Health and Religion

[CoinCube]

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.

Soren Kierkegaard, a famous 19th century existentialist philosopher, noted quite logically that religious people simply lived better lives, and whether or not there heaven or hell existed or not did not outweigh the cons of not believing in God.

His logic was simple, which he coined "the leap of faith:"

1. Believe in God, die, nothing happens.

2. Don't believe in God, die, nothing happens.
OR
1. Believe in God, die, go to heaven.

2. Don't believe in God, die, bathe in a lake of fire.

I actually wish I could be religious, but sadly, I'm a helpless empiricist. I know too much!

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

Aesma I respect your position here as it was very similar to my own beliefs not all that long ago.

Here is some food for thought:

Regarding the lake of fire:

Not everyone who believes in God believes in eternal punishment and damnation. Many Jews for example believe that hell is a very painful but temporary process. A purification process to remove falsehood and evil.

See: Do Jews Believe in Hell?
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm

Since you are an empiricist here is my empirical argument in favour of religion.

1) Belief in God is logical in that the belief is internally consistent and cannot be falsified. This conclusion can be derived in numerous ways one of which is via the application of incompleteness theorem.
See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

2) All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms. Without knowledge, scientific enquiry including empiric enquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyse the world around us.

3) Our fundamental metaphysical first axioms are therefore a critical step in the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it.
See: Metaphysical Attitudes

4) Human progress and civilization requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support.
See: Superrationality and the Infinite

5) Competing first axioms such as nihilism may grant "freedom" to do whatever you want but for humanity as a whole this is an illusion and such axioms reduce overall freedom.
See: Freedom and God

6) Thus the first axiom of God is not only largely responsible for the progress we have made so far it in all is likely necessary for continued progress.
See: Religion and Progress
and
See: Faith and Future

7) Finally and least important accepting the first axiom of God appears to be correlated with good health.  
See: Health and Religion

8 ) For these reasons accepting the first axiom of God is a superior choice for the empiricist then accepting the first axiom of nihilism or refusing to define ones metaphysics.

[Astargath]

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.

Soren Kierkegaard, a famous 19th century existentialist philosopher, noted quite logically that religious people simply lived better lives, and whether or not there heaven or hell existed or not did not outweigh the cons of not believing in God.

His logic was simple, which he coined "the leap of faith:"

1. Believe in God, die, nothing happens.

2. Don't believe in God, die, nothing happens.
OR
1. Believe in God, die, go to heaven.

2. Don't believe in God, die, bathe in a lake of fire.

I actually wish I could be religious, but sadly, I'm a helpless empiricist. I know too much!

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

Aesma I respect your position here as it was very similar to my own beliefs not all that long ago.

Here is some food for thought:

Regarding the lake of fire:

Not everyone who believes in God believes in eternal punishment and damnation. Many Jews for example believe that hell is a very painful but temporary process. A purification process to remove falsehood and evil.

See: Do Jews Believe in Hell?
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm

Since you are an empiricist here is my empirical argument in favour of religion.

1) Belief in God is logical in that the belief is internally consistent and cannot be falsified. This conclusion can be derived in numerous ways one of which is via the application of incompleteness theorem.
See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

2) All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms. Without knowledge, scientific enquiry including empiric enquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyse the world around us.

3) Our fundamental metaphysical first axioms are therefore a critical step in the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it.
See: Metaphysical Attitudes

4) Human progress and civilisation requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support.
See: Superrationality and the Infinite

5) Competing first axioms such as nihilism may grant "freedom" to do whatever you want but for humanity as a whole this is an illusion and such axioms reduce overall freedom.
See: Freedom and God

6) Thus the first axiom of God is not only largely responsible for the progress we have made so far it in all is likely necessary for continued progress.
See: Religion and Progress
and
See: Faith and Future

7) Finally and least important accepting the first axiom of God appears to be correlated with good health.  
See: Health and Religion

8 ) For these reason accepting the first axiom of God is a superior choice for the empiricist then accepting the first axiom of nihilism or refusing to define ones metaphysics.

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.

[yioweir333]

As usual, you intentionally misunderstand.In the picture of Jesus, above, the words are not quotes of Jesus found in the Bible.The things in the referenced atheism site are the dogma of the atheism religion.

[CoinCube]

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.

Ha ha you sound a little nervous there Astargath. Most people confident in the merits of their position do not need to tell people not to listen to competing arguments.

I would not worry about aesma. He appears to understand logic quite well. He honed in immediately on the limitations of Perry Marshall's argument pages and pages ago. I am confident he will also understand the implications and limitations of my argument above.

Regarding my personal motivations I have been honest in my beliefs and how I arrived at them. I find it odd that you feel compelled to attack my character.

I will respond in depth to your latest commentary on Perry Marshall's logic tomorrow or perhaps the day after. However,  the very nature of your recent statements indicate a lack of understanding.

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

With logical arguments there is no trust or belief there are simply axioms and conditional statements that result from those axioms.

Either you can see the validity of a logical argument, or you cannot. If I say if p, then q, p, therefore q and you say ‘no it’s not,’ all I can do is stare at you.

That said your critique deserves a response. I have already highlighted the limitations of Perry Marshall's argument upthread but I will detail how those limitations relate to your latest comment above shortly.

[CoinCube]

As discussed, GIT doesn't imply the existence of things outside of a system - simply that the system can ask questions about itself that it can't answer.''

I mean we can already stop here because he is already wrong, do you not agree?

Ok let's break this down step by step. For now lets assume that we can apply Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (GIT) to the universe. We can circle back and challenge that assumption later if you wish.

What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.

If the universe is incomplete it means that logic and science cannot tell us what lies outside of the system aka outside of the universe. We can only extrapolate general proprieties. For example we know it's not more universe meaning it is not time, space, energy, or matter.

We can deduce as Perry Marshall does that whatever is outside of the universe is boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God but this is not the only possibility. Nihilist believe that there is nothing outside the universe. Infinite nothingness could perhaps be argued to also fulfill these criteria.

GIT does not prove God it simply shows that the concept of God is logical. It also suggests that it may never be possible to prove God with logic. Logic may only be able to show us that God is possible, logical, and consistent.
 
Why is this important?

1) GIT is useful as it provides an counter to those who argue that God is illogical. It shows that God as described by monotheism is consistent with what we can logically conclude may exist outside of the universe. GIT does not prove God.

2) GIT also highlights the limitations of science and logic. It suggests that God is a logical first axiom. It also suggests that nihilism is a logical first axiom.

3) GIT suggests that science may never be able to resolve this question. No matter how sophisticated intelligent or advanced we become this fundamental tension between theism and nihilism may never go away as the answer to this question lies outside of the system. Faith therefore will probably always remain necessary and refusal to take a position in the hopes of some scientific breakthrough is unlikely to be fruitful.

4) Finally GIT highlights the symmetry between religious and nihilist thinking at the level of first principles. Both the nihilist and the theist must ultimately relay on faith.

[Astargath]

As discussed, GIT doesn't imply the existence of things outside of a system - simply that the system can ask questions about itself that it can't answer.''

I mean we can already stop here because he is already wrong, do you not agree?

Ok let's break this down step by step. For now lets assume that we can apply Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (GIT) to the universe. We can circle back and challenge that assumption later if you wish.

What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.

If the universe is incomplete it means that logic and science cannot tell us what lies outside of the system aka outside of the universe. We can only extrapolate general proprieties. For example we know it's not more universe meaning it is not time, space, energy, or matter.
You said yourself what GIT shows, it doesn't show that there must be something outside the universe, you just said it? We don't know if there is something outside the universe to begin with.

We can deduce as Perry Marshall does that whatever is outside of the universe is boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God but this is not the only possibility. Nihilist believe that there is nothing outside the universe. Infinite nothingness could perhaps be argued to also fulfill these criteria.

Why? How are we deducing this?


GIT does not prove God it simply shows that the concept of God is logical. It also suggests that it may never be possible to prove God with logic. Logic may only be able to show us that God is possible, logical, and consistent.
 
Why is this important?

1) GIT is useful as it provides an counter to those who argue that God is illogical. It shows that God as described by monotheism is consistent with what we can logically conclude may exist outside of the universe. GIT does not prove God.

2) GIT also highlights the limitations of science and logic. It suggests that God is a logical first axiom. It also suggests that nihilism is a logical first axiom.

3) GIT suggests that science may never be able to resolve this question. No matter how sophisticated intelligent or advanced we become this fundamental tension between theism and nihilism may never go away as the answer to this question lies outside of the system. Faith therefore will probably always remain necessary and refusal to take a position in the hopes of some scientific breakthrough is unlikely to be fruitful.

4) Finally GIT it highlights the symmetry between religious and nihilist thinking at the level of first principles. Both the nihilist and the theist must ultimately relay on faith.

[CoinCube]

If the universe is incomplete it means that logic and science cannot tell us what lies outside of the system aka outside of the universe. We can only extrapolate general proprieties. For example we know it's not more universe meaning it is not time, space, energy, or matter.
You said yourself what GIT shows, it doesn't show that there must be something outside the universe, you just said it? We don't know if there is something outside the universe to begin with.

Correct GIT does not tell us that there is something outside the universe. Instead it tells us that the existence of something outside the universe is logical and possible. It also suggests that if there is something outside the universe we not only cannot but will likely never be able to confirm or deny its existence with logic and science alone.

It tells us that this question will forever be beyond science. It will always be a question of metaphysical axioms or faith.

We can deduce as Perry Marshall does that whatever is outside of the universe is boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God but this is not the only possibility. Nihilist believe that there is nothing outside the universe. Infinite nothingness could perhaps be argued to also fulfill these criteria.

Why? How are we deducing this?

We can deduce some basic properties of what may lie outside of the universe by what it is not. It is not more universe. I will repeat Perry Marshal's circle analogy here because although this is an oversimplification it is probably the simplist way of conceptualizing this point.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century
https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates which are clearly true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.

You can draw a circle around a bicycle but the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.
...
Here’s what it means:

Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
...
Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):

There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove

The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time

The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)

The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.

If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause,because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

Note the circle here is not a literal circle but a metaphor for the part of the system in this case the universe that is defined and proven.

Also note that there are two assumptions in the argument 1) that the universe is finite and 2) that the universe is mathematical aka rational. Both of these assumptions are reasonable ones given our current understanding but neither has been proven to apply across the entire universe.

[yioweir333]

How always such aggravating posts try to undermine human rights.In a pseudo scientific way, with some surveys and statistic, they try to stigmatize certain individuals.Or, it's more like they brandmark them.Atheists are not condemned persons or individuals, waiting for their time in hell.They just dont believe that a god-like being has created the universe.May it be temporary, or on what assumptions, they have the right to do so.Maybe it is just because of this, and they are obsessional neurotic about telling other people explicitly NOT to believe in any god.Not long ago people have been persecuted for that, and killed. ferociously. And still this could happen today.I believe it is more improtant to accept otherpeople's opinion and talk about that, as long as this doesnt instantly cause doom on earth.Fears and constraints are some of the most powerful motivations. and do not always lead to positive results.

[Astargath]

If the universe is incomplete it means that logic and science cannot tell us what lies outside of the system aka outside of the universe. We can only extrapolate general proprieties. For example we know it's not more universe meaning it is not time, space, energy, or matter.
You said yourself what GIT shows, it doesn't show that there must be something outside the universe, you just said it? We don't know if there is something outside the universe to begin with.

Correct GIT does not tell us that there is something outside the universe. Instead it tells us that the existence of something outside the universe is logical and possible. It also suggests that if there is something outside the universe we not only cannot but will likely never be able to confirm or deny its existence with logic and science alone.

It tells us that this question will forever be beyond science. It will always be a question of metaphysical axioms or faith.

We can deduce as Perry Marshall does that whatever is outside of the universe is boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God but this is not the only possibility. Nihilist believe that there is nothing outside the universe. Infinite nothingness could perhaps be argued to also fulfill these criteria.

Why? How are we deducing this?

We can deduce some basic properties of what may lie outside of the universe by what it is not. It is not more universe. I will repeat Perry Marshal's circle analogy here because although this is an oversimplification it is probably the simplist way of conceptualizing this point.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century
https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates which are clearly true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.

You can draw a circle around a bicycle but the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.
...
Here’s what it means:

Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
...
Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):

There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove

The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time

The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)

The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.

If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause,because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

Note the circle here is not a literal circle but a metaphor for the part of the system in this case the universe that is defined and proven.

Also note that there are two assumptions in the argument 1) that the universe is finite and 2) that the universe is mathematical aka rational. Both of these assumptions are reasonable ones given our current understanding but neither has been proven to apply across the entire universe.

''Instead it tells us that the existence of something outside the universe is logical and possible.'' Where does it tell us that? You already said ''What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.'' That doesn't imply that the existence of something outside the universe is logical or possible, does it?

So many IF's in your argument.

And IF there is something outside the universe, why does it have to be something different from our universe? ''Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.

Well, let's play along for now, then - let's assume that GIT does imply that something exists outside of the universal system. Then:

GIT doesn't imply that that's "indivisible" or unencirclable at all. Godel's 2nd theorem again.''

''Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

There's no reason why you should be unable to draw a circle around an "uncaused cause" (I suppose you might call that a source term, mathematically). If you can characterise it, you can put it in a system. This is the same point as the previous one again - so it also falls against Godel's 2nd theorem.''

You keep quoting perry, obviously since no one else said anything about what he says because no one cares since he is wrong, why don't you just admit that he is wrong? He used the same typical theist argument and added the incompleteness theorems, nothing really special, the same ''logic'' bullshit arguments.

[CoinCube]

So many IF's in your argument.
...
no one else said anything about what he says because no one cares
...
why don't you just admit that he is wrong?

how do you know what he is saying is right when literally everyone else says the incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to the universe?

Logical arguments are a series of conditional IF-THEN statements built upon axioms. This is what logic is. It is also how we "know" an argument is "right".

That fact that famous atheist have not challenged Perry Marshall argument is not relevant.

Upthread you said Perry Marshall was an electrical engineer I did not actually know that but that's also irrelevant. Logical arguments stand or fail on their merits.

Without meaning to be insulting your posts sometimes give the impression that you rely on others sources you consider to be authoritative to tell you what to believe. You do not need to do this as you are intelligent and capable of breaking an argument down to its basic assumptions as you demonstrate below.

'''What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.'' That doesn't imply that the existence of something outside the universe is logical or possible a question we cannot answer, does it?
...
There's no reason why you should be unable to draw a circle around an "uncaused cause" (I suppose you might call that a source term, mathematically). If you can characterise it, you can put it in a system.

Good job you have found the third and final major assumption in Perry Marshall's argument. I was not going to tell you this one unless you figured it out for yourself.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem tell's us that any logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer. Is God one of those questions that cannot be answered from within the system?

Perry Marshall assumes that it is but he does not prove this. As you said the property of being an uncaused cause alone could potentially be characterized.

With this we have identified all of the primary assumptions in Perry Marshall's argument. These are:

1) That the universe is finite
2) That the universe is rational
3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system.

If all three of these assumptions are true THEN Perry Marshall's conclusions logically follow. All of the assumptions Perry Marshall makes are reasonable I do not believe any of them can be proven false but that does not mean they are true.

We can as asema did argue that the universe is not finite. A strong nihilist might argue that the universe may not be rational. Finally a theist may argue that God can be proven directly so assumption three is false and Perry Marshall's argument is unnecessary.

IF all three of Perry Marshall's assumptions are true THEN his conclusions follow.

Do we agree?

[SangkuniBird]

Religion calls for the treatment of prayer to God. This does not make sense! Let them treat those who want it. Who helps prayer? The priests themselves were hospitalized and very expensive.

[usorin]

I think that health it is related to religion only in the aspect of lifestyle, food restriction. Everything resumes to the fact that we should not exaggerate in what we do (work) and eat.

[crypgym]

Personally I do not believe that religion could somehow affect human health. But people can convince themselves in all sorts of miracles. Therefore, religious people think that it is God who makes them healthy

[Astargath]

So many IF's in your argument.
...
no one else said anything about what he says because no one cares
...
why don't you just admit that he is wrong?

how do you know what he is saying is right when literally everyone else says the incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to the universe?

Logical arguments are a series of conditional IF-THEN statements built upon axioms. This is what logic is. It is also how we "know" an argument is "right".

That fact that famous atheist have not challenged Perry Marshall argument is not relevant.

Upthread you said Perry Marshall was an electrical engineer I did not actually know that but that's also irrelevant. Logical arguments stand or fail on their merits.

Without meaning to be insulting your posts sometimes give the impression that you rely on others sources you consider to be authoritative to tell you what to believe. You do not need to do this as you are intelligent and capable of breaking an argument down to its basic assumptions as you demonstrate below.

'''What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.'' That doesn't imply that the existence of something outside the universe is logical or possible a question we cannot answer, does it?
...
There's no reason why you should be unable to draw a circle around an "uncaused cause" (I suppose you might call that a source term, mathematically). If you can characterise it, you can put it in a system.

Good job you have found the third and final major assumption in Perry Marshall's argument. I was not going to tell you this one unless you figured it out for yourself.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem tell's us that any logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer. Is God one of those questions that cannot be answered from within the system?

Perry Marshall assumes that it is but he does not prove this. As you said the property of being an uncaused cause alone could potentially be characterized.

With this we have identified all of the primary assumptions in Perry Marshall's argument. These are:

1) That the universe is finite
2) That the universe is rational
3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system.

If all three of these assumptions are true THEN Perry Marshall's conclusions logically follow. All of the assumptions Perry Marshall makes are reasonable I do not believe any of them can be proven false but that does not mean they are true.

We can as asema did argue that the universe is not finite. A strong nihilist might argue that the universe may not be rational. Finally a theist may argue that God can be proven directly so assumption three is false and Perry Marshall's argument is unnecessary.

IF all three of Perry Marshall's assumptions are true THEN his conclusions follow.

Do we agree?

So really this isn't proof of anything. This doesn't mean belief in god is logical either since I could switch god with literally anything I make up and I can say it's logical to believe in that thing. There is no point in talking about ''IF's'' because we can be stuck there forever, there are many if's possible, there is really no point in any of them and they are not necessarily true either, they might be true or not, just because something might be true doesn't mean it's logical to believe in it. Another big problem with your silly argument is when you say ''These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God'' Big problems with this is:
1. God is made up, religious folks didn't study god and then wrote about his properties, they made them up.
2. These basic properties can also be applied to infinite things including infinite gods.

Bottom line is, this is not proof of anything really, it's just a bunch of if's and assumptions. Not only that but I showed you that many of these assumptions are actually wrong, anyhow, as I said before, I'm pretty sure you started believing in god for other reasons, not these.

[CoinCube]

So really this isn't proof of anything.
...
1. God is made up, religious folks didn't study god and then wrote about his properties, they made them up.
...
I showed you that many of these assumptions are actually wrong,
...

Sigh you were doing so well Astargath.

Yes you can posit anything and in isolation and this may be a logical belief. However, beliefs do not exist in isolation. They are tested against other beliefs and the world itself.

If for example I was blind and had never seen the color of the sky and no one had told me what color it was. I could say that I believe the sky is green because when I had inquired in the past that was the most common color of things outside.

Now this belief is false but at this stage it is logical. The belief will fail, however, when it is tested because the color of the sky can be known and defined within our system of knowledge. If I ask someone who is not blind what color the sky is or build a machine to measure the wavelengths of light in the sky both will return the answer blue. Belief that the sky is green while initially logical fails and is disproven as we grow in knowledge.

What Perry Marshall shows is that there are some beliefs that cannot fail in this way.

This does not "prove" or "disprove" these beliefs it simply shows us that for some questions we must infer knowledge rather then prove it. Such knowledge must be accepted apriori. This is a logical necessity of an incomplete universe.

Perry Marshall's conclusion follows from his primary assumptions but most people with a background in philosophy or epistemology will acknowledge this and there are other ways of arriving at the same conclusion.

For example we had that guy nihilnegativum here a while back who was a hardcore nihilist with a clear background in philosophy.

the main distinction of metaphysics (serious buisness as it teaches how to use one's understanding), is the epistemological distinction between a priori and a posteriori that can hold only when this distinction is a pure difference. When one assumes this distinction to be based on some from of positivity, it either assumes a theistic ontology (an ontology where the pure infinite is the ground of everything and time a mere illusion), and thus lose the reality of a posteriori or the opposite, assume there is not pure ground, lose the a priori and be stuck with mere empiricism.

I agree, atheism is false, but that it is false exactly to the extent that its still not absolute nihilism.

What both nihilnegativum and Perry Marshall are telling us is that both theism and nihilism are logical positions. It is only the atheist who keeps asking for proof and refusing to define his own basis in knowledge who is behaving illogically because he is repeatedly asking the wrong questions.

This makes traditional atheism easy to dismiss as a credible position. Nihilism on the other hand is a much tougher nut to crack for nihilism is a logical system. To reject nihilism The best course of action is probably to build out a theist world view alongside the worldview of the nihilist and honestly ask yourself which of these constitutes your reality. Thus Perry Marshall's argument or nihilnegativum's if you prefer to start from a position of nihilism is only the first step in an argument for religion.

P.S.
If God was truly made up by primitive people thousands of years ago then it should be a trivial matter to disprove him just like the blind man can disprove that the sky is green. The fact that we not only cannot disprove God but in all probability will never disprove God hints that this is something much deeper and more fundamental.

P.P.S
You have not disproven Perry Marshall's three assumptions but if you think you can have at it. They are:

1) That the universe is finite
2) That the universe is rational
3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system.

[CoinCube]

Argument for God

1) Belief in God is logical in that the belief is internally consistent and cannot be falsified. This conclusion can be derived in numerous ways one of which is via the application of incompleteness theorem.
See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

2) All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms. Without knowledge, scientific enquiry including empiric enquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyse the world around us we cannot identify truth.
See: The Coherence Theory of Truth

3) Our fundamental metaphysical first axioms are therefore a critical step in the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it.
See: Metaphysical Attitudes

4) Human progress and civilization requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support.
See: Superrationality and the Infinite

5) Competing first axioms such as nihilism may grant "freedom" to do whatever you want but for humanity as a whole this is an illusion and such axioms reduce overall freedom.
See: Freedom and God

6) Thus the first axiom of God is not only largely responsible for the progress we have made so far it is likely necessary for continued progress.
See: Religion and Progress
and
See: Faith and Future

7) Finally and least important accepting the first axiom of God appears to be correlated with good health.  
See: Health and Religion

8 ) For these reasons accepting the first axiom of God is a superior choice for the empiricist then accepting the first axiom of nihilism or refusing to define ones metaphysics.

See: Music that Illuminates for more.

[Astargath]

So really this isn't proof of anything.
...
1. God is made up, religious folks didn't study god and then wrote about his properties, they made them up.
...
I showed you that many of these assumptions are actually wrong,
...

Sigh you were doing so well Astargath.

Yes you can posit anything and in isolation and this may be a logical belief. However, beliefs do not exist in isolation. They are tested against other beliefs and the world itself.

If for example I was blind and had never seen the color of the sky and no one had told me what color it was. I could say that I believe the sky is green because when I had inquired in the past that was the most common color of things outside.

Now this belief is false but at this stage it is logical. The belief will fail, however, when it is tested because the color of the sky can be known and defined within our system of knowledge. If I ask someone who is not blind what color the sky is or build a machine to measure the wavelengths of light in the sky both will return the answer blue. Belief that the sky is green while initially logical fails and is disproven as we grow in knowledge.

What Perry Marshall shows is that there are some beliefs that cannot fail in this way.

This does not "prove" or "disprove" these beliefs it simply shows us that for some questions we must infer knowledge rather then prove it. Such knowledge must be accepted apriori. This is a logical necessity of an incomplete universe.

Perry Marshall's conclusion follows from his primary assumptions but most people with a background in philosophy or epistemology will acknowledge this and there are other ways of arriving at the same conclusion.

For example we had that guy nihilnegativum here a while back who was a hardcore nihilist with a clear background in philosophy.

the main distinction of metaphysics (serious buisness as it teaches how to use one's understanding), is the epistemological distinction between a priori and a posteriori that can hold only when this distinction is a pure difference. When one assumes this distinction to be based on some from of positivity, it either assumes a theistic ontology (an ontology where the pure infinite is the ground of everything and time a mere illusion), and thus lose the reality of a posteriori or the opposite, assume there is not pure ground, lose the a priori and be stuck with mere empiricism.

I agree, atheism is false, but that it is false exactly to the extent that its still not absolute nihilism.

What both nihilnegativum and Perry Marshall are telling us is that both theism and nihilism are logical positions. It is only the atheist who keeps asking for proof and refusing to define his own basis in knowledge who is behaving illogically because he is repeatedly asking the wrong questions.

This makes traditional atheism easy to dismiss as a credible position. Nihilism on the other hand is a much tougher nut to crack for nihilism is a logical system. To reject nihilism The best course of action is probably to build out a theist world view alongside the worldview of the nihilist and honestly ask yourself which of these constitutes your reality. Thus Perry Marshall's argument or nihilnegativum's if you prefer to start from a position of nihilism is only the first step in an argument for religion.

P.S.
If God was truly made up by primitive people thousands of years ago then it should be a trivial matter to disprove him just like the blind man can disprove that the sky is green. The fact that we not only cannot disprove God but in all probability will never disprove God hints that this is something much deeper and more fundamental.

P.P.S
You have not disproven Perry Marshall's three assumptions but if you think you can have at it. They are:

1) That the universe is finite
2) That the universe is rational
3) That the question of God cannot be answered from within the system.

''If God was truly made up by primitive people thousands of years ago then it should be a trivial matter to disprove him'' It is, the bible is extremely easy to prove wrong, I already showed you many examples of it's big big flaws. For instance, humans, God made humans purposely imperfect and then they failed by eating the fruit he told them not to, this already makes no sense if your god is omniscient and omnipotent. From there we have the same problems trough the whole bible, God always knows things in advance yet he still gets mad? He then proceeds to kill everyone but a few people with the flood, why? If he was going to kill people anyways, why not just save all the time and start by making them perfect?

[supine]

The thing about religion is, there is too many of them, this might be the reason why until now, peace is a very difficult thing to attain in our world. So many beliefs, so many faith that it results to war and terrorism. Which results to building of weapons like nuclear power, that affects the human health.

[Astargath]

The thing about religion is, there is too many of them, this might be the reason why until now, peace is a very difficult thing to attain in our world. So many beliefs, so many faith that it results to war and terrorism. Which results to building of weapons like nuclear power, that affects the human health.

And every religious person claims their god is the real one. In a way every religious person is an atheist on the other religions, I find it quite funny when they insult atheists, although they are doing the same thing for all the other religions but theirs. There is no real reason to believe on religion is real and the others aren't. None of them have proof. Some folks claim their book has predictions that are true but does that make god real? Is the book with most predictions the real one?

[BADecker]

The thing about religion is, there is too many of them, this might be the reason why until now, peace is a very difficult thing to attain in our world. So many beliefs, so many faith that it results to war and terrorism. Which results to building of weapons like nuclear power, that affects the human health.

And every religious person claims their god is the real one. In a way every religious person is an atheist on the other religions, I find it quite funny when they insult atheists, although they are doing the same thing for all the other religions but theirs. There is no real reason to believe on religion is real and the others aren't. None of them have proof. Some folks claim their book has predictions that are true but does that make god real? Is the book with most predictions the real one?

Well, almost exactly as you say. The difference in your case is that you are proclaiming yourself to be God by having the authoritative stupidity to say that there isn't any God, when you don't really know it to be true.

Don't you think you should be a little more humble just in case there is a True Great God? I mean, He knows He has the last laugh against you... easily. He knows what a weakling you are. You can't even create a grain of sand, but He made the whole universe. He's playing you, son... but maybe playing with you.