Don't listen to him. He probably started believing in god because his family told to not because of the reasons mentioned above. He searched for those reasons because he had doubts about his beliefs and now claims that belief in god is the best choice. I already showed him it's not but you can't reason with these people.

...
how do you know what he is saying is right
...
you are trusting perry marshall
...
Aren't the points mentioned above logical?

The Christian religion talks about Man having free will. I think nihilism is exactly that : life has no purpose, be free to do whatever you want with it. Seems much more healthy than following all kinds of ridiculous religious rules, but that's just me.

I think even religious people should hope they're wrong, because none of them really manages to follow the rules, so if there is an heaven and a hell, the first one must be empty and the second one overcrowded.


That's a retelling of the much more famous (and 2 centuries older) wager from Pascal : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

So you didn't really mention almost anything, you also didn't explain why you believe in anything perry marshall says or why we should trust him or why do you think what he said is true, are you a scientist expert in the incompleteness theory?

...

It seems to me that you are the one who needs to read more about the incompleteness theorem and what it means. The argument of perry marshall is the same god of gaps, as always.

You are starting to sound like badecker.

Stated in Formal Language:

Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”

The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.

Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)

Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.

Syllogism:

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete

2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system

3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

God as a concept is obviously not possible to be proved false

what the fuck are you even talking about.

Look, I know you read a lot of bullshit books with a lot of bullshit words

you are stupid.

IMPERFECT ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?

You are making my eyes bleed, stop.

Ok, let's start again.
''First I highlighted how we can mathematically deduce The Incompleteness of the universe and logically conclude that whatever is outside the universe must be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852''

No, no and no. Simply wrong.

First of all you cannot even apply kurt godel theorem to the universe:
https://www.quora.com/Can-G%C3%B6dels-incompleteness-theorem-applied-to-the-universe-prove-the-existence-of-God

''Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language or philosophy.

And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.''

This statement is simply wrong.

Appeals to the incompleteness theorems in other fields[edit]
Appeals and analogies are sometimes made to the incompleteness theorems in support of arguments that go beyond mathematics and logic. Several authors have commented negatively on such extensions and interpretations, including Torkel Franzén (2004); Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont (1999); and Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom (2006). Bricmont and Stangroom (2006, p. 10), for example, quote from Rebecca Goldstein's comments on the disparity between Gödel's avowed Platonism and the anti-realist uses to which his ideas are sometimes put. Sokal and Bricmont (1999, p. 187) criticize Régis Debray's invocation of the theorem in the context of sociology; Debray has defended this use as metaphorical (ibid.).

Everything said in your article is plain wrong.

No, you haven't. You are always talking about ''god'' but you never specify which god or why the christian god is better than the other gods. Your argument simply says it's logical and rational to believe in ''god'' but which god and why the christian god?

Look, I know you read a lot of bullshit books with a lot of bullshit words to justify your belief but the argument is simple, there is no logical argument to justify belief in your specific god instead of others.

That was some next level bullshit my friend, what the fuck are you even talking about. ''As I highlighted upthread it is impossible to prove everything. Science will never be able to fill its own gaps'' Ok, so what? It's still not logical or rational to just believe in things only because science will never be able to prove or disprove them, how does that help you?

''Your argument that we should "not believe in anything until it is proved" is therefore an incoherent one.'' No it's fucking not. You won't simply believe that drinking acid is good for you, would you? You would die if you simply believed it, you can't go around believing in things just because they might be true and we can't prove them. That's stupid. Even then, why chose the christian god and not any of the other thousands or any of the other hundreds of possible explanations for the universe? How is belief in the christian god the most logical and rational choice?

It is not the most rational choice. If you want the most rational choice or logical choice you wouldn't believe in anything until it was proved, that would be the most logical choice. I acknowledge the possibility of a ''god-like'' being that created the universe, however, believing in such thing without enough evidence would make me a moron, not a logical person. I cannot believe in any of that, I don't know what truly started the universe and I don't know what truly happens when you die, science suggests that nothing happens but it could be wrong, many things could be wrong. Again if you are truly searching for the most logical or rational choice you wouldn't believe in a random god, this is again just an excuse to try to justify your beliefs.

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɪlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɪlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrinethat suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.

I expected you to ignore my last comment, it's ok, look, you are religious because you need to, that's ok but don't try to justify your beliefs with science, it doesn't work. Just admit that you believe in god based on faith not science. The god from the bible can be proved to be false by proving the bible is a pile of shit, which it is.

God as a concept is obviously not possible to be proved false but god from the bible is. The thread is called health and religion, religion gods can be proved wrong with logic and science.

I don't even mind ''god'' as a concept creator of the universe but religions are just absolutely bullshit, trash, immoral, stupid and ignorant and anyone who still believes in them does not have enough critical thinking.

Question:

I know there is an infinite, loving G‑d. It's just that I can't get my head around a few things in the Torah, like death penalties for gays, wizards, and people who curse their parents. Even if these people have erred, couldn't they just be asked to stop or be punished with exile? That's why it's hard to believe that a G‑d who can make a billion galaxies and stars would want us to kill over different beliefs.

Response:

Before answering your question, it's worthwhile to note just how difficult it actually is to impose the death penalty in Jewish law.

First of all, circumstantial evidence won't cut it. You need two impeccable witnesses who had observed the person transgressing an act punishable by death. Next, these two witnesses had to have warned the person of the capital punishment he could receive for doing the prohibited act, even if he already knew. Finally, the person must have committed the transgression immediately after the warning. Any hesitation and the death penalty is off. The same applies to other forms of punishment.

To meet all of these conditions and incur the death penalty seems more like committing suicide then simply transgressing.

Nevertheless, the questions remains: As long as you are not hurting anyone else, sinning is your own private business. Why should you receive any sort of punishment? To get to the bottom of this, let's fly to the moon.

On December 24, 1968, the crew of Apollo 8 made history as the first astronauts to go into orbit around both sides of the moon and beam back pictures of the lunar landscape. The next day, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of blessed memory, discussed a lesson to be learned from the event.1

Central Command trains the astronauts how to eat, sleep, dress, and behave in all areas of their life while on board. Deviations, they are told, can mean the waste of billions of dollars. Hearing that such large sums of government money are at stake, the astronauts take every detail of their instructions very seriously.

Moreover, astronaut compliance has nothing to do with how much, if at all, they understand the benefits of the instructions, or the damage caused by not complying. Only the experts on the ground, who spent years researching the issues, know all the specific details. Therefore, the astronauts follow orders without question, even if they don't know the entire reasoning behind everything, because they understand that there are dire consequences for themselves and their team members.

Neither does an astronaut say, "Look, I'm only one of three—which makes me the minority. So if I don't do everything correctly, it's not going to make such a difference." Rather, he knows that any one miscalculation on his part endangers not only himself, but the other two astronauts as well.

Like a flight manual, the Torah guides and instructs us for a safe mission through life. In it, G‑d warns us of the 365 don'ts (the negative commandments) that can derail us and jeopardize our life mission. We don't always know why certain actions are more damaging and dangerous than others, and therefore carry a more severe punishment. But Mission Control does. So we listen.

Moreover, our decisions impact not only ourselves, but our friends, family, community, and the entire world. Actually, the entire idea can be found in a Midrash, composed long before anyone dreamed of space travel:

Moses exclaimed, "One person sins, and You are angry at the entire community?"2

Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai taught a parable for this, of people sitting in a boat. One of them took a drill and began drilling underneath his seat.

"What are you doing?" demanded his friends.

"What concern is it of yours?" he responded. "Am I not drilling under my own seat?"

They said to him: "Yes, but the waters will come up and drown the entire boat."3

The Mishnah states, "Why was the human being created alone? ... To teach you that every person must say: For me the world was created."4 This world, as well as all of the spiritual realms leading to it, was created for each and every person individually. As Maimonides teaches, "A person should always view himself and the entire world as if it is exactly balanced. If he does one mitzvah, he is meritorious, for he has weighed himself and the entire world to the side of merit, and he has caused for himself and for all, salvation and redemption."5

Taking all this into account, let's look back at our situation: We're talking about a very stable, Torah-directed society—evidenced by the fact that there is a Bet Din that has the power to enforce Jewish law. We are talking about a community where people know the difference between right and wrong and only very rarely does someone step out of those boundaries. One person comes along and decides to do something totally outrageous, despite a warning from two witnesses and right in front of them, knowing exactly what he is doing and what will happen to him for doing it. Basically, drilling a hole in a watertight boat for every and any sin to enter.

Truthfully, I doubt that such cases occurred too often. Rabbi Akiva was of the opinion that a court that issues a death sentence once in 70 years is a murderous court. But the message is there: Don't imagine you're an island to yourself. Think twice before sinning. The entire world depends on you.

It doesn't matter if it's not a calendar, you can calculate approximately what the age of the earth is, it's called young earth creationism and it's wrong proved by science, so again you can disprove the god from the bible.

''I am religious and I do not believe the earth was created 6 to 10 thousand years ago'' Then you are wrong.

You are clearly being desperate to try to defend your beliefs, just like most religious people, you keep coming up with silly excuses.

There are also tons of contradictions, mistakes and just plain retarded laws in the bible:

I'm sorry but we know more or less how old the bible is. https://www.gotquestions.org/how-old-is-the-Bible.html
Every religious person agrees on this that the earth was created around 6k to 10k years ago according to the bible, we can easily prove this wrong with various dating methods that prove the earth is far older than this, humans are far older than this as well. Even if somehow the 7 days mentioned in the bible weren't really days, we can still prove the bible is wrong.

Well, you are wrong. We can disprove the god from the Bible with science. For example with evolution or the age of the earth, age of the universe, all of those things disprove your god. You can also disprove your god by simply reading the bible, there are so many contradictions and just plain stupid things that can only have 2 explanations, god is not real or god is stupid. Also, no one has to disprove anything, you have to be able to prove it first, otherwise anything can be real if it's not disproved.

You can't create light before stars... are you sure about that?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

According to current scientific models there was hundreds of thousands of years of light without stars.

Genesis 1-3:

All life on Earth may have come from clay according to new scientific research - just as the Bible, Koran and even Greek mythology have been suggesting for thousands of years.

The latest theory is that clay - which is at its most basic, a combination of minerals in the ground - acts as a breeding laboratory for tiny molecules and chemicals which it 'absorbs like a sponge'.

The process takes billions of years, during which the chemicals react to each other to form proteins, DNA and, eventually, living cells, scientists told the journal Scientific Reports.

Biological Engineers from Cornell University's department for Nanoscale Science in New York state believe clay 'might have been the birthplace of life on Earth'.

It is a theory dating back thousands of years in many cultures, though perhaps not using the same scientific explanation.

In religious texts from ancient Egypt to Chinese legends, God moulds clay into the shape of man and then breathes life into him through his nostrils.

Even Genesis talks of man being born from dust and returning to dust when he dies, with scholars translating this from the ancient Hebrew as also meaning clay or the earth itself.

In seawater, clay forms a hydrogel - a mass of tiny spaces which soak up other minerals, chemicals and tiny molecules from its surrounding area.

Professor Dan Luo of Cornell said: 'In early geological history clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions.

Genesis 2:7: 'And the Lord God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'

Isaiah 64:8: 'But now, O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.'

'Over billions of years, chemicals confined in those spaces could have carried out the complex reactions that formed proteins, DNA and eventually all the machinery that makes a living cell work.'


The conclusions are based on experiments by the researchers using synthetic hydrogels, adding DNA, amino acids and enzymes and simulating the production of proteins.

No is not and you know is not. ''consistent with what we know about God.'' First of all, there is no ''what we know about god'' God is made up, people made up god thousands of years ago so it doesn't follow that it's logical belief. People didn't come up with god following logic, they just invented him like all the other gods because they didn't know better. So don't bullshit me.

The way of a person's life IS his religion.    

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/is-the-cause-of-the-universe-an-uncaused-personal-creator-of-the-universe/

''We know that wherever is outside of the universe must logically be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause.'' Even if we agree with that and we shouldn't, the argument says nothing against a lot of uncaused causes, if everything that's outside the universe must have no cause then it could easily mean there are a ton of uncaused things outside the universe which doesn't solve any problem.

I don’t believe in Santa Claus. I used to when I was a little kid, then my Mom told me that Santa didn’t come to our house because we were Jewish. Eventually with the help of some Hanukkah presents, I got over this loss and I soon after outgrew believing in Santa. Around that same time, I also believed that God was an old man, with a big white turban, a long white beard and sat on a flying carpet in the sky. I also outgrew believing this fantasy, and for many years afterwards, when it came to God I was an agnostic, meaning I was on the fence. I didn’t know either way whether or not God existed, I didn’t have faith in Gods existence, nor did I deny it, I just didn’t know.

During a visit to Israel in 1998, I discovered a Judaism very different than the one I grew up with. A Judaism that was a wisdom tradition, a spiritual path to awaken people their highest selves.  I also came to have faith in God, but not the childish god-concept I had growing up. In fact, the God atheists don’t believe in, I don’t believe in either. So what do I mean when I say “God”?

I can’t tell you, because its not something I can put into words. The word “water” doesn’t make you wet, but you know what it’s referring to. This is not the case with the word “God.” Rav Abraham Issac Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Palestine, a visionary and philosopher writes:

“All the divine names, whether in Hebrew or any language, give us only a tiny and dull spark of the hidden light to which the soul aspires when it utters the word “God.” Every definition of God brings about heresy, every definition is spiritual idolatry; even attributing to Him intellect and will, even the term divine, the term God, suffers from the limitation of definition.”

God is beyond any concept. God is beyond even the concept of beyond. Both the terms God and Goddess have nothing to do with “God.” Thus, it would be wise to say that anything I write about God will be a metaphor, an approximation of something I can’t actually describe. Having stated that, what I hope to share with you are some of the fundamental Jewish ideas and teachings about God, the most important being that “God is One.”

First, a bit about Rav Kook and atheism. Rav Kook, who lived in Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) under the British Mandate, was known for being universal, out of the box, and able to befriend and dialogue with people holding seemingly opposite ideologies from him, including the secular Zionists who were proud atheists. Rav Kook actually believed that the phenomenon of atheism was the hand of God influencing history because religious practice had fallen to a state where too many people had blind faith in a deity that did not exist. He writes:

“Since the thoughts concerning God in their basic elements are unclear, God being, as conceived by the multitude and even by individuals who should be their leaders, is that of a ruthless power from which there is no escape and to whom one must necessarily be subservient. ... No grandeur of God is then manifest in the soul, but only the lowliness of wild imaginings, that conjure up a form of some deceptive, vague angry deity that is dissociated from reality. It confuses everyone who believes in it, depresses his spirit, blunts his feelings, inhibits the assertion of his sensibilities, and uproots the Divine glory in his soul. ... atheism arises as a pained outcry to liberate man from this narrow and alien pit, to raise him from the darkness ... To uproot the dross that separates man from the truly divine light, and in the ruins wrought by atheism will the higher knowledge of God erect her Temple.”

So if atheism came to smash the idols of false conceptions of God, what is this “higher knowledge” of God that Rav Kook is talking about? Rabbi David Aaron, on of my first teachers of Torah and Kabbalah, teaches that Judaism is not a religion that believes in one God, but that God is ONE. What does this mean? When I look around with my physical eyes I don’t see God. I see trees, cars, the sky, shopping malls, but I dont see God. My experience of life is of duality, of separation, a world of contrast, of opposites, good and evil, life and death, us and them, pain and pleasure. I am a self, separate from the world, a small finite time-bound being living out my cycle of birth, life and death, surrounded by a multitude of other beings and things that are not me, and that are also destined to pass away.

Knowledge of God (called the experience of d’vekut, which means “bonding” or “unifying” in Jewish thought) reveals to me that I and everything else in this temporary world of multiplicity and separation is One with God. It is seeing but not with my eyes and knowing but through my mind, that duality is not the fundamental truth of existence. That the Infinite and Eternal One is giving birth to creation every single second, and that the flow of history is Divine intelligence unfolding through time. It’s seeing what the kabbalists teach as “Ain Od Milvado” (אין עוד מלבדו), which translated means, “There is nothing more than Him.”  Judaism teaches that although God transcends creation, everything in creation is sourced in God, is One.



This higher knowledge of God is reflected in the Hebrew names of God. The name of God most used in Hebrew (the Hebrew of Jewish sacred texts is known as Loshon Kodesh, which means the “Holy Speech” because it is a God-centered language) to refer to the Divine is Hashem. Translated, “Hashem” means “The Name” because it refers to one of the most sacred names of God in the Torah. This name is composed of the four letters (read from right to left) ה (Heh) - ו (Vav) - ה (Heh) - י (Yud) and is known in English as the Tetragrammaton, which means the “four-letter name.” This name is not spoken, its pronunciation has been lost to known history. Thousands of years ago, it was pronounced during Yom Kippur by the High Priest when he stood in the Holy of Holies, home of the Ark of the Covenant inside the Holy Temple of  Jerusalem. Hashem is the name God revealed to Moses after Moses asked whom he should tell the Israelites sent him, and Hashem answered tell them “I will be what I will Be.”

This answer, which is a name, implies that God transcends time.  A common question people ask is if God made everything then what made God? Then what made whatever made God? Then what made that, ad infinitum. Inherent in this question is the idea of causality, that A causes B, which causes C, like dominoes falling in a line, like time flowing from the past into the present into future.  God was, God is and God will be.  This concept is contained in the letters of Hashem’s name, which is a composite of the past present and future tenses of the verb “to be”: God was (היה), God is (הווה), and God will be (יהיה).  Everytime the name Hashem is used in the Torah or spoken, it is invoking and evoking that God is infinite, and beyond beginning middle and end.  

God cannot be grasped through our mind because our mind is time-bound. There is a story about a man who is found by his neighbor looking for something under a streetlamp. When his neighbor asks him what he is looking for, the man replies his keys. The neighbor then asks him where he lost them and the man replies in his house. Upon being asked by his neighbor why the man is looking for his keys under a streetlamp outside, if his keys are in his house, the man answers because there is light under the lamp and his house is dark.

This story is a great metaphor to describe the folly of searching for God with our minds. The intellect is an incredibly powerful tool. Through the power of our cerebral cortex humanity has developed the scientific method, discovered the laws of nature, put a man on the moon, ushered in the digital age and given us almost God-like powers. We are so used to using our minds to look for answers, but in searching for God, the “streetlamp” is our intellect, and the “keys” are God. No matter how much we look with our intellect and its tools, God cannot be found, and the fact that God cannot be found with a microscope or telescope does not prove that God does not exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So how does a time-bound being awaken to that which is timeless? The Tikkunei Zohar, a classic of Jewish mysticism, states, “No thought can grasp him.” Higher knowledge of God does not require that a person discard reason, but simply be open to the possibility that there are ways of knowing that are trans-rational. The God atheists deny is a man-made construct whose origin is in the human mind. Hashem, also known in kabbalistic terms as the “Endless Light,” cannot be grasped or conceived of by the human mind but can be apprehended through transcending the mind. Torah is the Jewish spiritual path, a set of practices to awaken to this transcendent knowledge of God. When this awakening happens we behold, that we are not alone, that there is nothing to fear and that our true source is Hashem.

May Hashem bless us with d’vekut, to see through the prison of our finite minds, and to recognize that we are all a spark of the Infinite One.  

Men fuck around. They beat women. They are violent. And nature needs that, which is why women are attracted to that. Destroy that, and you destroy all your resources. Which is what is happening to the West now.

Again there is a biological reason...

Meekness, according to the Bible, is being humble and gentle towards others and willingly being submissive and obedient to the Lord. It is not being selfish and arrogant, loud or obnoxious. Rather, it’s having a quiet but confident trust in the Lord and being willing and able to do whatever it is He commands.

Even if I would agree with everything, the argument says nothing about the possibility of more causes not just one, why does it necessarily have to be only one uncaused cause and not many uncaused causes, we also don't know what that uncaused cause or causes are, you are just assuming it's god because you are religious.

God is One
God is a unity. He is a single, whole, complete indivisible entity. He cannot be divided into parts or described by attributes. Any attempt to ascribe attributes to God is merely man's imperfect attempt to understand the infinite.
...

God is Incorporeal
God has no body. Any reference to God's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making God's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world.
...

God is Omnipresent
God is in all places at all times. He fills the universe and exceeds its scope.
...

God is Eternal
God transcends time. He has no beginning and no end.

The problem is that you cannot use theorem for theology, that's the consensus. The ''proof'' used here is nothing but the same old proof, just using Kurt Godel as an authority but it's the same thing. The same old assumptions without any bases like ''Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause'' or ''then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.''
NO WE DON'T. That's the whole fucking point, we don't know what's outside the circle and even if you know it's not matter, energy or space or time you still don't know that it's ''immaterial'' You are just assuming that, what is ''immaterial'' anyways?

...
The universe is infinite.

The rest of the proof doesn't matter if that basic axiom is not agreed on.

From our best observations, we know that the Universe is an awful lot bigger than the part we can observe. Beyond what we can see, we strongly suspect that there’s plenty more Universe out there just like ours, with the same laws of physics, the same types of physical, cosmic structures, and the same chances at complex life. There should also be a finite size and scale to the “bubble” in which inflation ended, and an exponentially huge number of such bubbles contained within the larger, inflating spacetime. But as inconceivably large as that entire Universe — or Multiverse, if you prefer — may be, it might not be infinite. In fact, unless inflation went on for a truly infinite amount of time, or the Universe was born infinitely large, the Universe ought to be finite in extent.

The biggest problem of all, though? It’s that we don’t have enough information to definitively answer the question. We only know how to access the information available inside our observable Universe: those 46 billion light years in all directions. The answer to the biggest of all questions, of whether the Universe is finite or infinite, might be encoded in the Universe itself, but we can’t access enough of it to know. Until we either figure it out, or come up with a clever scheme to expand what we know physics is capable of, all we’ll have are the possibilities.