break it down for me. You TELL ME, “Mr. Cynic”, what this means to YOU.
You pooh-poohed the second of the two commandments in your previous reply, and I found that to be breathtakingly shocking.
You say “Jesus Christ asks for your heartfelt commitment”, but you don’t say what the commitment is to. May I suggest that it is a commitment to follow his teachings?
And as you appear to reject out of hand what John 5:3 says the love of God is, perhaps you would like to say what you think it is.
No, Richard, you are absolutely wrong. If there is any pooh poohing it just may be you.
What I am using feeble words to convey is that you cling to the one commandment that you think you are fulfilling, I guess that is what you are saying. You love your neighbor as yourself.
This is HUGE and Supremely wonderful.
And this is the commandment that most people point to as “proof” that they are “just as good as a Christian” or the reason that they think God is going to honor “where they are at”.
What I am in all seriousness trying to point out is that the same people who make your claim do NOT jump on the First Commandment with the same security and it is a rare person who embraces the First Commandment. The Foremost commandment, the one that PRECEDES.
Do you not see that the Second Commandment is the Second Commandment because it is our response toward our fellow man as God makes sure we know.
But, Richard, the First, the Foremost commandment you still evade.
I ask you to talk to me about the First Commandment and you can not.
You evade the invitation as I suspected you would.
THIS is what sets you apart from a believer.
A Believer would embrace the First Commandment with joy.
You have once again deflected the issue of what does that First and Foremost Commandment. Every single word and every single line.
It seems to gall you to talk about this.
In other words, Mr. Naysayer, you are not comfortable with this subject. The only response you seem to be able to make is to dodge behind smoke and mirrors.
This is a serious subject, Richard. That is why I do not express Joy to you. You think “joy” is silly and unscientific and not proper stuff for philosophic discussion.
And what I am trying to tell you, Richard, is that it is NOT ME that has the burden of proof. It is you, personally, that bear the full responsibility for what you choose to believe.
I can lead the Richard to water but Richard says “No way I am going to drink from the stream. It’s probably polluted or is not as quenching as you claim.”
Now, will you bravely face my question again, Richard?
Please — Tell me why the First Commandment Jesus gave was SO “EXCESSIVE”. And tell me why, for what reason He said it was Foremost. That it had to go with the second commandment, but preceding His second commandment, and that one without the other was hypocrisy?
David, Just more aggression, unjustified accusations, evasions, condemnations and judgementalism from you then.
I never said I was “fulfilling” the second commandment. I never said that joy was “silly”.
It does not “gall” me to discuss the first commandment. On the contrary, I have already discussed it, but you chose to ignore what I said.
Let me repeat what I said:
What does it mean, to love God?
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” – 1 John 5:3.
And we know what his commandments are – to love God and to love your neighbour.
You evaded the question as to what does it mean to love God.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” Deut 6:5-9 (NIV)
You said that a Believer would embrace this with joy.
Richard, you preface so many of your replies with accusations ascribing certain things against me. You obviously find things I say rankling to you. I understand your emotions.
I challenge you and you seem to resent that deeply.
I don’t let a facile answer go unchallenged, Richard.
What I am repeatedly pointing out is that everyone, including, you, Richard, everyone professes to know just what “love your neighbor as yourself” means and claims to live that themselves.
The meaning of that has been “commercialized” in the sense that it has been cheapened by a million “interpretations”.
That is why I don’t jump to applaud you and bestow honors and praise when Richard claims to fulfill that commandment.
I do not question you to degrade you, Richard. Rather, it is my wish that everyone receives an upgrade. And that requires telling the Truth in this conversation at the risk of offence.
It is perfectly reasonable for me to object to your many false accusations.
I already told you I never claimed to “fulfill” the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself. Stop repeating false statements.
If anyone else is reading this thread they can draw their own conclusions about who is telling the Truth.
And yet again you avoid responding to my question.
Richard, WOW! MADE ME SMILE and just about dance!
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” Deut 6:5-9 (NIV)
What KILLER SCRIPTURES!
“These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts.
Impress them on your children.
Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.”
Thank you! I keep reading them and they are rich. Talk about “all in”!
You ROCK, Richard.
WAYY to GO!
David H, That’s good! You didn’t mention “Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.” but let’s let that pass.
Let’s now “talk about them” as commanded. Let’s start with the first commandment. What does it mean to love God? Is the following correct or not?
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” – 1 John 5:3.
Richard said to me: “You say “Jesus Christ asks for your heartfelt commitment”, but you don’t say what the commitment is to. May I suggest that it is a commitment to follow his teachings?
And as you appear to reject out of hand what John 5:3 says the love of God is, perhaps you would like to say what you think it is.”
Richard, as I have said in this forum, even directly to you, Jesus said “You must be born again.” A man or woman doesn’t have a commitment to make or break or just leave alone unless they make THAT decision.
And that decision IS a Commitment. Committing your hopes, your fears, your heart, your soul, into the care of Jesus Christ. Not Jesus Christ the “moral teacher”, not Jesus Christ the “good man”, not Jesus Christ the “spiritual teacher” but far and above all of those labels, Jesus Christ as Lord. As Lord over all and everything in your life.
If you have made this commitment you have been slow to talk about it Richard. I make assumptions, yes, I judge that you have not made that particularly earthshaking decision. Every grain of pettiness in your replies indicates that you resent being told this by someone who says, yes, as a matter of fact, this is what I have done in my life and I am now a believer.
It does, believe it or not, no good whatsoever to omit one commandment and give lip-service to another one.
I do not say I am special, I do not say that I am superior, I only say in a straightforward fashion, Richard, that all things flow out of that one commitment to God first. it is not enough, Richard, to cling to what we claim we do for mankind and ignore what we have not done for God face-to-face.
This is precisely where many will come, Richard, crying Lord, Lord, have we not done this and that in your name?
This is a situation where the Lord will not be fooled by half-measures. This is why He will say to some, too many, “I never knew you.”
How could He say that? He knows of all of us. There is not one of us sinners that He does not know by name.
So how can the Lord claim in Truth that He NEVER …. get that? That he NEVER knew us.
Then what does “KNEW” mean?
What in the world is Jesus Christ claiming here? It does not make sense. The ones protesting are SO SURE that the Lord KNOWS them. Absolutely POSITIVE that Jesus KNOWS them.
But Jesus claims he NEVER knew them! EVER!
What is this contradiction? How can it be explained? Why is the Lord being so “picky” and “contrary”?
Jesus does not force himself upon us. That is why we have to GO to Him. We have to make an EFFORT to know Him.
He says he knocks. Every time I post in this forum it is, in a sense, the Lord knocking for you, Richard.
Instead of reviling the messenger with insults, go and inquire of Jesus Himself, as Perry has posted. Ask God Himself to come help you understand why I am not making sense to you.
Read my account of what happened to me in church that one Sunday. Of what I said. Simple stuff. But with profound consequences.
I was shaken to the core as I admitted that I was, yes, a Sinner. In the old-fashioned Gospel sense of SINNER. I have sinned against God minute by minute thoughout my life even though I was nominally a believer, nominally a Christian, by association, by baptism, by Catechism, by singing hymns in pews, even in putting on a choir robe and singing in front of an entire congregation Sunday after Sunday.
But only on THAT Sunday did I do something far beyond all of that useless tradition.
I spoke to God. Straight on to God. I first had to say I knew my place. I first had to admit that He had done something wonderful for me long ago. He had made an eternal sacrifice that I might KNOW HIM and have Eternal Life with Jesus, with God the Father.
It is an extremely emotional revelation to oneself to say, Yes, Lord, I know that I am a Sinner. I have sinned against you all my life. I have listened to your words and yet ignored your words in the deepest part of my heart and soul. But now I want to change all of that, Lord, if you will allow me. Please, Father, in the name of Jesus, forgive me of my sins, all of my sins, all of my ignorances, all of my transgressions against you and my fellow man. Wash away my sins, Lord, by your precious blood shed so long ago. Make me white as Snow, Justify me as if I have never sinned, Lord. Come into my heart, Lord Jesus, and save my soul. With all my heart I ask you to be my Lord. Amen.
Only then, only then, Richard, did the Lord look at the love I felt and expressed for my neighbors and see that in that I was loving Him and Honoring Him. Out of my faith in HIM, not my faith in me or my fellow man.
And the amazing thing is that I became so filled with a gut-wrenching, heart filling love for other people beyond any measure that I had thought possible before. It was like being drunk on universal love for all He created.
I love airports because of the swirl of humanity. All our different looks and dresses and tongues. It is amazingly fulfilling just to pass through an airport terminal and absorb the emotions, tensions, hopes, dreams, of every person passing.
At times I will see a plane 36,000 feet above my head and spontaneously pray, Oh, Lord, allow them to go safely to their destination. Bless everyone on board to fulfill their hopes and dreams. Keep them, Oh Lord, keep them to the end, safely to their trip’s end.
It is is not the time now, nor will it ever be the time, to say what I do in my daily life that shows my love for my neighbor and for those less lovable. For Jesus had no love for “showmanship” in life or worship. Verily, he said, they have their reward, those who point to themselves.
So I can tell you, Richard, that there is a huge dimension that came into my life and my heart when I said, Lord, Lord, forgive me. Save me, Lord. Raise me up and transform my heart. Make me a new man in You.
David H,
Thank you for your reply on ‘commitment’.
I thought from your previous post that perhaps you were going to desist from making disparaging remarks. But no, you say “Every grain of pettiness in your replies …”.
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” – 1 John 5:3.
Richard, you are ever true to form.
Straining at the gnat and professing offense. But, yes, there is a repetition of pettiness in your communications. I am not blind. Do you not see? Is not this your intent?
There is the outline of a prayer there, Richard. Those words are not just my words to fill up white space. You wanted to know what “commitment” means. That is the commitment.
You are heartily encouraged to try this for yourself.
It works even better when it comes out of your mouth rather than mine.
Blessings to you, Richard.
David H, More disparaging remarks from you then.
You said you were “filled with a gut-wrenching, heart filling love for other people beyond any measure”. Do you not think that there may be just the tiniest disconnect between what you claim and how you act, at least as evidenced by some of your remarks in your posts?
You indicated previously that doing good does not count as goodness unless it is done by people who believe what you claim to believe. I think you stand in great danger here. The danger is that of speaking against Goodness – in other words speaking against God.
Richard,
No, I don’t think there is any disconnect in my posts. I believe I make my connection quite clear. One obligation I have as a believer is to tell the Truth.
You repeatedly vilify me for telling the truth.
And you are evidently offended if I say something that more accurately refines the idea of “Goodness”. There seems to be the “Goodness” that you, Richard, profess, to uphold, and what Jesus Himself says.
I really seem to get your goat when I try to point you to the Source of Goodness. That is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
And it is for this that you sputter and fume.
You will never find the Truth making repeatedly snide remarks to me, Richard.
I have done what is simply my Duty, my Obligation, my Responsibility to you as a Child of God.
I am saying directly, to you, Richard, my taking the time to respond to you IS an act of love.
Telling you the Truth will, usually, offend, because you have come to a point where you so evidently resist anything that might implicate your own postures and utterances as falling short of what God has requested from you.
I, too, fall short, but I fall short from the position of a believer who reads, prays, and studies the Word of God.
And it would be a huge disservice to you, Richard, to placate you with popular platitudes.
Readers can decide for themselves where most of the vilification is coming from.
Your statement that the only source of Goodness is “a personal relationship with Jesus Christ” is 100% flat out wrong. The source of Goodness is God.
We are told that Abraham was righteous, and one thing we can be sure of is that he did not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
“In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?” – James 2:25
It is simply not the case that the only good acts are those done by “believers”. To say that would be saying that good is bad, and that would be speaking against Goodness – in other words, speaking against God.
The story of the good Samaritan is a perfect example of how “non-believers” can do good.
Do you call the good things Gandhi did bad?
If a fireman saved your loved one from a burning building you’d consider it a good act. But what if you learned that fireman was an atheist? All of a sudden he didn’t do good by God, huh?
Good acts done by “unbelievers” are not sins.
“If humanity lacked all goodness, the human race could not survive.
Drivers would disobey every traffic signal, all police would become utterly corrupt, every pedestrian would be robbed, every house plundered. Murder, rape, and other cruel acts would reign. No driver would nod to let a man cross the street, except to run him down. The poor and disabled would face extinction. Just laws would not exist. All parents would abandon their children to the streets.”
Richard, when are you going to understand that GOODNESS is not necessarily GODLINESS,
The scriptures declare that OUR “Goodness” is as filthy rags. Pretty harsh. But, in the eyes of God, that is the case. We judge our “goodness” by ourselves and come out looking pretty darned good.
God looks at what we celebrate, and obviously, you, Richard, celebrate, and pronounces it NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
That is what I have been saying.
NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN UNLESS WE ARE BORN AGAIN.
The message of Jesus is that we, by ourselves, on our own, NEVER EVER are “Good” according to the even more demanding standards of God. So ineptly does our own “goodness” fall short that God had to send a PERFECT example of “Goodness” and righteousness by the name of Jesus Christ.
You, Richard, make the classic mistake of calculating your own goodness and the “goodness” of people according to human, carnal standards.
God has always said He wants even more than that.
But we can never live up to that standard of perfection.
This is what is so marvelous about the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. His perfection becomes our own perfection, if you will, if we acknowledge that we need HIS Goodness to cover our feeble attempts at goodness in our own faulty human frame.
Abraham was righteous because he looked AHEAD to the coming of the Lord. He was already well acquainted with the Spirit of God before Jesus came. Abraham trusted that God would send a Savior.
Rahab and the Good Samaritan are examples of how God is not looking at our “goody two shoes” examples of Goodness. He sees the very intent.
Your fireman as an atheist example is so far off the mark because I am not talking about the World’s Goodness. I am talking about how God needs more than Goodness.
We cannot be saved by our own Goodness no matter how hard we try.
That is why Jesus is so necessary, so crucial to our salvation.
The scriptures declare that while we have the capacity to do Good, and be Good, as far as God is concerned, it will never measure up to his own standards. We are always destined to fail in the “Goodness ” department.
Hence, the wonderful way out of this eternal dilemma is provided in Jesus Christ.
David H,
That was a better post – no gratuitous insults this time!
[There is no reply button against your most recent reply to me, but that is what I am trying to reply to]
The following statement is incorrect:
“You, Richard, make the classic mistake of calculating your own goodness and the “goodness” of people according to human, carnal standards.”
There is only one standard of Goodness. And so I calculate against that, and find that I am a very long way away from being perfectly good.
It is true that no-one can be perfectly good – not me, and not you.
You say that the Christ’s “perfection becomes our own perfection”. That is quite clearly not the case right now. We are not perfect – we err – you sometimes err. I think you said that you had in the past repented of sins. But then we would also need to repent of sins committed after some previous repentance.
You say “we need HIS Goodness to cover our feeble attempts at goodness”. I think that terminology is a unfortunate – we cannot use his goodness to cover up the sinning that we continue to do.
On the detailed points – I don’t think there’s any evidence that Abraham “trusted that God would send a Savior”. I don’t agree with your remark about the fireman. Clearly the fireman did some good as measured by the one standard of Goodness. As did Gandhi. Your remark about “goody two shoes” is, I think, unfortunate.
You say “God needs more than Goodness”, and again, that is not really the right way to put things. It is precisely goodness that is asked for.
You say “We cannot be saved by our own Goodness” and that brings us back to the topic of salvation and what it means – which will mostly have to wait until the next exchange of views.
But I will repeat that Abraham, Rahab and the Good Samaritan were (it is assumed) “saved”, but that salvation was not because they had a belief in Jesus’s death and resurrection – as they did not even know about it.
Perry,
I am in Puerto Galera, Mindoro, Philippines.
I “tune in” to what you are up to via a sloggy internet connection.
In a few days I will be back in Vienna, Austria.
I have been working in internet design and website issues since 1996.
I would be happy to help you update the forums format you are using so that it loads faster and allows a full reply to exactly the user or topic without compressing the responses into narrower and narrower columns.
Perhaps a multi-tabbed format instead of the “endless load” that makes this forum rather, well, clumsy as it gets longer and longer.
I think your responders and readers would appreciate an “upgrade” here.
I would be happy to listen to what you want to do and to suggest some options that will use the best forum formats that have come on the scene since you first started these forums.
I am particularly experienced with WordPress.
Blessings,
David Hunter
I will pass this along to my webmaster. Thanks!
Thanks (again) for your writing Perry, I found this one interesting. I’ve never been able to see an implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and you’ve sure hit on a doozer.
In his book “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking outlines a kind of self-contained universe theory. Of course, one is left wondering where the pre-existing “laws” come from (such as the law of gravity) that make a self-contained universe possible (if one hasn’t read the book this may not make sense, but I’m not qualified to summarize the book).
But I’m wondering if, logically, by assuming certain laws simply exist, Hawking’s hypothesis is consistent with Gödel’s incompleteness theorem?
Raymond Smullyan wrote some fun puzzle books. One is Forever Undecided, subtitled “a puzzle guide to Gödel”. If there is room for fun in anyone’s life, track down this out-of-print book.
On another note, Gödel also proved that, in any universe described by the theory of relativity, time can’t exist. Einstein was not able to refute the proof, and apparently reluctantly “endorsed” it.
Hawking is apparently assuming that laws can exist without any other explanation or source. But what Gödel is staying is that you have to acknowledge some external axiom those laws rest on, which you do not prove. A “self contained universe” that relies on over-arching laws is not really self contained.
Actually the philosophers have had a field day with Hawking’s logical fallacies.
Not familiar with the last part about time. Interesting.
Is this topic current? Or is this march of some other year.
It’s current
So when did “what came first the egg or the chicken?” become math? There is no theorem here… Simply a human being stuck within his own conscious un able to think correctly so he turned math into his outlet for higher power.
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
I’m glad people have to put life into math terms for people to understand.
This is garbage, this theorem doesn’t even make sense, or at least the article doesn’t .
Here’s the biggest flaw in your argument: Even if I concede everything in this article and thereby accept that an intelligent designer does exist, there is no way to deduce anything about the personality of this designer merely from the fact that she/he/it exists. The God that you claim must necessarily exist could be omnibenevolent or a jackass and you couldn’t prove it one way or another.
What I’ve outlined here gets you at least to Deism – in fact it puts the existence of some kind of metaphysical creator on very sound footing.
That’s progress. It’s not something to be resented, but celebrated.
If this bothers you, then I ask you to look inside and ask why. Why the bitterness? Why use words like Jackass?
You have to walk before you can crawl. I got you past square one. If we’re going to be intellectually honest, we have to acknowledge the existence of God. That is a great starting point.
If square one is “God exists” then square two is “Theology is in fact an important and necessary subject.” Now you can begin to investigate the truth claims of religions and theologians seriously. And at that point you’re not starting with blind faith but solid inference and logic.
My email series at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com and http://www.coffeehousetheology.com address these questions, I encourage you to subscribe and give these ideas consideration.
Don’t patronize me by trying to psychoanalyze me. All that crawl before you walk nonsense is unnecessary.
I use words like “jackass” because God could in fact be a jackass. This is an indisputable fact: If a being is sufficiently powerful to warrant the designation God, then there is no way to glean any information about her/his/its personality merely from the fact that it exists.
However, you could glean some information about his/her/its personality from how the universe is set up (and here I’m specifically referring to the problem of evil). You would think that if a being was sufficiently powerful to create everything in existence it could do so without, for example, mass extinction events. Or without having tens of thousands of people die every year from natural disasters. Or without placing the planet next to a sun that will go supernova and destroy it in a couple billion years. Or make it so that some children weren’t born WITHOUT a brain. And so on.
You’ve engaged in quite a bit of semantic trickery. Your “argument” (which is filled with so many logical fallacies you couldn’t publish it in any respected mathematical, scientific, or philosophical academic journal), insofar as I’m willing to take it at face value, gets you to God, but it is in no way an argument for anything like the Christian God you believe in, and in fact the universe is evidence to the contrary.
CS Lewis in is book Mere Christianity said “Someone”, while obviously a great artist (as the universe is a very beautiful place) is also “quite merciless and no friend of man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place).”
Or to put it a different way:
He captured and collected things
And he put them in a shed
He raised a proper family
So he could tie them to a bed
The creator had a mastertape
But he left it in a cab
I stared into the void tonight
The best dream I ever had
He worked himself into the ground
And drove a spike into his head
A voice said Are you happy now ??
Your sordid home is running red?
Pills and chloroform
All the pages torn
-Porcupine Tree
Listen, you can quote C. S. Lewis, you can even quote all the poetry in existence, but the fact of the matter is this: you’re playing a very dubious semantic game. You know it and I know it, which is precisely why you have not responded with any rational objection to my argument.
I can concede everything you’ve written here and it would not get you to a Christian God. I’m not saying you can’t believe in a Christian God, but I am saying that when you write something that you claim to be rational, you should not engage in intellectual dishonestly. If you believe in God fine, but just know that nothing you’ve written here proves that a Christian God exists. And in fact, what we can observe about the nature of the world is evidence to the contrary.
Every intelligent design argument I’ve ever come across makes this same mistake: they get to the end of their proof in an intelligent designer and then think that they’ve de facto proven the existence of a CHRISTIAN God.
Go back and read my first reply to you.
Either you’re being intellectually dishonest or you’re confused about my argument. My point is, and has always been this: theology is practically useless because even if I concede that an intelligent designer exists there is no rational way to get from that intelligent designer to a Christian God. Here’s what I wrote in my first post, “Even if I concede everything in this article and thereby accept that an intelligent designer does exist, there is no way to deduce anything about the personality of this designer merely from the fact that she/he/it exists. The God that you claim must necessarily exist could be omnibenevolent or a jackass and you couldn’t prove it one way or another.” So it seems like you’re the one who should go back and read people’s replies, not me. There is simply no rational reason why the intelligent designer must be either omnibenevolent and/or perfectly moral. (And this a problem that occurs before we can even approach the problem of evil. For example, can you give a rational argument for how [and why] an intelligent designer powerful enough to create a universe would allow for anencephaly?)
Moreover, interestingly enough, as a Christian you can’t even believe the argument that you’ve laid out here for intelligent design because there is nothing in your argument that precludes the possibility that there could be more than one intelligent designer.
Show me where in this article or thread I have asserted that this proves the Christian God.
Here’s one example I found in about ten minutes:
“God is Love.
Love is indivisible. This is why God is indivisible, because God is love.
Self, expression of self, and self-understanding in a context of perfect love know no division. Jesus said, ‘I am in the Father and the Father is in me.’”
This was written by you on August 11th at 2:47 pm. This is why I say you are being intellectually dishonest. You frequently use “God” as a fill in for “intelligent designer,” and whenever you invoke God you are specifically invoking the Christian God. Here you are quoting Jesus Christ but you would have me believe that the argument that you’ve laid out attempting to prove that there is an intelligent designer is not the Christian God?
Again, where did I say this proves the Christian God. In these statements, and others like them (ie Aquinas’ Via Negativa) did I not show that Christian theology matches my definitions and also addresses the questions that naturally follow? Al-Zamar, this is not the same as saying I proved the Christian God.
And here’s a rather curious quote from May 11th at 2:44 pm, “That which is outside of space and time is infinite. And indivisible. I believe that everything I stated in my article is entirely logical, and that which logic tells us has to be outside the universe bears a striking resemblance to God.” In what ways does the intelligent designer that you’ve argued for bear a “striking resemblance to God”? As far as I can tell it bears no significantly relevant resemblance to God whatsoever.
You can’t show (or offer any rational arguments) that this intelligent designer is omnipotent (although he/she/it may be incredibly powerful), omniscient (you can’t even show that this intelligent desinger ever INTENDED for their to be homo sapiens, what with the mass extinction events, snowball earth, etc.), omnibenevolent (precisely why was 1/3 of Europe wiped out by the bubonic plauge?) or perfectly moral (problem of evil anyone?).
The only thing this article/thread can prove (if it can prove anything at all) is that an intelligent designer created the universe not less than 13.7 billion years ago. (As an aside you would think that an “intelligent” designer could create a universe that didn’t take 9.14 billion years to produce the planet Earth, and then an additional several hundred million years to create prokaryotic cells. I mean this guy/girl/thing is pretty powerful right? Why couldn’t he be more snappy with it?)
I’ve argued for an infinite, conscious, immaterial, indivisible creator who exists outside of space and time, who must be taken as an axiom in order to posit a rational universe that obeys the laws of logic.
If you don’t think that resembles a monotheistic definition of God, then you haven’t studied monotheism.
All your other questions are theological questions. They are issues of intent and moral judgment, not scientific or mathematical facts. You are now on square two. If you are willing to acknowledge that, we can go ahead and discuss your questions. If you’re still on square one, then we’ll need to deal with that first.
Either you’re being intellectually dishonest or you’re being purposefully obtuse. I have already conceded your argument, i.e. that an intelligent designer exists (but nothing more than this) but not because I believe that what you have written here is true; my concession is merely conditional.
First, you implicitly claim that there are three steps: the first is the proof of the existence of an intelligent designer, the second is to make an argument that this intelligent designer “bears a striking resemblance to God” and the third step is theology. The problem, however, is that you can not get from step one to step two. I have continually made an argument which you have never raised any rational objections to, which is this: It is an indisputable fact that IF you have proven the existence of an intelligent designer you can glean nothing from her/his/its personality merely from the fact that it exists because there is no logically necessary relationship between existence and personality.
There are significant implications for this thread, but among them is this: if my argument is true, namely, that there is no logically necessary relationship between the existence of an intelligent designer and her/his/its personality, then you can make NO arguments about theology or the theological entity known as God because theology requires that there be a logically necessary relationship between the existence of God and his/her/its personality. The proof of the existence of an intelligent designer and theology are mutually exclusive.
You have engaged in a logical fallacy known as selective attention. Here is what you wrote, “I’ve argued for an infinite, conscious, immaterial, indivisible creator who exists outside of space and time, who must be taken as an axiom in order to posit a rational universe that obeys the laws of logic. If you don’t think that resembles a monotheistic definition of God, then you haven’t studied monotheism.” But the problem with your argument that an intelligent designer bears a striking resemblance to God is that you focus only on those attritubes of the theological entity known as God that confirms your beliefs while disregarding all others. Perhaps this is a failure of knowledge on my part, but as far as I know the overwhelming majority of theologians who argue that God is conscious and personally knowable, also argue that God is perfectly moral. (I am not talking about the capacity to be perfectly moral, I mean that God is in fact perfectly moral.) If God was in fact conscious and personally knowable, but not perfectly moral then the Bible could not be considered authoratative and all of Christian eschatology would be called into question. Similarly, this is also true for other attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, but this is especially true for omnibenevolence. Thus, monotheistic theology requires that if God is conscious and personally knowable, then there must be a logically necessary relationship between her/his/its existence and her/his/its personality. This is NOT true for an intelligent designer.
Additionally, you assert this, “All your other questions are theological questions. They are issues of intent and moral judgment, not scientific or mathematical facts. You are now on square two.” Again, you claim that the first square is proof of the existence of an intelligent designer and all other questions are theological and must come later. But I deny this. You’re simply confused about what kind of questioning falls within the domain of theology and what kind of questioning does not. To question the intent and moral judgment of an intelligent designer is NOT a theological question because an intelligent designer is not necessarily God; and, as I have stated before, there is no way to prove that an intelligent designer is, in fact, God. (It is here that I must acknowledge a potential weakness in my argument which is this: my argument is entirely predicated on a conception of God within a monotheistic or polytheistic or other religion tied to a particular conception of eschatology. [I'm not sure if there is a religion with a conception of a conscious knowable God but no conception of eschatology]) In other words, an intelligent designer is not necessarily a religious or theological entity; if this were true then it would be impossible for an atheist to entertain the possibility that an intelligent designer even exists.
Moreover, even if there is no necessary relationship between existence and personality, you can still glean something about the personality of an intelligent designer. Here is what I previously wrote, “[Y]ou could glean some information about [an intelligent designer's] personality from how the universe is set up.” It seems to me that it is reasonable to infer that an intelligent designer who created the universe and allowed for the creation of DNA that could produce certain genetic mutations that result in fetal deformations like anencephaly is either morally indifferent or evil. It seems rather obvious that an intelligent designer powerful enough to create the entire universe would find it a trivial matter to design self-correcting DNA.
Finally, and this is an argument which I alluded to in my previous post, this “mathematical” or “logical” proof for the existence of an intelligent designer in no way precludes the possibility that there could be more than one intelligent designer. There is no reason, for example, why there could not be 10, 100, or 1,000 intelligent designers. This proof that you have offered can NOT serve as the foundation for a belief in a Christian God precisely because it leaves polytheism as an open possibility. What follows is this: you have NO rational basis for a belief in a Christian God if this “mathematical” or “logical” proof is the only argument you can proffer for the existence of an intelligent designer. It seems to me that at the very least you ought to remain agnostic about the existence of a Christian God.
That which is outside of the largest circle you can draw is indivisible, therefore there are not multiple designers. You can posit other designers who are created beings if you wish, but that doesn’t change the logical necessity of only one original designer. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem thus disproves polytheism.
In other words there is no distinction between your step one and step two. They are one and the same.
I do not know of a way to determine the personality of God from mathematical axioms as I have done here, nor have I claimed to be able to. As I said yesterday, this gets you to square one, the existence of God. But if you claim any right to ask the questions you have asked about the character of God, then it is you who have brought theology into the discussion. I don’t see how anyone could possibly avoid these questions. You have made all kinds of theological assertions right here.
You said: “You could glean some information about [an intelligent designer's] personality from how the universe is set up.”
I agree. That is called natural theology.
Welcome to the world of theology. Now that you have placed all kinds of theological questions on the table, we can begin to sort them out.
Your argument is difficult to understand because you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the terms “eschatology”, “mutually exclusive”, or even “theology”.
In order to be convincing, your last paragraph needs to show your logic and how you arrive at your conclusion instead of simply stating them (your conclusions).
“That which is outside of space and time is infinite. And indivisible. I believe that everything I stated in my article is entirely logical, and that which logic tells us has to be outside the universe bears a striking resemblance to God.”
Interestingly mathematics is outside of space and time. A counterexample to the above paragraph?
I didn’t say everything that is outside of space and time is infinite. I said the thing that is outside the biggest circle you can draw is infinite.
Oh yes you did. You said it on May 11 [of some year] at 2:44 to Greg:
You said:
“That which is outside of space and time is infinite. And indivisible. I believe that everything I stated in my article is entirely logical, and that which logic tells us has to be outside the universe bears a striking resemblance to God.”
And I also said you could draw a circle around mathematics. This statement is not about mathematics, it’s about the original axiom necessary to make it all logical.
Let’s just check two of your statement:
“That which is outside of space and time is infinite”
“I didn’t say everything that is outside of space and time is infinite.”
I rest my case.
You are quotemining one statement and taking it out of context. Richard, this is not what I meant. You can plainly verify my intent by all my discussion in this very long thread about the immaterial nature of mathematics and information.
Only that which is outside the largest circle is infinite.
“Only that which is outside the largest circle is infinite.”
Mathematics is infinite. Even the number of integers is infinite.
As to whether I’ve taken your contradictory statements out of context – readers can draw their own conclusions.
After reading Perry’s proof I too was left wondering what that actually showed about the nature of God. Perry has now clarified his intention that it was only to prove that God exists. (Of course I had the same problem with Descartes’ proof and others.)
I’m left wondering about the anger being directed to Perry about that. What I see Perry trying to do is set us on a journey to know “God”, and in this proof he is not making any claims about the nature of that God. If one’s sticking point is “there is no proof that God exists” I guess Perry is saying – look, you can easily get past that.
If your sticking point is “God can’t exist because of the evil in the world” or “God can’t exist because of this horrid suffering my child has experienced” I don’t think rational argument is going get you anywhere. It certainly won’t give you any comfort, especially if you tend to be more emotive than rational (like myself). But you can still embark on a spiritual journey to find and trust this God.
And I think that is what Perry is working towards, and I think it is a good thing, and I think Perry is being open about this.
You have a real problem with your argument insofar as Godel’s Theorems have NOTHING to do with the real world. They are nothing more than a significant observation based on the Liar’s Paradox.
The first theorem, if you bother to actually study it or, you know, read Godel’s work, states that “This statement has no proof” can be expressed in any MATHEMATICAL THEORY that is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic (e.g. Peano Arithmetic et cetera).
The second theorem (the one that’s causing all the hubbub), follows directly from the first. As described above, Godel expressed the statement “this statement has no proof” and showed that, if the theory is consistent, this is a true statement (over N) that has no proof.
Informally, because the proof that this is a true
statement can be obtained within any rich enough
theory, such as Peano arithmetic (PA) or ZFC, if
the consistency of the theory itself can also be
proved within the theory, then the statement can
be proved within the theory, which is a contradiction.
Hence, if the theory is rich enough, the
consistency of the theory cannot be proved within
the theory.
Thus the second incompleteness theorem follows
directly from Godel’s original proof for the
first incompleteness theorem.
Essentially your problem lies in the fact that Godel (along with Escher, Bach, Turing et al) was trying to reduce ALL math to an axiomatic system (meaning any mathematical statement is directly provable in a mechanical fashion). His work was about mathematical theories and specifically refers to mathematical theories when he makes his argument.
The universe is not a mathematical theory. And that is not dismissing logic or science. It is not. We didn’t INVENT the universe as an explanation. We did not hypothesize the universe. And further, while elementary arithmetic can be expressed IN TERMS of the universe, the universe itself does not express it. Nowhere does the universe make any axiomatic arithmetical statement.
The fact that things fall do not EXPRESS gravity. It can be EXPLAINED by gravity and then computed, but the universe does not express gravity axiomatically when things fall.
The fact that one apple plus one apple equals two apples does not express arithmetic. That is the observer (me, you) expressing arithmetic by using apples as an example.
Godel is talking about the trouble in creating an overall axiomatic theory of math wherein everything is true/false. The fact that he proved that could not be done in some respects shocked the world. It’s been argued for years, and people are still excited about it. But the fact that he showed there will most likely never be a grand unified theory of axiomatic mathematics does not get you anywhere near a logical expression of something infinite and indivisible.
I’m sorry, because I would really like there to be a simple proof. But this is not it. In this instance, you are simply incorrect, and further, you are applying an altered, misunderstood version of the SECOND of two coupled theorems to something they do not address.
And they do NOT address the real world, before you come back with “Math describes the universe.” Godel’s theorems are about “IDEAL MATHEMATICAL THEORIES” which have no direct counterpart in reality. They are conceptual.
QED
Gödel’s theorems have precisely as much to do with the real world as mathematics itself does.
What does mathematics have to do with the real world? It describes its behavior (if and only if the real world is logical).
The universe either conforms to mathematical principles or it doesn’t. If the universe obeys mathematical laws then it expresses them. If it does not express mathematical laws then that is because it does not obey them.
If you want to say that the universe does not express mathematical laws, and just does whatever it feels like doing and doesn’t follow any rules… take that position and throw all of science and rationality in the dumpster.
Your statement about apples and observers is a solipsism. Again, if ideal mathematical theories have no direct counterpart in reality, then we are living in a solipsistic, non-scientific, illogical world.
“What does mathematics have to do with the real world? It describes its behavior (if and only if the real world is logical).”
Absolutely wrong. There are plenty of mathematical theories in existence that do not describe or apply to the real world at all.
Only a very few mathematical theories describe the behaviour of the real world.
And, if the real world in finite, as you claim, then Godel’s theorem does not apply to it.
You do not know how much of mathematics has purely theoretical application, and how much has practical application yet undiscovered. For a long time people thought imaginary numbers were just a theoretical construct. Turns out they’re absolutely essential to certain kinds of differential equations for very practical problems. Imaginary numbers represent stored energy in analog filter design, for example.
Gödel’s theorem applies to all logical statements, so it applies to any mathematics that is used in science.
Your statement “What does mathematics have to do with the real world? It describes its behavior (if and only if the real world is logical)” is incorrect. Most mathematical theories (for example a theory of infinite dimensional spaces) are unlikely to apply to the real world.
You are misquoting me, Richard. I refer you to my most recent comment to you.
Godel’s theorem does NOT apply to all logical statements. It applies ONLY to recursively enumerable mathematical theories. There are plenty of logical statements, and, in fact whole theories that Godel’s theorem does not apply to:
1. Euclidean Geometry
2. Real Closed Fields
Also, “The universe is not a mathematical theory. And that is not dismissing logic or science. It is not. We didn’t INVENT the universe as an explanation. We did not hypothesize the universe. And further, while elementary arithmetic can be expressed IN TERMS of the universe, the universe itself does not express it. Nowhere does the universe make any axiomatic arithmetical statement.
The fact that things fall do not EXPRESS gravity. It can be EXPLAINED by gravity and then computed, but the universe does not express gravity axiomatically when things fall.
The fact that one apple plus one apple equals two apples does not express arithmetic. That is the observer (me, you) expressing arithmetic by using apples as an example.”
The fact that you dismiss this doesn’t make it not true. The universe is NOT a mathematical theory and that doesn’t mean that math does not relate to the universe.
Ben,
First of all let me RETRACT my previous statement statement:
“Godel’s theorem applies to all logical systems.”
You are correct, it does not apply to all logical systems. It only applies to an “effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.”
A physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. This includes calculators and computers and other physical systems, which is the point of the Church-Turing thesis.
From Wikipedia:
In computability theory, the Church–Turing thesis is a combined hypothesis (“thesis”) about the nature of functions whose values are effectively calculable; or, in more modern terms, functions whose values are algorithmically computable. In simple terms, the Church–Turing thesis states that “everything algorithmically computable is computable by a Turing machine.”
Syllogism:
1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete
2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system
3. Therefore the universe is incomplete
Perry say “You are misquoting me, Richard. I refer you to my most recent comment to you”
Astounding! I exactly quoted what you said on Apr 30 8:17.
As for your assertion that Gödel’s theorems only apply to Turing machines with infinite tape, I refer you to the history of Turing’s halting problem and its many applications to the real world. No computer is infinite and that’s hardly a problem. Whether the tape is infinite or not is largely irrelevant to the halting problem, and every practical computer scientist understands its import.
You say “the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic”. If it’s finite then it isn’t capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. For example, it cannot add up two very large numbers if the result cannot fit into the largest “tape” that the universe can hold.
Therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply to the universe, except to say that there are some algorithms that could not be computed by the universe even if it was infinite.
I wonder if you think that God can compute all algorithms.
In other words you are saying “You can’t do any math with an abacus because you can’t do all math with an abacus.”
“In other words you are saying “You can’t do any math with an abacus because you can’t do all math with an abacus.” I didn’t say that. Please try to read what I said.
Also, check this out:
http://simplycharly.com/godel/james_meyer_godel_interview.html
He’s getting pretty famous for pointing out a flaw in the theorem you like to use, so it may behoove you to keep track. He’s not the only one, by the way. Many people have dismissed Godel from the beginning as reductio ad absurdum, or a reduction to the point of absurdity. But I’m sure you knew about the big story about how there was a logical flaw in the theorem.
Mr. Meyer came here a couple of years ago and made a statement. You can see it, and my replies:
http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/#comment-17338
This is my final post here. There are either 3 possibilities: 1) you don’t understand Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems (there are actually two); 2) you understand Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems but you’re simply lying about what his arguments are; or 3) you’ve never actually read Godel. And quite frankly I don’t know which one it is; I suspect that you are an honorable and truthful person but you’re simply being obstinate.
I had a suspicion that you were engaging in an egregious misapplication of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems, but mathematics and logic is not my area of study so I couldn’t prove it. But I happen to be a student at Rutgers University, and our philosophy department is consistently ranked either #1 or 2# in the English speaking world, and I figured I could probably find someone who understands this. So I reached out to Barry Loewer, who is a philosopher of science (his specialty is the philosophy of physics, especially cosmology) and a philosopher of logic.
He didn’t go into much detail because this is rather complicated, but this is what Professor Loewer wrote: “Godel’s theorem says that it is not possible for there to be a complete axiomatization of any mathematical theory [that] contains arithmetic (general truths about numbers like for any numbers x, y x+y = y+x). There will always be some truths of arithmetic that can’t be proved from a sound axiomatization. It has nothing to do with God. There are some serious thinkers who have claimed that it can be used as part of and (sic) argument to show that our thought processes cannot be modeled by computation. These arguments are not good either.”
In other words, not only does Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem not apply to rocks or the universe, as you erroneously implied in your post @November 14th, 5:01 pm, but it doesn’t even apply to “everything that reason and logic apply to” as you have erroneous claimed several times (see, for example, your post @January 28th 9:22 am). Neither does it apply to “all systems, statements, objects and propositions” as you claimed @December 30th, 10:36 am”.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems only apply to formal mathematical language that includes sentences about numbers. Thus, any graduate school student studying logic will tell you that Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems do not apply to, for example, first-order predicate logic. And any theoretical physicist will tell you that Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem can’t possibly apply to “the universe”. While it is true that one can use mathematics to DESCRIBE the nature of the universe, and Godel’s Theorems certainly apply to mathematics, it is in no way true that Godel’s Theorems can be applied to the universe itself.
It’s really quite simple: Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems ONLY apply to a system of axiomatic presuppositions that serve as the precondition for any sufficiently complex system of formal logic that makes statements about the nature of the arithmetical relationship between natural numbers. The physical universe is not such a system, therefore Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems do not apply TO THE UNIVERSE ITSELF. Again, such systems can be used TO DESCRIBE the the universe, but they DO NOT APPLY TO THE UNIVERSE ITSELF. Other people here have pointed this out to you, and yet you remain obstinate in your belief that you understand Godel.
In my endeavor to understand Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems and your misapplication of it, I also contacted Mark Chu-Carrol, someone with a Ph.D. in computer science. Here is what he writes on his blog about what you’ve written here (you can find his refutation of your reasoning here: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/05/the_danger_when_you_dont_know.php): “The problem with all of the statements above is (apart from his confusion about axioms) the fact that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is a statement about formal logical systems, and statements within those systems. Incompleteness doesn’t talk about religion, faith, god, circles, or open or closed systems. It talks about formal logical inference systems.”
So, as you can see, I have contacted two people Mark Chu-Carrol and Barry Loewer, Mark has a Ph.D. in computer science and Barry is a Rutgers University professor whose specialty is the philosophy of science and the philosophy of logic. If you really feel strongly about your position, you can contact other mathematicians and logicians, but they will tell you the same thing.
Goodbye.
Although I stated in my previous post that I would not be posting again, I find it absolutely necessary to post this final addendum so that any person reading the previous post will appreciate the full context of what I have written. This context is important because it involves the fact that Godel actually has a COMPLETENESS THEOREM as well. Yes, you read that right, Godel has a Completeness Theorem as well. (Perry Marshall has made such a big deal about Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem that I find it shocking that no one has mentioned this before.) So, this final addendum that will undoubtedly crush any rebuttal that Perry Marshall can make.
Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem ONLY applies to sufficiently complex logical systems that make mathematical statements about the arithmetical relationship between natural numbers. However, there are some logical systems of first-order predicate logic that make no such mathematical statements, therefore, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem does not apply to them. And it is these logical systems, i.e. the logical systems that do NOT make such mathematical statements about the arithemetical relationship between natural numbers, to which Godel’s Completeness Theorem applies. Hence Perry Marshall’s claim that “Gödel’s theorem applies to all systems, statements, objects and propositions” is unequivocally NOT TRUE. I direct you to this website: http://lesswrong.com/lw/93q/completeness_incompleteness_and_what_it_all_means/.
Anyone who is interested should read everything up to and including the section on Godel’s Completeness Theorem. Of crucial importance is the first paragraph under the heading Godel’s incompleteness theorem, “Gödel’s (first) incompleteness theorem, is a theorem about an arithmetic but also (implicitly) about a model. THE IMPLICIT MODEL IS THE NATURAL NUMBERS: ANY ARITHMETIC THAT CAN MODEL THEM SUFFERS FROM THE INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM.” (capitalization used for emphasis.)
Also of crucial importance is the second and third sentence under the heading Godel’s completeness theorem, “Unlike the previous theorem, this is a statement about about the axiomatic system and all of its models. It simply says that if a sentence is valid (true in every model) FOR A FIRST ORDER THEORY, then it can be PROVED FROM THE AXIOMS.” (capitilization used for emphasis.) In other words, when dealing with some first order systems of logic there are sentences that are valid, i.e. sentences that can be “proved from the axioms,” meaning that these first order systems do not suffer from incompleteness.
I have also continued my correspondence with Professor Barry Loewer, and he wrote this, “Like I said the theorem is a conditional “IF S IS A SYSTEM THAT CAN REPRESENT ARITHMETIC THEN……….” “represents arithmetic” is a bit technical but basically it means that you can prove in the system everything you know about natural numbers…. e.g. 7+5=12…. for every pair of numbers there is a unique sum of those numbers, and soon. Propositional logic is much too week (sic) to represent arithmetic….. first order logic with certain axioms can represent arithmaitc and the theorem “applies”. Modal logic contains first order logic so if it contains the axioms too the theorem applies….” (capitalization used for emphasis)
This is absolute proof that Perry Marshall is misapplying Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. The application of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem is predicated on a conditional: If a logical system can be used to model arithemetic, then it will suffer from incompleteness. However, as Professor Loewer points out, “Propositional logic is much too week (sic) to represent arithmetic….. first order logic with certain axioms can represent arithmaitc and the theorem “applies”.” In other words, logical systems that do not contain arithmetic do not suffer from incompleteness and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem does not apply.
Professor Loewer then went on to write this, “Godel’s theorem is about formal systems… that is something very specific…. it is not about objects…e.g. my computer, my son’s soccer ball.,… that would make no sense…. I don’t know what Perry Marshall is doing… the idea that you can prove the existence of God…or anything that can do anything from the assumptions needed to get Godel’s theorem is wrong headed and likely he is very confused.” This is only further proof that you can NOT apply Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem to the UNIVERSE ITSELF. It does NOT apply to circles, bicycles, rocks, the universe, or any real, physical object. So practically everything that Perry Marshall has written in the above article is NOT true and is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of Godel. Again, Perry Marshall’s claim that, “Gödel’s theorem applies to all systems, statements, objects and propositions” is unequivocally NOT TRUE.
Now, I would advise anybody reading this NOT to take my word for it. If you are willing to spend a couple of days doing some intense reading, and you are reading with the guidance of a mathematician or logician (not some amateur hack but someone formally trained in the relevant material) you will see that Mark Chu-Carroll and Professor Barry Loewer are right and that everything I’ve written here is absolutely right. Therefore, I challenge Perry Marshall to find any mathematician or logician with at least an M.A. in either mathematics, logic, or the philosophy of logic who will contravene anything I’ve written here.
So, once and for all, and for the final time, you cannot use Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem to prove the existence of God. Goodbye.
Al Zamar,
I don’t have time to respond to everything here today, may take me a week or two. For the time being, I quote a comment from the ScienceBlogs thread http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/05/the_danger_when_you_dont_know.php#comment-2533327
A sadly misguided blog, Mark. You’ve been visiting too many crank sites: you are starting to write like them.
It seems to me that there are two ways one can read another person’s opinions. You can read sympathetically and try to understand the point he/she is making. Or you can read antagonistically and willfully misinterpret whenever possible in order to attack it.
In the second case, your attacks do not disprove the other person’s ideas, they only disprove your own misunderstandings.
Here you seem to be insisting that all Mr Cosmicfingerprints’ statements are prefixed with “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem proves that …”. It is easy to demolish such a misinterpretation, but pointless, because that is not what he is arguing.
As I understand Mr Cosmicfingerprints, he is reasoning informally by analogy. He is putting forward a list of ideas related to or implied, in some way, by Gödel’s theorem. (Hofstader did the same thing all thru “G.E.B.” after all.) Given that he is in no way attempting formal mathematics, his proposals seem generally reasonable. Much of what he says seems right to me, tho he does go off the rails at the end.
There are many profound implications of Gödel’s theorems, not all of them strictly mathematical. His theorems came at a time when people believed that mathematics could deliver absolute truth and that everything true was provable. He demolished that certainty. You could say that his work was about the limits of knowledge; or that mathematics is creative, not purely deductive; or that rationality can “see truths” which cannot be proved by logic. Of course, none of those meta-statements or non-mathematical opinions can be proved by maths. (Gosh! Is anyone surprised?) It does not mean that they are pointless, or wrong.
Now, if you had sympathetically followed Mr Cosmicfingerprints’ argument and shown where his conclusions were actually wrong, then there might have been some purpose to your blog. Instead, you gave a long list of your obviously-wrong misinterpretations and said that he (not you and your misinterpretations) was wrong.
To my mind, what you have done does not teach good mathematics, nor correct thinking. What this teaches is how to nit-pick like a crank.
An example :
‘Those are just about the worst definitions of “inductive” and “deductive” that I’ve seen.’
I disagree with you. I think those are jolly good ways of describing (not defining) deduction and induction in simple, everyday language. His deduction example is spot on. As for induction, I do not immediately see how to do better. If you start getting into “case(n) implies case(n+1) and case(0) is true”, then there are all sorts of complexities like doing odds and evens separately, going backwards case(n-1), whatever.
Missed opportunity – you could have used this blog to say something interesting about mathematical induction.
Overall, you are both wrong. If forced to choose, I would say that Mr Cosmicfingerprints is less wrong than you are.
~~~
Again I will respond more fully in the next couple of weeks.
Al-Zamar,
First you are correct that Gödel’s theorem does not apply to all logical statements. It only applies to effectively generated theories capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.
That said, all physical systems subjected to measurement express elementary arithmetic as I shall explain.
I initially thought it was going to take a long time to respond to this but such is not the case. All the comments by professor Loewer are merely statements of his own opinion. There is nothing rigorous anywhere in his refutation of my statements, and possession of an advanced degree or a teaching post at a respected university is no substitute for rigorous argument.
Gödel’s theorem applies to any effectively generated theory. “Effectively generated” means “reducible to discrete steps that give consistent answers” – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectively_calculable
Is “theory” confined to pure math in our heads? No it is not. Where do theories come from? Our minds. Can you do math with anything else besides a mind? Yes, of course you can. You can use computers too. (And pencils and pieces of paper.) This is an essential point of the Church-Turing thesis.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness
In computability theory, a system of data-manipulation rules (such as an instruction set, a programming language, or a cellular automaton) is said to be Turing complete or computationally universal if and only if it can be used to simulate any single-taped Turing machine and thus in principle any computer. A classic example is the lambda calculus. The concept is named after Alan Turing.
In colloquial usage, the terms “Turing complete” or “Turing equivalent” are used to mean that any real-world general-purpose computer or computer language can approximately simulate any other real-world general-purpose computer or computer language, within the bounds of finite memory – they are linear bounded automaton complete. A universal computer is defined as a device with a Turing complete instruction set, infinite memory, and an infinite lifespan; all general purpose programming languages and modern machine instruction sets are Turing complete, apart from having finite memory.
All known laws of physics have consequences which are computable by a series of approximations on a digital computer. A hypothesis called digital physics states that this is no accident, that it is because the universe itself is computable on a universal Turing machine. This would imply that no computer more powerful than a universal Turing machine can be built physically (see Church–Turing thesis#Philosophical implications).
~~~
Look up “Theory of Everything” in Wikipedia and you’ll see that physicists of no less stature than Stephen Hawking and Freeman Dyson believe as I do that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has direct application to the universe and our models of it.
For those who disagree, the only way to disagree is to say that the universe is not mathematical. This has depressing implications for science if it is true.
As for Mark Chu-Carrol, he apparently doesn’t even know a good example of inductive or deductive reasoning when he sees it; you can find mine in all kinds of philosophy books (“1. All men are mortal 2. Socrates is a man 3. Therefore Socrates is mortal”).
Given that, I’m not sure why we should trust anything else he says here; deduction is rather elementary definition in philosophy, is it not?
His review is full of misrepresentations of me and Godel. For example:
“Does Gödel really say that you can’t describe the physics of reality mathematically? No.”
I didn’t say that and neither did Godel. My point was the exact opposite: that you CAN describe the physics of reality mathematically, and that if you can, the universe is necessarily incomplete just like the mathematics that describes it.’
Or how about this statement in his blog: “How can you possibly get from Gödel’s theorem to a statement that the universe can’t be infinite?”
I didn’t say Gödel ever said this. I said that according to everything we actually know in science, the universe occupies finite mass, energy, space and time.
He doesn’t even know what I’m saying! Did he bother to read this, or did he just skim it lightly and dash off to write his screed?
It’s hard to take a man seriously when he makes such fundamental, egregious misinterpretations. What’s going on, did I push his anger buttons? (I’ve noticed a lot of people lose their ability to spell when debates about the existence of God make them upset.)
In any case, your assertions that others have absolutely proven me wrong are a little overstated.
Both Mr. Chu-Carrol and Mr. Loewer are more than welcome to come and dialogue with me. Remind them to do their homework before they come. I’ve done mine.
You’re wrong, you know it and I know it. You keep trying to slip in your false assertions in the midst of red herrings. I care about one claim, which is this: Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem DOES NOT APPLY TO THE UNIVERSE, ONLY TO THE FORMAL LOGICAL SYSTEMS USED TO DESCRIBE THE UNIVERSE. This is indisputable.
This is what you wrote: “you CAN describe the physics of reality mathematically, and that if you can, the universe is necessarily incomplete just like the mathematics that describes it.’”
This is absolutely wrong. There is a difference between the universe and the mathematics used to describe the universe.
1) Physics is a mathematical DESCRIPTION of the universe; physics is not the universe and vice versa.
2)It is not true “that if you can, the universe is necessarily incomplete just like the mathematics describes it.” Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems ONLY apply to formal logical systems, which means that the mathematics used to describe the universe, i.e. physics, will be incomplete, NOT THE UNIVERSE ITSELF.
Incompleteness is not something that an object can possess: rocks, trees, bicycles, the universe, none of these things can be incomplete; ONLY FORMAL LOGICAL SYSTEMS CAN BE INCOMPLETE.
You told me to go to “The Theory of Everything” on wikipedia so I did, and this is what Freeman Dyson is quoted as saying, “Gödel’s theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be solved within the existing rules. [...] Because of Gödel’s theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE A FINITE SET OF RULES, AND INCLUDE THE RULES FOR DOING MATHEMATICS, SO THAT GODEL’S THEOREM APPLIES TO THEM.”
The phrase “applies to them” means applies to physics and mathematics NOT THE UNIVERSE. You’re now referring to material that directly contradicts you Perry. Everybody here can see it, and the longer you drag this out the worse you’ll look.
The universe is not, can not, and never will be incomplete according to Godel’s Theorems, because Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem ONLY APPLIES TO FORMAL LOGICAL SYSTEMS, NOT THE UNIVERSE ITSELF.
It seems that this is clear to everybody except you, Perry. You will not find 1 mathematician, physicist, or logician who will agree with you. Find 1 quote, just 1 quote, from any physicist, mathematician, or logician with an M.A. in their respective fields who claims that Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem can apply to objects. P.S. You won’t find a single one.
Al-Zamar:
The crux of your assertion is this:
“Incompleteness is not something that an object can possess.”
From Wikipedia’s entry on Alan Turing:
In his momentous paper “On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem” Turing reformulated Kurt Gödel’s 1931 results on the limits of proof and computation, replacing Gödel’s universal arithmetic-based formal language with what became known as Turing machines, formal and simple hypothetical devices.
He proved that some such machine would be capable of performing any conceivable mathematical computation if it were representable as an algorithm. He went on to prove that there was no solution to the Entscheidungsproblem by first showing that the halting problem for Turing machines is undecidable: in general, it is not possible to decide algorithmically, whether a given Turing machine will ever halt.
~
In other words, objects perform operations whose prior behavior cannot be predicted by an algorithm. David Hilbert desired to find an all-encompassing, self-validating theory of mathematics. Gödel proved it was impossible in theoretical mathematics. Turing proved it was impossible computationally. That is incompleteness.
~
From WIki’s entry on Halting Problem:
“In his original proof Turing formalized the concept of algorithm by introducing Turing machines. However, the result is in no way specific to them; it applies equally to any other model of computation that is equivalent in its computational power to Turing machines, such as Markov algorithms, Lambda calculus, Post systems, register machines, or tag systems.”
“The concepts raised by Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are very similar to those raised by the halting problem, and the proofs are quite similar. In fact, a weaker form of the First Incompleteness Theorem is an easy consequence of the undecidability of the halting problem.”
~
The Church-Turing thesis establishes the equivalence between computational objects and purely mathematical concepts. Therefore incompleteness applies to physical objects.
So, here’s a simple summary of the dispute.
Perry Marshall’s argument: Physics and mathematics can be used to describe the universe. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem says that physics and mathematics are necessarily incomplete. Therefore, the universe is incomplete.
Quote from Perry Marshall: “My point was the exact opposite: that you CAN describe the physics of reality mathematically, and that if you can, the universe is necessarily incomplete just like the mathematics that describes it.”
My argument: Physics and mathematics can be used to describe the universe. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem says that physics and mathematics are necessarily incomplete. Since Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem ONLY applies to formal logical systems, physics and mathematics are incomplete, but the universe is not.
I insist that your rejection of incompleteness vis a vis the universe is a red herring. Here’s why.
We can posit an electrical filter (LC circuit), mechanical filter (Mass/Spring) and acoustical filter (helmholtz resonator) and the three are isomorphic. All three oscillate. Each is described by an identical differential equation. The math equation itself is isomorphic to the three systems. The mathematical system, the idealized electrical system, the mechanical system and acoustical system are all conceptually identical.
To solve the equation we can use any number of mathematical devices and there are many choices. We have integration, laplace transforms, numerical methods – and they will ALL accurately predict the behavior of the system. They all give us the same answer.
We have all kinds of mathematical operations that apply to nontrivial arithmetical theories: differentiation, integration, algebra, matrix theory, differential equations, set theory, and ALL of them apply to physical objects. Mathematical theories are used to understand the universe and theories about the universe are used to understand math. Knowledge travels in both directions.
Therefore I don’t see how anyone can reasonably say, “But wait a minute, Gödel’s theorem is an exception. Sure, all that other stuff applies to the universe, but Gödel doesn’t.” That makes no sense. I can only suspect that the reason you insist on this exception is that it contradicts your religious views.
I cannot mathematically PROVE that Gödel applies to the universe. But I do have 100% inference, based on all the other properties of mathematics that do apply to the universe. (This is the same reasoning that gives us the Church-Turing thesis.) Thus I have the full authority of science in postulating that the universe is incomplete. Because science assumes that the universe is logical and mathematical. The laws of physics are algorithmic.
Are you unconditionally committed to the atheist worldview or are you willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads?
Let’s take Perry’s original argument, and I will comment on it with lines beginning with 2 dashes:
Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too)
– Perry later admitted that mathematics was outside the universe but that he wanted to draw a circle round mathematics too
There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
– There are infinitely many statements which are true but which we cannot prove.
The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time
– However, mathematics is infinite, but inside the circle
The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)
– No, an abacus will not give the right answer if the answer is so big that it can’t be fitted into the universe.
The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
– Within the circle including logic and mathematics we provide explanations all the time
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
– On the contrary, mathematics is boundless, but you say it’s inside the circle. Contradiction.
The set of all integers is infinite.
The set of all real numbers is infinite, and larger than the set of integers.
Richard, I have a question for you:
If the set of integers is “boundless” then how does it not also include all real numbers?
And if the set of real numbers is “boundless” then how does it not also include all imaginary numbers?
“Boundless”. That’s a good question. Saying that the set of integers is boundless is the same as saying that it is an infinite set – and that if you claim to give me the greatest integer I can always give you a greater one. Certainly there is no limit to the number of integers. For that matter there is no limit to the number of even integers.
Cantor proved that there is an infinity of infinities (See Georg Cantor in Wikipedia) and his theory is now accepted by all mathematicians.
Also, imagine two parallel lines of infinite length. They both have infinite length, and are therefore both boundless.
If you try to imagine the class of all mathematical “objects” there is a far greater infinity of those!
For example, there are theories of infinite-dimensional spaces – and you can have infinite numbers of such spaces! Mathematics is overwhelmingly boundless! As well as being immaterial.
You cannot draw a circle around mathematics.
Richard,
If I take an infinite line and look at it from one end, all I see is a dot. You can certainly draw a circle around a dot. It’s boundless in only one dimension.
I am talking about something that is necessarily boundless in ALL dimensions. Boundless every possible way. Mathematics has infinite dimensions and infinite possibilities but every mathematician also knows that some infinities are greater than others. The set of all integers is a bigger infinity than the set of even integers.
I am talking about the greatest possible of all infinities, something that is not bound in any way shape or form. That is a very different animal from mathematics or physics or the universe. For the universe and mathematics to be rational, such a thing has to exist.
“The set of all integers is a bigger infinity than the set of even integers”. As a matter of fact, every mathematician knows that Cantor proved that the set of all integers is the SAME infinity as the set of even integers, whereas the set of real numbers is a bigger infinity.
“I am talking about the greatest possible of all infinities, something that is not bound in any way shape or form. That is a very different animal from mathematics or physics or the universe. For the universe and mathematics to be rational, such a thing has to exist.”
There is not a greatest infinity – infinities go on for ever, as Cantor proved. A greatest infinity therefore does not exist.
God is not a strict mathematical infinity. Remember how emphatic I have been that, logically, whatever is outside the largest circle cannot be divided into component parts. God is not a system. God is a boundless immaterial being. Either that, or the universe is irrational.
The God you describe is by definition irrational. Otherwise there would be a mathematical description of God.
Godel proved exactly the opposite of what you claim. He proved that there are always things that can’t be proved. It’s no good saying “aha, God”. It remains the case that there are always things that can’t be proved.
The universe is not irrational if it is finite. It doesn’t contain the integers and so it can be completely described by something outside itself, viz. some mathematics.
Richard,
I have not proven God; I have merely given you three options to choose from:
1) The universe is irrational and thus requires no outside explanation and no God.
2) The universe is rational and thus requires an outside explanation ie God
3) The universe is the result of an infinite series of axioms or past events (infinite regress)
If God is just more math, then all you’ve done is multiplied axioms. It’s a form of infinite regress. Your demand that God be mathematical keeps you from reaching a conclusion. (Furthermore, no theologian I know would agree that God is simply “mathematical.”)
Please explain exactly why an infinite, indivisible, immaterial conscious being is “By definition” rational. Please articulate your assumptions and your logic, step by step.
Godel proved that there are some truths that are unprovable. It is logically impossible to prove all truths. Introducing God makes no difference. God cannot do what is logically impossible. With God in the picture there are still truths which are unprovable.
Correction: If all truths go back to God as an axiom, then that means that with God in the picture there are truths which only God can prove.
“If all truths go back to God as an axiom, then that means that with God in the picture there are truths which only God can prove.”
There may be truths which only God can prove. However:
Godel proved that there are always some truths that are unprovable. It is logically impossible to prove all truths. Introducing God does not invalidate Gödel’s proof. God cannot do what is logically impossible. With God in the picture there are STILL truths which are unprovable EVEN BY GOD.
This is not true. Why? Because God is not a system of component parts. God can prove anything and everything because God is indivisible. In other words the only way that everything can be true FOR A REASON (even if known only by God) is if God exists. If God does not exist then things happen for no reason at all.
Let me clarify why God has to not be a system. Gödel said:
“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.”
“Effectively generated theory” means procedure involving discrete steps that provide definite answers at each step. Whatever is outside the largest circle therefore has to not involve discrete steps, ie not be divisible. If God is defined as boundless and not a system of component parts then you have a means of having a logical universe in which everything happens for a reason – without violating Gödel’s theorem.
If you want to believe that God can do logically impossible things then that’s up to you.
Systems of mathematics are unprovable from within the systems. Please prove in step by step detail why is it impossible for God, who is outside systems of mathematics, to prove them.
For the same reason as I can’t prove them. I am also outside the systems of mathematics for which I am providing proofs. Godel said it was logically impossible and God cannot do logically impossible things. It is a matter of FACT that there are some truths that are unprovable and so it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to provide a proof of something unprovable. It is impossible for God to do something impossible.
God has the whole of mathematics at his disposal. But the larger the mathematical system, the more truths there are that cannot be proved.
God could not write down on tablets of stone a proof that violates what Gödel proved. And any proof must be capable of being written down, otherwise it is not a proof.
You would be better off arguing that God KNOWS all truths. Indeed normally theologians say that God does know all truths. But they also normally say that it is impossible for God to do something impossible.
But Richard, it’s only impossible to prove certain things within the system. On the other hand it is possible to prove an undecidable proposition – as long as you’re outside the system.
No, all proofs are with respect to some mathematical system. It is true that there can be an undecidable proposition with respect to some set of axioms, and then you can add in more axioms to make some bigger system so that with respect to the new system the proposition becomes provable. But by adding axioms you have just added a host MORE undecidable propositions. Godel says that however many axioms you add there are always undecidable propositions, in any system that contains the integers.
So however many axioms you or I or God adds, however big the system, there are always undecidable propositions. That is why it is said that “truth is greater than provability”.
For that matter, all these additional axioms are themselves never provable – they are axioms.
Whichever way you look at it, there are always unprovable propositions.
See http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/comment-page-6/#comment-52979
I now fully understand your argument, which is this:
1. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies to formal logical systems that can model arithmetic
2. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem implies such formal logical systems suffer from incompleteness.
3. Incompleteness means that there must be something outside of these formal logical systems that makes them explainable.
4. A Turing machine is such a formal logical system to which Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies.
5. The universe is a Turing machine (or its equivalent).
6. Therefore, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies to the universe.
7. Since formal logical systems that can model arithmetic require something outside of them that makes them explainable, the same is true of the universe.
8. That which makes the universe explainable must be God.
9. Therefore, God must exist.
If this is your argument Perry, then you have not proven the existence of God.
In the first place your argument is predicated on proving that the universe is a formal logical system that can model arithmetic, i.e. a Turing machine, but it is impossible for you to do this here; and it would be futile for you to argue further. It always surprises me that you continue to use evidence or cite material that you either do not fully understand or that you have not thoroughly read yourself. In the Wikipedia article entry for the Church-Turing thesis there is a sub-heading entitled Philosophical Implications. While the first IMPLICATION is that the universe is a Turing machine or its equivalent, here is the second of those implications: “The universe is not equivalent to a Turing machine (i.e., the laws of physics are not Turing-computable), but incomputable physical events are not “harnessable” for the construction of a hypercomputer. For example, a universe in which physics involves real numbers, as opposed to computable reals, might fall into this category.”
What becomes immediately clear is that the Church-Turing thesis has been interpreted differently by different people, which is what accounts for the various contradictory implications being drawn from it. I consistently find it absolutely astonishing that someone who claims to know this material persistently demonstrates how badly you understand it by referring to or quoting something that refutes your own points. The Church-Turing thesis (which is a hypothesis) may be true, but the implications being drawn from it, that the universe is or is not a Turing machine, have not.
In fact, there is an entire branch of physics known as digital physics (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics) dedicated to the hypothesis that the universe is a Turing machine, and yet you never mention it once. (I can only assume that you don’t know what digital physics is.) However, for every digital physicist there is another physicist, a string theorist perhaps or a physicist of quantum mechanics who disagrees with them. In fact, the aforementioned article on digital physics actually lays out the position of the digital physicists, goes over the criticism of digital physics, and gives the counter-arguments of the digital physicists; but surely this Wikipedia entry has not exhausted the debate. Therefore, the notion that you could have proven something, i.e. that the universe is a Turing machine, that physicists see as a major source of debate strikes me as incredibly arrogant and misinformed. The questions that you have raised in this article are extremely complex and complicated and you have oversimplified them to the point of irrationality.
I could stop right now because as long as you can’