Originally posted by menace71Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved that every system that could be enclosed within a circle depended on something different outside the circle that you have to assume but you can not prove. This means that there are always more things that are true than you can prove and any system of belief, reasoning, and logic requires faith in something unproven.
Too many videos
Give us the gist
Manny
Therefore, if you consider the universe as being within the circle, then it depends on something different that must be assumed, but can not be proved, that is outside the circle. So what is outside the circle containing the entire universe can be inferred by knowing what has been enclosed within the circle. What is outside the circle must be different from what is enclosed within the circle.
Therefore, there can be no mathematical formula that can explain everything, because there will always be something that can't be included in the formula that must be assumed, but can not be proven.
Just look at the last summary video then.
The Instructor
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWrong.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved that every system that could be enclosed within a circle depended on something different outside the circle that you have to assume but you can not prove. ....
Therefore,.........................................................
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are confusing the map and the territory.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved that every system that could be enclosed within a circle depended on something different outside the circle that you have to assume but you can not prove. This means that there are always more things that are true than you can prove and any system of belief, reasoning, and logic requires faith in something unproven.
...[text shortened]... assumed, but can not be proven.
Just look at the last summary video then.
The Instructor
Even if what you said was true, the fact that we can't KNOW everything about the
universe without assumptions we can't prove, does not mean that the universe
itself requires anything outside of itself.
Our map of reality is not reality itself.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYes, the universe requires something outside itself and that is what Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves. Check out the videos, if you don't believe me.
You are confusing the map and the territory.
Even if what you said was true, the fact that we can't KNOW everything about the
universe without assumptions we can't prove, does not mean that the universe
itself requires anything outside of itself.
Our map of reality is not reality itself.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsWhether this is valid or not, it is not reasonable to use this as justification for believing your particular creation myth.
Yes, the universe requires something outside itself and that is what Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves. Check out the videos, if you don't believe me.
The Instructor.
--- Penguin.
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by PenguinThe creation account in the Holy Bible that I believe has yet to be proven wrong, so I am justified in teaching the truth regardless of your belief in the evilution myth, which has been proven wrong.
Whether this is valid or not, it is not reasonable to use this as justification for believing your particular creation myth.
--- Penguin.
The Holy Bibly account has remained unchanged since it was written, while the evilution myth had to undergo many changes in its definition as the lies have been exposed. I doubt it can survive much longer under the assault of the Intelligent Design movement. Eventually I believe even the courts will see through the deception and stop protecting evilution as the only idea of origins of species that is allowed to be taught in certain public schools. Evilution is being exposed as the deception that it really is; it is being exposed as just a hoax and a big lie.
So I believe it is very reasonable for me to use truth to expose this lie of evilution and I am justified in believing the creation account in the Holy Bible, which has remained truth from the day it was recorded.
The Instructor
Originally posted by menace71Why not? I've seen cartoons where even more improbable things can happen. So why not a lighting bolt lighting up the inevitably complex eyes of a potentially evolvable polecat squating in a potpourrie of potentially pre-life giving pot of primordial potroast?
I see......That what we see now came from outside of what we see.....information came from outside the system so to speak. What I find funny is we are expected to believe something as complex as DNA just assembled itself. A lighting bolt stuck a puddle and well the rest is history 🙂
Manny
I have to go now. For some reason talking about evolution at the spirituality board is making me very hungry.
29 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeLOL me too
Why not? I've seen cartoons where even more improbable things can happen. So why not a lighting bolt lighting up the inevitably complex eyes of a potentially evolvable polecat squating in a potpourrie of potentially pre-life giving pot of primordial potroast?
I have to go now. For some reason talking about evolution at the spirituality board is making me very hungry.
Manny
29 Jul 13
Originally posted by PenguinSpirituality is not exclusive. It it able to take questions and methods of philosophy and science into account, whereas science has relegated itself to being strictly a tool for examining natural phenomenon. It wasn't always this way, but if you ask any atheist he will confirm this is the way it is now... he might even tell you it has always been this way, but then he would be lying or speaking from ignorance.
Whether this is valid or not, it is not reasonable to use this as justification for believing your particular creation myth.
--- Penguin.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeSo says the expert in speaking from ignorance.
Spirituality is not exclusive. It it able to take questions and methods of philosophy and science into account, whereas science has relegated itself to being strictly a tool for examining natural phenomenon. It wasn't always this way, but if you ask any atheist he will confirm this is the way it is now... he might even tell you it has always been this way, but then he would be lying or speaking from ignorance.
How about you actually ask us atheists what we think rather than make up
strawman bull**** versions of what we think.
However while we are on the subject...
Science is the rational study of the reality we live in... Whatever the nature of
that reality.
Show me a supernatural phenomena for science to study and then we can
see if sciences methods are up to it.
Till then, natural phenomena are all there is.