From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sun Jan 27 2002 - 22:33:40 MST
On 26 Jan 2002 at 19:35, Bruce W McLain wrote:
> While Joe's line of reasoning has flaws, your conclusion is correct.
>
> If the Universe is a proper-subset of god then god could be both omnipresent
> and omniscient.
>
The universe, cannot be, by definition, any part of a larger whole, for it is itself
defined as the whole. Thus, your "if-then" fails; the premise itself does not hold.
However, even if it did, it would not vitiate the logically entailed either-or. No
matter how large you expand the playing field, if the grass is either alive or dead
it cannot be both. You can have EITHER an irresistable force OR an
immoveable object, but not both. You can have EITHER omniscience OR
omnipotence but not both. Why, since the existence of either of the two
components renders the existence of the other logically impossible, and
expanding the size of the sandbox (as if it COULD be expanded beyond
Universe, or 'all-that-is" - it can't) dies not change this irrefuteable fact one tiny
whit.
>
> Your conclusion can be arrived at from Goedel's incompleteness theorem.
>
> In short Goedel's theorem states: In any consistent system complex enough to
> do simple arithmetic (the Universe) there exists truths expressible within
> the system that are not provable within the system (us).
>
> For more on Goedel's theorem see
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/georgia.html or any of many
> other sites.
>
Popperian falsifiability states that while nothing may be finally proven to be
absolutely true (due to the possibility of future contrafactual evidence coming to
light), certain things can be proven false, such as absolute universal abstract
and/or general positive truth-claims concerning the empirical universe. These
can be disproven by 1) providing a counterexample (one albino crow proves for
all time that the statement 'all crows are black' is false), or 2) by reductio ad
absurdum (showing the conclusions that necessarily entail from an assertion of
the premises are self- or mutually contradictory). It is the second proof that I
employed to refute the falcious contention that it would be possible for a
simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent deity to exist, and that proof still
holds. No amount of definitional squirming can free the assertion from its
falsification, for between the horns of the vicious dilemma lies no wriggle room at
all; it's an irreduceable either-or (EITHER omniscient OR omnipotent), and
whichever side you choose as a premise, the other becomes impossible to
conclude. Both-and is NOT a logical option.
Godel's Theorem simply asserts that when a system becomes complex ehough
to admit of self-reference, that some of those self-referential statements are
undecideable. It does NOT assert that statements about a purported deity with
mutually contradicting absolute and universal characteristics cannot be falsified
quite easily, as I have done. Q.E.D.
Here's how Godel's Theorem works: Postulate axiomatic system A. All true
statements are in A, no true statements are outside of it, no false statements are
inside A, and all false atatements are outside of it. IOW, all true statements, and
only true statements, are in axiomatic system A. Now let us construct statement
B. B is recursice, self-referential; that is, it refers to (talks about) itself, and what
it says is "B is not an axiom of A". What has happened? Well, if we include B in
A then A contains the false statement that B is not an axiom of A, but if we
exclude B from A then A does not contain the true statement that B is not an
axiom of A. Thus, to simply put it, B doesn't belong either inside or outside A, or
to put it more precisely, B EITHER belongs both inside and outside A, OR
belongs neither inside nor outside A, and the dilemma is unresolveable within
system A. Undecideability. And thus, since some statements are undecideable
with regard to their status relative to system A, that system must remain
incomplete. The bottom falls out, and mathematics is revealed as a Zen Koan.
This actually is a powerful argument against a deity with the attributes generally
prescribed in patriarchal (or any other form of) monotheism; for Godel proved
that any entity capable of self-reference could be infallible only if it were
incomplete, and complete only if it included error. EITHER correctness OR
completeness, but not the both-and that monotheistic deity-definitions demand.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ben" <ben@machinegod.org>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 9:44 PM
> Subject: Re: virus: Kirk: Standing my ground
>
>
> > That reminds me - Joe brought up the point that god could not be both
> > omnipresent and omniscient, because one requires an external frame of
> > reference relevant to an object to be properly 'scient' of it. Following
> > that line, it is then impossible for us, being within the Universe, to
> > properly comprehend same, is it not?
> >
> > -ben
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 6:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: virus: Kirk: Standing my ground
> >
> >
> > On 25 Jan 2002 at 18:03, Bill Roh wrote:
> >
> > > This is not a correction to Joe - but it is a way to think around Joe.
> Our
> > > Universe exists. We know that. Because it exists, one cannot rule out
> that
> > it has
> > > not happened before - seperately or will elsewhere. (even though there
> is
> > no
> > > elsewhere - I know it's tough to grapple with). The problem is that we
> > cannot use
> > > our notions of time and place to describe it. If there are other
> Universes
> > there
> > > is no way to get there from here - exchange energy - or to even be aware
> > of their
> > > existence. Instead of thinking of the Universe as all that is, think of
> it
> > as all
> > > there is and all we could, at the best, ever know.
> > >
> > Right.
> > If there were any kind of effect or transfer from 'one' to the 'other',
> > 'they'
> > would have to be considered as components of the single universe, by
> > definition, for universe means one world, or all that is the case.
> > For this reason, speculation concerning same is destined to be forever
> > sterile and unproductive.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 25 Jan 2002 at 16:45, David Hill wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Couldn't the God add energy from outside AND remove similar energy.
> > Just
> > > > > moving things around from an orthagonal direction as it were. If
> this
> > was
> > > > > done, we the observers looking for second law violations couldn't
> tell
> > if
> > > > > the 2nd law had been violated (say on a microscopic scale) and
> > therefore it
> > > > > wouldn't have been. If God causes a 2nd law violation and nobody
> > notices,
> > > > > did it really happen? I know, I know it's old but it's a goodie.
> > > > >
> > > > Universe means never getting to say 'outside'.
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On
> > Behalf
> > > > > Of ben
> > > > > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 3:32 PM
> > > > > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: virus: Kirk: Standing my ground
> > > > >
> > > > > <SNIP and I don't know what proper SNIPPING conventions are. I did
> > like
> > > > > Hermit's idea of mechanizing it, but can he get the project funded?>
> > > > >
> > > > > [Bill 0] Divine intervention would violate the 2nd law of
> > thermodynamics
> > > > >
> > > > > [ben 0] I don't follow that this is true.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Bill 1] It would voilate the 2nd because it means that energy from
> > outside
> > > > > the
> > > > > universe would be input into this universe. Which means that there
> > would be
> > > > > a
> > > > > surplus and a march away from entropy.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT