The idea or the person

Originally posted by moonbus
Read Kurt Goedel, also Immaneul Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's all about limits of provability.

Your mother loved you. One cannot prove that sort of thing. And it was important.

For anyone who reads the Bible, or any sacred writing for that matter, at any level beyond the literal factual--which is after all the most primitive and least fruitful- ...[text shortened]... at the allegorical, poetical, moral, or mystical level, the question of its truth becomes moot.

I wonder about Godel's theorems. What they state is that in a system of arithmetic that is capable of making statements about the provability of it's own sentences and is sufficiently complicated there are sentences whose truth cannot be proven. The second theorem states that some systems cannot prove their own consistency. It's the second theorem that does the real damage, since no one really cares about sentences to the effect of: "This sentence is true but can't be proved to be true", and most systems are complicated enough to trigger the second theorem. I think what Godel's theorems are really telling us is something about the limitations of formal languages, and by implication informal ones. So I wonder about the possibility of generating a "proof" of some statement relying on some technique not involving strings of symbols to represent theorems. Basically it would have to evade diagonal arguments.

Originally posted by moonbus
Are you saying that one can know only what can be proven?

You said the truth of a claim is prior. I say meaning is prior. If you don’t know what something means, you don’t know what would be true if it were true. Sacred literature is an idiom especially rich in layers of meaning. Just because you don’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. You are like a tone deaf person listening to Mozart and decrying it for sounding dull.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that statement - although the simile at the end is entertaining. Given a collection of symbols and rules to manipulate them one can generate statements like ¬PvP which don't have any particular meaning but are nevertheless true, in the sense that if P is given any meaning the resultant meaningful sentence will be true. So if P is "I will win this game of chess." ¬PvP will mean "Either I will not win this chess game or I will win this chess game". What I'm getting at is that one can assign truth before meaning. So I'm hoping you'll expand a little on what you mean by "meaning is prior".

Originally posted by DeepThought
I wonder about Godel's theorems. What they state is that in a system of arithmetic that is capable of making statements about the provability of it's own sentences and is sufficiently complicated there are sentences whose truth cannot be proven. The second theorem states that some systems cannot prove their own consistency. It's the second theorem tha ...[text shortened]... strings of symbols to represent theorems. Basically it would have to evade diagonal arguments.

Yes, you are right; Goedel's theorems apply to formal systems at the same order of complexity as arithmetic. He showed that certain theorems are known to be true but cannot be proven arithmetically, They can be proven if higher level mathematical theorems than arithmetic are introduced; but then you will have other theorems in that more complicated system which cannot be proven without introducing still other theorems.

We see a practical corollary of this in computational science: no computer program can be written which can determine whether any other given program involves an infinite loop. If there is an infinite loop in the second program, then the first program will infinitely loop trying to figure out whether the second one is infinitely looping.

It is a principle of general philosophical significance, that we cannot know a priori, that all truths are provable. Truth and provability part ways at some point, even if you move the point back a step, it re-appears later on.

Originally posted by moonbus

For anyone who reads the Bible, or any sacred writing for that matter, at any level beyond the literal factual--which is after all the most primitive and least fruitful--for anyone who delves into sacred literature at the allegorical, poetical, moral, or mystical level, the question of its truth becomes moot.

I don't agree with this moonbus.

The New Testament teaches that Jesus is alive and available.
Alive and Available to be known, experienced and enjoyed is extremely practical to us in every arena of life.

The epistles are full of practicality.
How Christ can be enjoyed and applied is dealt with extensively.

You seemed to suggest Buddhism and Yoga alone were about practical techniques to get into their truth claims. Well you have had for centuries a denomination called "Methodism" which is just as much about such things in the process of "sanctification."

Originally posted by moonbus
Are you saying that one can know only what can be proven?

You said the truth of a claim is prior. I say meaning is prior. If you don’t know what something means, you don’t know what would be true if it were true. Sacred literature is an idiom especially rich in layers of meaning. Just because you don’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. You are like a tone deaf person listening to Mozart and decrying it for sounding dull.

Are you saying that one can know only what can be proven?

Propositional knowledge is defined as a "Justified, True, Belief" [I include the Gettier condition in the justification]

If you cannot prove a proposition to whatever sufficiently high standard is relevant or required
then you do not know that that proposition is true.

Therefore you cannot know [or claim to know] what you* cannot prove.

*I don't mean that you personally need prove everything to claim to know it, you can be sufficiently
justified to claim knowledge in cases where other people have proven the claim. Which is how science
generally works.

You said the truth of a claim is prior. I say meaning is prior. If you don’t know what something means,
you don’t know what would be true if it were true

I say gibberish you speak, convey meaning you do not.

Sacred literature is an idiom especially rich in layers of meaning. Just because you don’t see them doesn’t
mean they aren’t there.

I didn't say there was no meaning. I said their was no value [that cannot be replicated or bettered by secular
means/groups/people].

I also said that truth still matters, and that wibbling about 'meaning' doesn't change that.

You can find a holy book as meaningful as you like, but it still matters if it's claim and values are true and valid.

Originally posted by sonship

For anyone who reads the Bible, or any sacred writing for that matter, at any level beyond the literal factual--which is after all the most primitive and least fruitful--for anyone who delves into sacred literature at the allegorical, poetical, moral, or mystical level, the question of its truth becomes moot.

I don't agree with this moonb ...[text shortened]... n called "Methodism" which is just as much about such things in the process of "sanctification."

No, you've missed the point. Christianity becomes pretty meaningless if Jesus is not the Son of God. Buddhism still retains relevance even if there is no cycle of death and rebirth. Also I think moonbus was giving examples that were not to be taken as exhaustive.

Originally posted by moonbus
Yes, you are right; Goedel's theorems apply to formal systems at the same order of complexity as arithmetic. He showed that certain theorems are known to be true but cannot be proven arithmetically, They can be proven if higher level mathematical theorems than arithmetic are introduced; but then you will have other theorems in that more complic ...[text shortened]... ability part ways at some point, even if you move the point back a step, it re-appears later on.

One way is to include the unprovable statement as an axiom, but as you say the new theory then has its own Godel sentence. The main point of my post, other than to acknowledge yours is to see if this works:

[url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-provability/]The page on provability logic on the Stanford Philosophy website[/url]

Edit: to which the answer is no, although YouTube links can be made in this way.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No, you've missed the point. Christianity becomes pretty meaningless if Jesus is not the Son of God. Buddhism still retains relevance even if there is no cycle of death and rebirth. Also I think moonbus was giving examples that were not to be taken as exhaustive.

A significant number of people find meaning in Christianity without believing that Jesus is the Son of God. In fact that particular claim is not even in the doctrine of some denominations, but I am referring to people who call themselves Christian, attend Christian Churches, but do not believe all the doctrine their denomination promotes. There are for example self proclaimed atheist bishops.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Prove to me that anyone HAS seen an alien space craft.

Prove to me that there ARE alien space craft for them to have seen.


I don't know what your point is supposed to be, but the way people form beliefs
about the existence of Alien Spacecraft as being the explanation for UFO's is
essentially identical to, and as flawed as, the way people form beliefs about gods.

You say this only because YOU have never seen a UFO.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Do you think this might be because most academicians are overwhelmingly atheist?

Nope. This is not the sciences where atheism is in the majority.
This is in the Humanities, specifically we are talking about historians specialising in the study of
Jesus and Christianity. Where the majority are/and have been Christians.

Atheists are indeed numerous in (some of) the Humanities as well. Across all 'high-level' academia, the atheism level has to be >50%.

The ones whose root IS in Science (archaeology, psychology) have the most, to be sure. But atheists also abound in any field of study where the 'facts' are somewhat 'cut and dried'. Like History.

And again, don't you suppose that 'peer review' has an 'antiseptic' effect here, keeping out blatant religious opinion? Indeed, just how far could an 'up-and-coming' historian expect to go if he writes about Jesus being the 'Son of God'?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Oh good grief.

"if [b]you want to get ahead in life you need to..."
'You' not applying to a specific person

"Getting elected mayor will not make you rich"
'You' not applying to a specific person

"If you're the President you get to ride in Air Force One"
Do you need to be the president for this to make sense?


Unless this ...[text shortened]... en.
Even if the one making the quote happened to be one.


Go back to school the lot of you.[/b]

The use of 'you' as plural does not reduce the accuracy of my statement that, in this case, 'him' was the proper word to avoid any confusion. Even use of the word 'one' leaves it up to the reader to decide who it applied to.

'You' is singular and plural, specific and general, depending on context. In this case, it was completely unknowable from context which you meant. Granted, some forum users depend on this quirk of English, but I don't place you in this category, just so you know.

You say that evidence is on the claimant. I am saying that making sure one is understood is on the one seeking to be understood.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The bigger problem is that, given we have no credible evidence at all for Alien Spacecraft visiting us
and Alien Spacecraft secretly visiting us without being detected or leaving credible evidence is
unbelievably improbable. It is not rationally justifiable to believe that Alien Spacecraft are actually
visiting us.

And this is true even if Alien ...[text shortened]... cord for success that far exceeds the success rate of people earning a living
through working]

Comparing God to the lottery.

Now I've heard it all.

Originally posted by DeepThought
To my mild pride I worked out what the Americans were up to with UFO's before they admitted to it. They officially denied and unofficially encouraged flying saucer stories in order to cover up their stealth bomber program. Which is a ruse I have great admiration for, that one was quite clever.

It's that Alien spacecraft can get here at all that is i ...[text shortened]... entioned that Suzianne does claim blind faith, although I don't get that from most of her posts.

RJH is wrong, as he often is.


And, just so you know, I, too, do not believe that UFOs are alien spacecraft. The distances involved are too great, unless someone, somewhere has developed a FTL drive, which, in our current science, is completely impossible. I believe there are some UFO reports that describe classified military hardware, so your post is essentially correct, in my opinion. You know, except for the 'blind faith' part.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You say this only because YOU have never seen a UFO.

First, just to be clear. A UFO, is an Unidentified Flying Object.

There are, and have been, Objects that were Flying that were or are Unidentified.

However to date there has been presented absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any of these
Unidentified objects were Alien Spacecraft.

Secondly, that is not at all why I don't believe that we are being visited by Alien Spacecraft.

I gave a much longer explanation half way down page 11 of this thread.

Hmmm.

If they are basically limited to the laws of physics as we know them, and don't have currently impossible
reaction-less drives/anti-gravity/FTL etc. Then they cannot in any practical way sneak up on us.

If they have reaction drives capable of accelerating a space craft up to any significant fraction of light speed
and they fired those engine up to slow down they would be naked eye visible from outside the solar system
and set of every nuclear bomb detection system and sensitive astronomical equipment we have.

If they come in slower and accelerate only very gently, they are still likely to get spotted in infra-red full sky
surveys long before they actually get here. If they are in orbit, they would struggle not to be naked eye visible
like all the actual satellites up there. And find it even harder to evade all the radars and other detection systems
we have for orbiting objects.

And then they have to re-enter the atmosphere.

if they use their engines to slow down to avoid compressive heating then we are back to setting off all our detection
systems as the atmosphere scintillates to their nuclear drive system.

If they use a heat shield and drag to slow down then they are dumping small to medium nuclear bomb yield levels
of kinetic energy into the atmosphere... which is, again, hard to miss.

They then have to fly their spacecraft around in the atmosphere without being detected by radar, or photographed,
or creating any sound...

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#nostealth

Now you can get around these problems by inventing new technologies that require new physics that is different
from our current best theories but still agrees with all the currently made observations...

But such technologies are only possibly possible, and are by definition highly implausible given our current knowledge.



Which leaves you with invisible undetectable alien space ships either being impossible. Or possibly possible but
exceptionally improbable.

And that's before you even start trying to figure out WHY aliens might make the trip all the way here just to secretly
pop in and anally-probe some Alabama farmer... 😉

And Thirdly.

Just 'seeing' something as improbable as an Alien Spacecraft is not sufficient to be justifiably convinced that they
exist. You need something much stronger than that to justify such an extraordinary claim.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you had read on you would have seen that I said she thinks of her blind faith as a badge of honor. Then in a couple of posts later i correct my first sentence indicating I left out the word "NOT" because of my faulty keyboard. 😏

I didn't see your post correcting yourself, either. My apologies, Ron.