is it possible to find God by reason?

[Lerxst]

It doesn't really. I just find that while it can't really be refuted logically the BIAJ proposition is untenable.

Why is it untenable? Not trying to be thickheaded here, just trying to understand just why you say this. If it is just the issue of it being one of essentially infinite explanations, then I see your point, although I'm not sure I agree with how you interpret this. Is there anything more?

 

[Raithere]

Actually, just to be more accurate - something that is infinitesimally small EQUALS zero.

Mathematical proof:

Technically, no. Infinity isn't a number; it's a concept.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html
http://www.marypat.org/stuff/nylife/010524.html

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

It all seems to have a rather Godelian flavor, no? (I'm not trying to say that this somehow *is* an extension of the Incompleteness Theorem, merely that is is analogous) From within the system, it is is impossible to answer certain questions about the system. The proposition is undecidable. Only by stepping outside the system, into a larger one, can it be answered.

In Godel, Escher, Bach, Hofstadter makes an argument that perhaps we can never know if we are sane or insane, based on a Godelian analogy. I'm gonna have to re-read that, it seems very relevant to this discussion.

Excellent. I agree. In fact I think it's more than analogous.

Sticking with the analogy, we've asked a question that cannot be answered within the system. Now my question (since I've been breaking my brain against Godel and Hofstadter for the last couple of years making slow progress) is what are the implications?

For instance, if we might consider the Universe itself a formal system does this necessarily imply a Meta-Universe? Or might we escape that conundrum through quantum indeterminacy? Or is it merely that the language of formal logic is inherently incomplete and thus it is our question that is flawed and that we need some form of meta-logic? I tend towards the latter but it boggles the mind.

Luckily pragmatism saves me from insanity.

~Raithere

 

[Godless]

Or to put it another way, I am not saying "It is not possible to know anything." I am saying "It is not possible to know certain things."

If it exist, we will soon knonw of it. However a subjective concept such as a god, is unknowable, cause it's basically subjective. There's no credible, objective, emperical evidence yet provided that a god exist or need exist. Well some may make prospesterous, outrageous, (assumptions) that an entity exist outside the universe, and interacts with this universe, is nothing more than wishfull thinking. In other words it's illogical to stipulate the existence of an entity outside the realm of existence period!.

Godless

 

[Lerxst]

If it exist, we will soon knonw of it.

There is no reason to think that everything that exists can be in principle be knowable to *us*. We have imperfect, fallible, finite minds and finite resources and possibly other physical limitations. There may be physical realms that require such high eneries to probe that they are just not technologically feasible to probe, to give you an example.

And given the simulation argument, which is sound, there is always a chance we are just a simulation, in which case there is much that exists that we cannot know about. Nothing illogical about it.

However a subjective concept such as a god, is unknowable, cause it's basically subjective. There's no credible, objective, emperical evidence yet provided that a god exist or need exist. Well some may make prospesterous, outrageous, (assumptions) that an entity exist outside the universe, and interacts with this universe, is nothing more than wishfull thinking. In other words it's illogical to stipulate the existence of an entity outside the realm of existence period!.

I'm not stipulating an entity outside the realm of existence. I am stipulating that there may be entities outside the realm of what we can *know*. To categorically assert that this cannot be possible is hubris.

Moreover, to suggest it is all either strictly knowable or all strictly unknowable is a fallacy. Like just about everything else, there are shades of grey. There are things we can be certain of. There are things we can be reasonably sure of. And then there are undecidable propositions where we just have to say "I don't know."

 

[Lerxst]

This redefines reality to that which can be "known" through experience rather than that which is True. This leads me back to the simpler presumption that there is an external reality that can be known through the senses.

I've been thinking about this.

The BIAJ observes two moons. The evidence for two moons was detected, analyzed, and a conclusion reasonably drawn.

It is true that two moons were observed. The BIAJ really experienced this.

The representation of two moons was actually a part of reality, just as much as the current flowing through my PC's processor is a part of reality.

What the BIAJ observed is part of the truth of the world. But the set of all truths is necessarily much larger than truths he knows. And in this larger set is the truth of the one moon.

I don't see a problem.

Here is another train of thought that just came along:

Consider the set of all truths = A.

Consider the set of all known truths = B.

Clearly A includes B. But can B ever = A?

 

[stretched]

Hi Lerxst,

“Speaking of QM, are you familiar with idea of quantum immortality?”

* I have read bits and pieces on this subject in various books, but not a book solely on the concept itself. I must admit to being quite intrigued and intuitively feeling comfortable with the rationale. If you can point me to specific books or websites I would appreciate that.

 

[qwerty mob]

Consider the set of all truths = A.

Consider the set of all known truths = B.

Clearly A includes B. But can B ever = A?

That's almost a syllogism; the answer can never be found (rather, the answer is unknowable, therefore rigging the truth table). I've used something similar in the past to disprove omniscience before finding better arguments (such as "knowledge must have a vessel"). The earlier point that infinity is a concept, rather than a numeral, applies. I forget the exact name of the "set theorem" which proves it, perhaps another will fill in the blank.

Edit: It's Cantor's Theorem.

If X is any set, then there exists at least one set, the power set of X, which shall be cardinally larger than X

 

[Godless]

There is no reason to think that everything that exists can be in principle be knowable to *us*. We have imperfect, fallible, finite minds and finite resources and possibly other physical limitations.

Speak for yourself, you may be as ingnorant as you are today, for the rest of your life, however if you were to live for the next 10k years, you just may know a bit more, than you know today.

However the rest of humanity is unfathamble how much knowledge the human race will gather in the next few hundreds years, let alone the next 10k years. Thus what I say holds water; IF IT EXISTS WE WILL KNOW OF IT.

Just a few thousands years ago, Greeks stipulated of atoms, today we know it to be fact, atoms exist.

I am stipulating that there may be entities outside the realm of what we can *know*. To categorically assert that this cannot be possible is hubris.

This is gibberish, if entities exist with in the realm of our existence is only a matter of time we will know of it. However I doubt that we will find any intellegent entity with the atributes of a subjective god.

Moreover, to suggest it is all either strictly knowable or all strictly unknowable is a fallacy. Like just about everything else, there are shades of grey. There are things we can be certain of. There are things we can be reasonably sure of. And then there are undecidable propositions where we just have to say "I don't know."

Surely, there are things "We don't know YET!!" But in time all things will be known if they exist, that's our nature, to discover it. In the little time that humans have existed we have barely scratched the surface of knowledge, if for example mysticism were irradicated in the times of Plato & Aristotle our knowledge perhaps would have been further advanced than it's today. If we happen to irradicate mysticism i.e. gods, goblins, demons, etc.. within the next decade, our knowledge would quadruple within the next five years after abolishment of silly notions of gods, and demons.

What I'm trying to say here is that mysticism has had a stagnant effect in human epistemology for the past few milleniums.

Godless

 

[cole grey]

Just a few thousands years ago, Greeks stipulated of atoms, today we know it to be fact, atoms exist...

...What I'm trying to say here is that mysticism has had a stagnant effect in human epistemology for the past few milleniums.

The greeks who suggested this possiblity could have been considered mystics by those who would have said, "but you have no proof that atoms exist".
There have been quite a few ideas that presaged their provability.

EDIT - speaking of Cantor, doesn't the "aleph" (his numerical representation of infinty) count as a number - just as much as a negative number is a number and not a concept? Or is a negative number a concept too? I'm not a mathematician but I thought that his representation of infinity was one of the reasons Cantor is considered one of the big time guys in the field.

 

[Lerxst]

Speak for yourself, you may be as ingnorant as you are today, for the rest of your life, however if you were to live for the next 10k years, you just may know a bit more, than you know today.

Surely I would know significantly more in 10k years. That isn't the point the point is, there may be things I cannot know.

However the rest of humanity is unfathamble how much knowledge the human race will gather in the next few hundreds years, let alone the next 10k years. Thus what I say holds water; IF IT EXISTS WE WILL KNOW OF IT.

A simulated mind running on a computer could say the same thing for the same reasons. But he couldn't ever know the color of the cat sitting next to the computer.

This is gibberish, if entities exist with in the realm of our existence is only a matter of time we will know of it.

It's not gibberish, there is no reason why we can be *certain* of such a thing. Truth is a higher concept than provability.

However I doubt that we will find any intellegent entity with the atributes of a subjective god.

I share your doubt.

Surely, there are things "We don't know YET!!" But in time all things will be known if they exist, that's our nature, to discover it. In the little time that humans have existed we have barely scratched the surface of knowledge, if for example mysticism were irradicated in the times of Plato & Aristotle our knowledge perhaps would have been further advanced than it's today. If we happen to irradicate mysticism i.e. gods, goblins, demons, etc.. within the next decade, our knowledge would quadruple within the next five years after abolishment of silly notions of gods, and demons.

"All things will be known if they exist"... wow, that is quite a positive claim. How do you support it?

What I'm trying to say here is that mysticism has had a stagnant effect in human epistemology for the past few milleniums.

Cannot argue with the fact that mysticism can have bad consequences. I'm not arguing for mysticism. I'm arguing for agnosticism and for at least some degree of philosophical skepticism, that is all.

 

[Lerxst]

Let's spell out the various options regarding truth and knowledge so we can discuss them better.

I'd suggest that one of the following statements must be correct:

1. It is not possible to ever know any truths.

2. It is possible to know all truths.

3. It may not be physically possible for a finite mind to know all truths, but if x is a truth, then x is knowable, for any particular finite set of x's you choose to investigate.

4. It is possible to know some truths but other truths might be inherently unknowable to humans.

----------------------------

Discussion:

1. Is clearly a moronic thing to say, it contradicts itself by asserting itself to be a truth. I don't think any sane person can embrace this perspective. So we shall reject it.

2. I think simply the finite nature of our minds should cause us to be hesistant to make such a bold claim. Also the finite nature of what we can *do*.... No matter how many eVs of energy our latest collider can generate, there will always be one eV more that we cannot physically provide, and hence there may be truths about behaviors at those higher energes that we don't know. Also from a mathematical perspective, we can also build more complex axiomatic systems that will have more and more unreachable truths. It seems to me that there are possibly an infinite number of truths.

3. If you are going to assert the primary efficacy of the human mind, this is probably the stance you want to take. At least it sounds somewhat reasonable, as opposed to (2).

4. This does not posit that there are unknowable truths, simply that there may be unknowable truths. To me, this is the most reasonable statement because it carries the least amount of baggage - I don't have to buy what I consider to be a very controversial premise - namely, that the human mind and it's sensory input are so powerful that they comprise a machine capable of unraveling any particular mystery. I see nothing in human history to suggest making such a bold claim as that.

I believe one should err on the side of caution, that one shouldn't claim to know things he doesn't know, that if unsure, one should admit it. Hence (4).

 

[Raithere]

I mean the universe we know about. A lot of it looks like disorder.

This is where I find one of the primary errors in anthropic and "from design" arguments. The nature of existence itself appears to distill into organizing principles. Forces and laws of nature generate organized and predictable movement, such that chaos and disorder are merely illusory projections out of ignorance. Even the apparently truly chaotic activity on a quantum level is ordered into statistically predictable activity. That we find order in the Universe should pose no mystery when the principle of the Universe is order. In fact, under some cosmological models we might state define the Universe as order.

~Raithere

 

[duendy]

itis patriarhcal mysticism religion and philosophy which has separatred reason from the body. they assumed/assume 'reason=mind' and 'emotions=body'

hence not diggin this the question of tis thread wll hide a hidden Unexamined premise. the dualism between mind nd body!

when THIS is explored we will see that 'reason' as it's been indoctrinated to mean over many centuries and still is is a very LIMITED version of the REAL. for the realis tat reason and body are in unison. and Intelligence is ORGANIC, not 'talkin head'--ie., cerebral

i wouod also change 'God' to Goddess. the very concept of Go is prt of the misconception as brielfy described above. 'God' = 'mind of man in the sky/reaaon/rationality' vs woman/Nature/body

do you feeeel me?

 

[Raithere]

It is true that two moons were observed. The BIAJ really experienced this.

The representation of two moons was actually a part of reality, just as much as the current flowing through my PC's processor is a part of reality.

What the BIAJ observed is part of the truth of the world. But the set of all truths is necessarily much larger than truths he knows. And in this larger set is the truth of the one moon.

I don't see a problem.

The problem is that we then have to consider all sensory experience as true. The question is not, "What was experienced?" but "What is real?" Whether or not the BIAJ perceives two moons are there, in fact, two moons?

in time all things will be known if they exist

Quantum indeterminacy indicates that this is untrue. All things cannot be known.

hence not diggin this the question of tis thread wll hide a hidden Unexamined premise. the dualism between mind nd body!

I don't see where any argument thus far has presumed such duality. Can show us where you think we have erred?

i wouod also change 'God' to Goddess. the very concept of Go is prt of the misconception as brielfy described above. 'God' = 'mind of man in the sky/reaaon/rationality' vs woman/Nature/body

Thus far no one has defined God as male or female. To suggest it seems purely anthropocentric. What need have gods for gender?

~Raithere

 

[duendy]

The problem is that we then have to consider all sensory experience as true. The question is not, "What was experienced?" but "What is real?" Whether or not the BIAJ perceives two moons are there, in fact, two moons?
Quantum indeterminacy indicates that this is untrue.

All things cannot be known.I don't see where any argument thus far has presumed such duality. Can show us where you think we have erred?

me))te question is 'can we find God through Reason?...te operative terms are 'God' and 'Reason'. what do we mean by those terms is obviouly vital to approach rhe question. what i am saying is tat bot termsare steeped in patriarchal interpretation--'God' via patriarchal mystical and rligious doctrines and 'reason' via patriarchal mysticism an philosophy. checkout in 'philosophy forum' my thread titled The Evolution of Dualism which will very succintly explain better. ie., patriarchal ideas through the millenia has classed 'reason' and 'body' as spearate, as in conflict. we also see a
intellectial connection between 'Logos' an a male 'God'. the latter is seen to be close to the male 'MIND'. so to ask the question being asked here. its already LOADED with UN-examined premises

Thus far no one has defined God as male or female. To suggest it seems purely anthropocentric. What need have gods for gender?

me))first dont DENY. dnt pretend. then we can move on. if you sit ther pretending 'God' has no gender then we cant explore tis question adequately. one only has to look at the terminology of the Christian faith for 'God' the 'father'...? since when has 'Father' been AGENDER'
~Raithere

)()()()()()()()())

 

[mustafhakofi]

Surely I would know significantly more in 10k years. That isn't the point the point is, there may be things I cannot know.

if there things we can never know, then in effect they dont exist to us.

"All things will be known if they exist"... wow, that is quite a positive claim. How do you support it?

well you answered it your self above, if it's not known, it does'nt exist.
until it becomes known, it must alway remain in the realms of fantasy.
cloud cuckoo land, the twilight zone.

 

[Lerxst]

Godless (and everyone):

Here is yet another way in which the statement "If it exists we will (or can) know it" would be certainly false:

It is not uncommon for cosmologists to discuss the possibility of a multiverse. This multiverse could consist of a number of different, mutually closed universes, each of which are just as "real" as the others. If that is indeed the case, there are all manner of questions about other universes that we simply cannot know because we are confined to our own closed universe.

Also, to suggest a multiverse isn't necessarily pure conjecture, there may be strong theoretical reasons to support the idea.

Analogy:
It is a bit like having two hollow toruses floating in space, and you are confined to exist inside one of them. The question "is the color of the interior of the other torus red" is an undecidable proposition. There are simply truths you cannot know.

 

[Lerxst]

if it's not known, it does'nt exist.

Therefore, x-rays didn't exist until 1895.

 

[Lerxst]

if it's not known, it does'nt exist.

The more I think about this, the funnier it gets.

I guess the universe didn't exist about seven billion years ago, because there wasn't anyone around to "know" it. There wasn't even an earth yet.

(Actually I think such a silly statement has been used before to arrive at the "necessity" of a God - "someone" had to exist and "know" about the universe before we came around in order to make it "real". LOL.)