From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut

It doesn't matter what we are talking about.

The implication that you can't prove something to be true until there's an example of it not being true is paradoxical.

Perhaps, although it sounds paradoxical, there is a reason for such paradoxes to exist in reality when one tries to prove an apparently consistent and complete system:

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

The zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is: "If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other". We have never observed any exceptions to this rule and cannot concieve of how an exception might occur. So a valid alternate thesis cannot be proposed and this means that we cannot "falsify" the theory - we cannot test its validity against an alternate. Because we cannot empirically test this theory, it is an assumption.

The first Law of Thermodynamics is: "When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy". Again, no antithesis can be proposed. As it is unfalsifiable, it is therefore untestable in that regard and, therefore, an assumption.

the user below very neatly puts that issue to rest.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut

The implication that you can't prove something to be true until there's an example of it not being true is paradoxical.

originally posted by: chr0naut

That still leaves two fundamental and foundational "laws" which are assumptive.

But I'm sure you know that and were just trolling.

they are 'assumptive' because they are consistent and substantiated in every place we have looked and tested and recorded? and you would have professionals 'confirm' these laws by locating an instance in which these laws do not apply?

....riiiiiiiight. and im the troll.

Please review my previous post and the linked lecture.

I'm truly not trolling.

Until one can produce a falsifiable alternate thesis, one cannot determine if a system is consistent and complete.

It remains an unproven and unprovable assumption while there is no antithesis.

a reply to: chr0naut

If there were only laws and consistency that ruled life everything would be boxed there wouldn't be peaks and valleys or any movement on a tangent would be an impossibility as everything would have to move in the same direction where predictability would cease to exist and just be a given without any reason to question or diverge as such a thing would be an impossibility... where everything was cornered in.

There is a reason every single thing is cyclical and seen to be from any single point of relative perspective... not just matter but also energy... of course energy flows the path of least resistance even if it means over a larger distance.

The more we resist nature in attempting to replace it to form our own existence the more resistance to it there seems to be if not in the individual then in the group itself... such as religion impeding science when both are seen as extremes of each other.

Natural processes handle them-self planets without life still churn on the same natural processes same as solar bodies... life itself could be said to be an interference altering natural processes itself... but the paradox to that is there is absolutely no action that life does in whatever form that is un-natural... the universe has made every single atomic combination possible at some point in time and will continue to do so.

Of course what we think and believe or know can be moot to the entire process that occurs there's no need for intelligence to do such things a spark in a moment a tiny flash of light in the dark could be humanity over the entire universe known and unknown... yet it seems to mean so very much to life because we are attached to life itself... what we make it out to be and think about it, and what is wrong with that except when it seeks to destroy something that cannot be destroyed.

Like the atomic particulate recombining in any possible re-iteration on it's own... in the short time humanity has existed on earth? People have boxed themselves due to self imposed limitations of various kinds and due to that keep repeating the same tropes or frameworks as many many others have take away the names places and faces all throughout time and people have repeated the same things or life many times over exactly like others have... so life lives on a curve despite having or attempting to continually box it in.

To me that's the magic... no matter what form it takes life is life beyond any belief or what we claim it or know it to be, using ones form to make some magic is what I call grace dealing with reality as it continually arises in the awareness of being not escaping from it not fencing it in because it's an impossibility when not seen as simply form... no woo needed.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

The zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is: "If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other". We have never observed any exceptions to this rule and cannot concieve of how an exception might occur. So a valid alternate thesis cannot be proposed and this means that we cannot "falsify" the theory - we cannot test its validity against an alternate. Because we cannot empirically test this theory, it is an assumption.

The first Law of Thermodynamics is: "When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy". Again, no antithesis can be proposed. As it is unfalsifiable, it is therefore untestable in that regard and, therefore, an assumption.

the user below very neatly puts that issue to rest.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut

The implication that you can't prove something to be true until there's an example of it not being true is paradoxical.

originally posted by: chr0naut

That still leaves two fundamental and foundational "laws" which are assumptive.

But I'm sure you know that and were just trolling.

they are 'assumptive' because they are consistent and substantiated in every place we have looked and tested and recorded? and you would have professionals 'confirm' these laws by locating an instance in which these laws do not apply?

....riiiiiiiight. and im the troll.

Please review my previous post and the linked lecture.

I'm truly not trolling.

Until one can produce a falsifiable alternate thesis, one cannot determine if a system is consistent and complete.

It remains an unproven and unprovable assumption while there is no antithesis.

in this context godels incompleteness theorem is just a god of the gaps fallacy with a few more steps added. gaps = incompleteness. insert your square deity in this round crevice. interestingly this theorem goes on to say "The second incompleteness theorem states that number theory cannot be used to prove its own consistency." is this an allusion to the circular logic that we see so often? as a matter of curiosity, do you by chance happen to have a falsifiable alternate thesis for intelligent design?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

The zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is: "If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other". We have never observed any exceptions to this rule and cannot concieve of how an exception might occur. So a valid alternate thesis cannot be proposed and this means that we cannot "falsify" the theory - we cannot test its validity against an alternate. Because we cannot empirically test this theory, it is an assumption.

The first Law of Thermodynamics is: "When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy". Again, no antithesis can be proposed. As it is unfalsifiable, it is therefore untestable in that regard and, therefore, an assumption.

the user below very neatly puts that issue to rest.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut

The implication that you can't prove something to be true until there's an example of it not being true is paradoxical.

originally posted by: chr0naut

That still leaves two fundamental and foundational "laws" which are assumptive.

But I'm sure you know that and were just trolling.

they are 'assumptive' because they are consistent and substantiated in every place we have looked and tested and recorded? and you would have professionals 'confirm' these laws by locating an instance in which these laws do not apply?

....riiiiiiiight. and im the troll.

Please review my previous post and the linked lecture.

I'm truly not trolling.

Until one can produce a falsifiable alternate thesis, one cannot determine if a system is consistent and complete.

It remains an unproven and unprovable assumption while there is no antithesis.

in this context godels incompleteness theorem is just a god of the gaps fallacy with a few more steps added. gaps = incompleteness. insert your square deity in this round crevice. interestingly this theorem goes on to say "The second incompleteness theorem states that number theory cannot be used to prove its own consistency." is this an allusion to the circular logic that we see so often? as a matter of curiosity, do you by chance happen to have a falsifiable alternate thesis for intelligent design?

You seem to be assuming that there is a reasonable and logical outcome of science that is self-explanatory and consistent. Incompeteness (both theories) shows that this state of affairs cannot exist. You cannot have a self-referential and consistent system that is provably so.

Incompleteness offers no gap-filler, instead it says that you cannot be sure you have filled all gaps - ever.

My argument was the insufficiency of science to vouch for itself (an internally self referential proof). Incompleteness cannot be used to prove the existence of God (or otherwise) and I made no attempt to use it for such a purpose.

I do, however, have an antithesis for Intelligent Design:

Firstly, I must define "Intelligent Design" as "that which structures objects and/or processes so that they achieve specific outcomes, under the control of an intelligence similar to human definitions of intelligence, or greater. (I will assume that you are talking about Intelligent Design of the fundamentals of this universe and not the construction of a machine by a human. In other words, a creative God or similar directive principle). I hope this is a sufficient definition for you as It lacks the rigourousness of mathematics or modal logic.

So, my antithesis to such Intelligent Design is: "The mathematical and physical emergent propoerties observable when seeded with random values and no other directive principle" (It is this last stipulation that makes this antithetic to intelligent design because emergence and randomness are not excluded from possible existence within a design directed universe).

So, Intelligent Design is falsifiable and therefore should be testable.

One needs next to design an experiment that works on more than a subjective level, which is the difficult part and, because either side of the argument may reject the outcome irrationally, is no agreement because there is no effective rational response to irrationality.

Summarily, IMHO I don't feel we will ever be able to achieve a scientificly rigourous "proof" that the universe is the outcome of a creator God, or its opposite, that the universe is a massive string of random accidents. Incompleteness is one of the reasons.

a reply to: chr0naut

I looked at the video and it's interesting

Trying to simplify it for myself I think it's saying we don't know what may come next so we can't make any true claims.

Would that be accurate?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut

I looked at the video and it's interesting

Trying to simplify it for myself I think it's saying we don't know what may come next so we can't make any true claims.

Would that be accurate?

But that implies that "whatever comes next" could potentially complete our knowledge. The fact is, even if "whatever comes next" adds to our knowledge, we could never know if our knowledge was complete. Hence the name: "incompleteness" theorems.

Even if we only have partial knowledge now, we do know, because it can be shown, that we will ALWAYS have "incomplete knowledge", in that we cannot know about the "completeness" of our knowlege.

a reply to: chr0naut
OK, I'm happy with that.

But what can we really understand from this? All it seems to do is confuse the issue enough to allow gaps in everything we know to shoehorn a god figure into.

Let's look at Einstein's E=MC2. This is incomplete so we need to add "z" where z is equal to "as far as the information we have so far".

So Ez=MC2z.

Now mathematically the z here can be removed from both sides so we are back to where we started.
By incorporating Godel's theorum I have been able to correct Einsteins theory to E=MC2.

Where is the value beyond trying to confuse the issue?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut
OK, I'm happy with that.

But what can we really understand from this? All it seems to do is confuse the issue enough to allow gaps in everything we know to shoehorn a god figure into.

Let's look at Einstein's E=MC2. This is incomplete so we need to add "z" where z is equal to "as far as the information we have so far".

So Ez=MC2z.

Now mathematically the z here can be removed from both sides so we are back to where we started.
By incorporating Godel's theorum I have been able to correct Einsteins theory to E=MC2.

Where is the value beyond trying to confuse the issue?

Well, in the first place, the 'famous' version of the mass-energy equivalence equation does not account for Photons which have energy, but zero rest mass.

The equation: E^2 = (mc^2 )^2 + (pc)^2

- where p is momentum, is a more complete form and accounts for massless particles such as Photons.

Einstein himself never used E=mC^2 in any of his scientific papers, his first use of it was in the title of an article in "Science Illustrated" magazine in 1946, 41 years after his paper "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?" proposed a derivation of the full mass-energy equivalence equation.

Which is actually, totally beside the point, but I included it to show that science as popularly percieved, is different than 'hard' science.

Equations are powerful because of what they can explain in maintaining their balance, in terms of equality. Adding the same term to both sides really adds nothing to the explanatory power of the equation, so, there's that.

In your equation you used the z value to equal "as far as the information we have so far". This is not actually definitive of the incompleteness theorems (although it may be encompassed within its possible consequences). Incompleteness applies regardless of time and therefore "future knowledge".

Incompleteness would be more along the lines of saying that A = A exclusively (i.e: that nothing else EVER equals A) and tying to prove it using A for reference. No matter how hard you try, there is always a possibility that A = some other unreferenced term. This is different than a denial that A = A. Including "as far as the information we have so far"; because we can never have information that we will never have and incompleteness still applies in all those possible situations, too.

Incompleteness does not fill the gaps. Like the popular science (I'll call it 'popsci' from now on) idea of mass-energy equivalence is not the full story, the popsci idea that we will achieve a consistent and complete knowledge through science is simply wrong.

My initial point was science is a particular tool. There are things it cannot do. The popsci inference is that science is the only and best tool for gaining knowledge. It hasn't been in the past, it isn't now and it will never be in the future.

None of that has anything to do with God.

I only brought up Gödel's ontological argument because someone repeated the popsci untruth that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

Gödel's ontological argument is a proof in mathematical terms and addresses itself to the existence of such a being. It (the argument) exists!

There are many other things that stand as possible evidences (more or less) for God's existence.

I will make no speculation on the relative strength or weaknesses of the ontological argument except to suggest that it has not either been fully proven, nor fully rebutted.

I will point out that the same absence of evidence for the existence of God, erroneously suggested by the popsci atheist proponents, is precicely the basis of the atheist argument.

If they had evidence to support their case, then their case would have rational and objective support. Since they have no evidence, their case is unfounded in rationalism.

They don't seem to have the intellectual integrity to apply the same evidential criteria to themselves that they apply to theists.

Theirs is not an intellectually superior position.

a reply to: chr0naut

OK, maybe I didn't get it then.
It just seems if we have to account for all possibilities including the ones we have no reason to believe exist the process of learning will be slowed considerably.

We basically get to anything's possible and every theory is equal to every other.
It seems best to stick with what we know and work off that.

Regarding the popsci guys, I'm pretty sure they would all agree that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Even Dawkins says he's technically agnostic. For myself I prefer atheist who could be wrong, I think that's more accurate.

Perhaps one day you will find proof that god doesn't exist so you can confirm that he does.
Hopefully the same day I find proof of god and confirm my atheism true.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut

OK, maybe I didn't get it then.
It just seems if we have to account for all possibilities including the ones we have no reason to believe exist the process of learning will be slowed considerably.

We basically get to anything's possible and every theory is equal to every other.
It seems best to stick with what we know and work off that.

Regarding the popsci guys, I'm pretty sure they would all agree that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Even Dawkins says he's technically agnostic. For myself I prefer atheist who could be wrong, I think that's more accurate.

Perhaps one day you will find proof that god doesn't exist so you can confirm that he does.
Hopefully the same day I find proof of god and confirm my atheism true.

While I agree that an absence of evidence would not tell us much, one must ask the question; 'what absence of evidence?'

Consider:
- There are ontological arguments of various kinds.
- There are empirical arguments of several kinds.
- There are those who claim to have direct revelation of God.
- There is the peculiar improbablility and complexity in the arrangement of just about everything that we observe.
- A case can be made fo intelligent direction of superfine variables, probably extending towards intelligent design.
- There are arguments, such as the anthropic principle. Which suggest our niche fits, because it was made to.
- There is an intrinsic moral law so basic that we all make appeal to it and can expect to be understood.
- There are questions of 'first cause' which are unanswered (unanswerable?) by science.
- We are challenged by concepts of God. We have a drive to either find, or deny, God.

Of course there are counter arguments to these, but they do exist and are evidential. Denial is irrational.

A proof that God doesn't exist would still stand. As a proof that God exists, would stand. They would not prove their opposite but they could be used to devise a test for the case.

That is a misunderstanding of incompleteness. It does not make a determination about topics of knowledge, instead it exposes a limitation upon what we can know.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Consider:
- There are ontological arguments of various kinds.
- There are empirical arguments of several kinds.
- There are those who claim to have direct revelation of God.
- There is the peculiar improbablility and complexity in the arrangement of just about everything that we observe.
- A case can be made fo intelligent direction of superfine variables, probably extending towards intelligent design.
- There are arguments, such as the anthropic principle. Which suggest our niche fits, because it was made to.
- There is an intrinsic moral law so basic that we all make appeal to it and can expect to be understood.
- There are questions of 'first cause' which are unanswered (unanswerable?) by science.
- We are challenged by concepts of God. We have a drive to either find, or deny, God.

Of course there are counter arguments to these, but they do exist and are evidential. Denial is irrational.

If denial of the arguments is irrational, surely denial of the counter arguments is equally irrational.
Once again we are back to "anything is possible".

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: chr0naut
Consider:
- There are ontological arguments of various kinds.
- There are empirical arguments of several kinds.
- There are those who claim to have direct revelation of God.
- There is the peculiar improbablility and complexity in the arrangement of just about everything that we observe.
- A case can be made fo intelligent direction of superfine variables, probably extending towards intelligent design.
- There are arguments, such as the anthropic principle. Which suggest our niche fits, because it was made to.
- There is an intrinsic moral law so basic that we all make appeal to it and can expect to be understood.
- There are questions of 'first cause' which are unanswered (unanswerable?) by science.
- We are challenged by concepts of God. We have a drive to either find, or deny, God.

Of course there are counter arguments to these, but they do exist and are evidential. Denial is irrational.

If denial of the arguments is irrational, surely denial of the counter arguments is equally irrational.
Once again we are back to "anything is possible".

Both the arguments, and their counter arguments, exist, therefore it is the denial of their existence that is irrational.

The specifics of the arguments (which may, or may not, be true) are something different.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut

OK, maybe I didn't get it then.
It just seems if we have to account for all possibilities including the ones we have no reason to believe exist the process of learning will be slowed considerably.

We basically get to anything's possible and every theory is equal to every other.
It seems best to stick with what we know and work off that.

Regarding the popsci guys, I'm pretty sure they would all agree that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Even Dawkins says he's technically agnostic. For myself I prefer atheist who could be wrong, I think that's more accurate.

Perhaps one day you will find proof that god doesn't exist so you can confirm that he does.
Hopefully the same day I find proof of god and confirm my atheism true.

While I agree that an absence of evidence would not tell us much, one must ask the question; 'what absence of evidence?'

Consider:
- There are ontological arguments of various kinds.
- There are empirical arguments of several kinds.
- There are those who claim to have direct revelation of God.
- There is the peculiar improbablility and complexity in the arrangement of just about everything that we observe.
- A case can be made fo intelligent direction of superfine variables, probably extending towards intelligent design.
- There are arguments, such as the anthropic principle. Which suggest our niche fits, because it was made to.
- There is an intrinsic moral law so basic that we all make appeal to it and can expect to be understood.
- There are questions of 'first cause' which are unanswered (unanswerable?) by science.
- We are challenged by concepts of God. We have a drive to either find, or deny, God.

Of course there are counter arguments to these, but they do exist and are evidential. Denial is irrational.

A proof that God doesn't exist would still stand. As a proof that God exists, would stand. They would not prove their opposite but they could be used to devise a test for the case.

That is a misunderstanding of incompleteness. It does not make a determination about topics of knowledge, instead it exposes a limitation upon what we can know.

Sorry for my ignorance but what empirical evidence are you referring to? I would be fascinated to see it.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

YEah ....nah, don't come near my chemical plant thanks

originally posted by: chr0naut
Both the arguments, and their counter arguments, exist, therefore it is the denial of their existence that is irrational.

The specifics of the arguments (which may, or may not, be true) are something different.

Can you show me an example of an Atheist who doesn't believe that theists can make a case for the existence of god?

The top 3 popsci atheists I would say are Hitchins,Krauss and Dawkins.
All of them have entered religious debates so they cannot (and haven't) say that there are no arguments.

What they say is that they are unconvincing.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
The top 3 popsci atheists I would say are Hitchins,Krauss and Dawkins.
All of them have entered religious debates so they cannot (and haven't) say that there are no arguments.

What they say is that they are unconvincing.

Bingo. The arguments (ontological or otherwise) can never be linked to objective evidence. Nobody is denying that the arguments exist. People are saying they don't prove anything objectively and that they rely on numerous assumptions. The arguments themselves aren't enough to prove anything. People can make arguments for almost anything including flat earth, fake gravity and space being water. It would be ridiculous to proclaim that since the arguments have been made, that they hold weight or become an equal part of knowledge as science and verifiable objective evidence. They don't.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: chr0naut
Both the arguments, and their counter arguments, exist, therefore it is the denial of their existence that is irrational.

The specifics of the arguments (which may, or may not, be true) are something different.

Can you show me an example of an Atheist who doesn't believe that theists can make a case for the existence of god?

The top 3 popsci atheists I would say are Hitchins,Krauss and Dawkins.
All of them have entered religious debates so they cannot (and haven't) say that there are no arguments.

What they say is that they are unconvincing.

That may be true, but that does not imply that the antithetical arguments are more convincing.

a reply to: chr0naut
Neither arguments are convincing, either for or against God.

It's no different to the arguments for/against Bigfoot.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: chr0naut
Both the arguments, and their counter arguments, exist, therefore it is the denial of their existence that is irrational.

The specifics of the arguments (which may, or may not, be true) are something different.

Can you show me an example of an Atheist who doesn't believe that theists can make a case for the existence of god?

The top 3 popsci atheists I would say are Hitchins,Krauss and Dawkins.
All of them have entered religious debates so they cannot (and haven't) say that there are no arguments.

What they say is that they are unconvincing.

That may be true, but that does not imply that the antithetical arguments are more convincing.

it does, actually. it implies that these arguments are not convincing because these scientists have already encountered a convincing argument. they have spent decades studying the nature of what is compelling evidence and what is not compelling evidence and perfecting the process of deriving data via experimentation and observation. its unfortunate if YOU are not convinced, but it is certainly not a deal breaker.