Why do you believe God exists?

[BADecker]

Is there free will in heaven?

You have the free will to do whatever God wants... that's free enough, right?

What if my uncle molested me as a child and I hate him, but he is also a christian?  If he is in heaven too, then it is not heaven for me since I hate him... If God changes me so I don't hate him any longer, then I am not me, and whatever is in heaven, is not me...

Sounds like a lose-lose proposition... glad I'm going to hell so I don't have to worry about it

You got it right-ish.

In Hell you will be too much in pain to worry about anything.

[1713957571]

1713957571

[1713957571]

1713957571

[1713957571]

1713957571

[1713957571]

1713957571

[BADecker]

A person who knows that God exists, can't believe that He exists.

[af_newbie]

Is there free will in heaven?

You have the free will to do whatever God wants... that's free enough, right?

What if my uncle molested me as a child and I hate him, but he is also a christian?  If he is in heaven too, then it is not heaven for me since I hate him... If God changes me so I don't hate him any longer, then I am not me, and whatever is in heaven, is not me...

Sounds like a lose-lose proposition... glad I'm going to hell so I don't have to worry about it

I was going with

If there is free will in heaven, then there is evil in heaven, so it is not heaven.

If there is no free will in heaven, then it is a prison, so it is not heaven.

i.e. there is no heaven.

All using religitards' logic.

In Heaven, evil won't exist. So there is no free will to do evil. But not because there wouldn't be if it existed.

So you will not be able to lift your finger, never mind to do anything else, like taking a piss whenever you want, LOL. 

Nice heaven concept you got there.  At least Muslims talk about streets full of gold, wine and virgins.  And you guys hope to go to a place where you won't be able to do anything on your own free will.

Before you reply with your: "But in heaven, with free will, we will be able to only do good, not evil", it is not free will if you cannot do both good and/or evil.  That is why you guys call it FREE will.

Checkmate.  There is no heaven using your own Christian logic.

[BADecker]

I was going with

If there is free will in heaven, then there is evil in heaven, so it is not heaven.

If there is no free will in heaven, then it is a prison, so it is not heaven.

i.e. there is no heaven.

All using religitards' logic.

In Heaven, evil won't exist. So there is no free will to do evil. But not because there wouldn't be if it existed.

So you will not be able to lift your finger, never mind to do anything else, like taking a piss whenever you want, LOL.  

Nice heaven concept you got there.  At least Muslims talk about streets full of gold, wine and virgins.  And you guys hope to go to a place where you won't be able to do anything on your own free will.

Before you reply with your: "But in heaven, with free will, we will be able to only do good, not evil", it is not free will if you cannot do both good and/or evil.  That is why you guys call it FREE will.

Checkmate.  There is no heaven using your own Christian logic.

If lifting your finger is evil in Heaven, you won't have the free will to lift your finger.

When there isn't any such thing as evil, there won't be any free will to do such.

Since you like evil so much, you will go to the place where all the evil will exist... the place you have asked for... Hell. You won't have any free will to choose good, there. Because there won't be any good there. Your choice. Choose well while you still have time.

[Astargath]

I was going with

If there is free will in heaven, then there is evil in heaven, so it is not heaven.

If there is no free will in heaven, then it is a prison, so it is not heaven.

i.e. there is no heaven.

All using religitards' logic.

In Heaven, evil won't exist. So there is no free will to do evil. But not because there wouldn't be if it existed.

So you will not be able to lift your finger, never mind to do anything else, like taking a piss whenever you want, LOL.  

Nice heaven concept you got there.  At least Muslims talk about streets full of gold, wine and virgins.  And you guys hope to go to a place where you won't be able to do anything on your own free will.

Before you reply with your: "But in heaven, with free will, we will be able to only do good, not evil", it is not free will if you cannot do both good and/or evil.  That is why you guys call it FREE will.

Checkmate.  There is no heaven using your own Christian logic.

If lifting your finger is evil in Heaven, you won't have the free will to lift your finger.

When there isn't any such thing as evil, there won't be any free will to do such.

Since you like evil so much, you will go to the place where all the evil will exist... the place you have asked for... Hell. You won't have any free will to choose good, there. Because there won't be any good there. Your choice. Choose well while you still have time.

If that's the case then there would be no need to live here and not directly in heaven. I asked you numerous times what's the point of earth, why not go directly to heaven and your response was always, god didn't want to force us and gave us free will yet you are saying in heaven we wont have free will. A 10 year old would understand the flawed logic here lmao.

[CoinCube]

Alright guys, let's get this back on track. So far I've had a lot of blabbering, and no real rationale behind beliefs.

I want you to explain to me WHY you believe in God despite the evidence presented in OP.

Parodium the link below is the logic that led me to believe in God despite the arguments outlined in your opening post.

It's a bit long so I will link to it rather then quote the entirety of it here. The words and logic are mine.

In it I demonstrate to my satisfaction that it is far more logical to believe in God then to deny his God's existence.

An Argument for God

[Astargath]

Alright guys, let's get this back on track. So far I've had a lot of blabbering, and no real rationale behind beliefs.

I want you to explain to me WHY you believe in God despite the evidence presented in OP.

Parodium the link below is the logic that led me to believe in God despite the arguments outlined in your opening post.

It's a bit long so I will link to it rather then quote the entirety of it here. The words and logic are mine.

In it I demonstrate to my satisfaction that it is far more logical to believe in God then to deny his God's existence.

An Argument for God

And again there are huge problems with that.

Claim 1: Incorrectly applying godels theorem.

Claim 2: Is not a scientific theory and is not ''the best known system that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot'' There is very little on the internet about that ''theory'', your link also says ''even more simply still, a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.'' which is simply wrong. It's also extremely vague and doesn't explain anything.

[CoinCube]

And again there are huge problems with that.

Yes and we discussed your disagreement with my logic in great depth.
I hold that the argument is sound and found your rebuttals lacking.

Nevertheless I have no desire to rehash old debates and retread fruitless ground. If anyone wants to read that exchange they can do so.

The OP asked a question and I have responded. If he wishes to engage further I will oblige but otherwise am content to let the matter rest.

[af_newbie]

Alright guys, let's get this back on track. So far I've had a lot of blabbering, and no real rationale behind beliefs.

I want you to explain to me WHY you believe in God despite the evidence presented in OP.

Parodium the link below is the logic that led me to believe in God despite the arguments outlined in your opening post.

It's a bit long so I will link to it rather then quote the entirety of it here. The words and logic are mine.

In it I demonstrate to my satisfaction that it is far more logical to believe in God then to deny his God's existence.

An Argument for God

You are making logical mistakes in your claim#1, as follows:

You are assuming the universe is a machine that can be modeled by a mechanical machine and you applied Church-Turing thesis and claimed that the universe can be expressed in arithmetic axioms, then you applied Gödel’s incompleteness theorem to arrive that there must be a true axiom that cannot be proven.  Then you moved that axiom outside of the system, to make it your God I presume.

Please show us that the universe can be treated as a Turing machine.  Where is your proof of that?  Are you familiar with quantum effects, or you continue to live in the 1930s?

You are twisting the existing Math theorems to fit your conclusions.  Why do you even bother when you skip the fundamental steps along the way?

I did not go over the rest of your claims (I remember we went over them in the past), I feel it is like talking to notbatman with his electric field replacement for gravity.

You are applying Math incorrectly and connecting the dots to fit your desired outcome.

You are confounding enough Math, Metaphysics into your word salad to confuse the uninitiated.  Sorry buddy, you'll be challenged here.
 
This is the bitcoin forum, not some religious "#jesuslovesme" forum.

[CoinCube]

You are making logical mistakes in your claim#1, as follows:

You are assuming the universe is a machine that can be modeled by a mechanical machine and you applied Church-Turing thesis and claimed that the universe can be expressed in arithmetic axioms, then you applied Gödel’s incompleteness theorem to arrive that there must be a true axiom that cannot be proven.  Then you moved that axiom outside of the system, to make it your God I presume.

Please show us that the universe can be treated as a Turing machine.  Where is your proof of that?  Are you familiar with quantum effects, or you continue to live in the 1930s?

You are twisting the existing Math theorems to fit your conclusions.  Why do you even bother when you skip the fundamental steps along the way?

...

You are applying Math incorrectly and connecting the dots to fit your desired outcome.

This is a fair challenge.

"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."

My argument assumes apriori that the universe is mathematical and logical. I take the position that the totality of human experience including science backs that claim.

Nevertheless I concede that I cannot prove it.

All systems of belief can be traced back to assumed axioms. Belief in a mathematical and logical universe is one of mine.

I would note that quantum mechanics in no way shows that the universe is illogical or that it cannot be described with mathematics.

[af_newbie]

You are making logical mistakes in your claim#1, as follows:

You are assuming the universe is a machine that can be modeled by a mechanical machine and you applied Church-Turing thesis and claimed that the universe can be expressed in arithmetic axioms, then you applied Gödel’s incompleteness theorem to arrive that there must be a true axiom that cannot be proven.  Then you moved that axiom outside of the system, to make it your God I presume.

Please show us that the universe can be treated as a Turing machine.  Where is your proof of that?  Are you familiar with quantum effects, or you continue to live in the 1930s?

You are twisting the existing Math theorems to fit your conclusions.  Why do you even bother when you skip the fundamental steps along the way?

...

You are applying Math incorrectly and connecting the dots to fit your desired outcome.

This is a fair challenge.

"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."

My argument assumes apriori that the universe is mathematical and logical. I take the position that the totality of human experience including science backs that claim.

Nevertheless I concede that I cannot prove it.

All systems of belief can be traced back to assumed axioms. Belief in a mathematical and logical universe is one of mine.

I would note that quantum mechanics in no way shows that the universe is illogical or that it cannot be described with mathematics.

CoinCube,

You should re-phrase the description of your claim#1 and state that you cannot prove it.  Then you can stop there.

Doing otherwise, you are just fooling yourself.  If you care about the truth, you should double check each step in your logic before you proceed further.

BTW, the universe as we know it has infinities and probabilistic representations that are hard to represent by logic or arithmetic.

[CoinCube]

Please show us that the universe can be treated as a Turing machine.  

Here is the formal logic behind claim #1. Credit for this goes to Perry Marshal who outlined it here:

See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

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

[CoinCube]

CoinCube,

You should re-phrase the description of your claim#1 and state that you cannot prove it.  Then you can stop there.

Doing otherwise, you are just fooling yourself.  If you care about the truth, you should double check each step in your logic before you proceed further.

BTW, the universe as we know it has infinities and probabilistic representations that are hard to represent by logic or arithmetic.

This is a very foolish statement to make.

Even pure mathematics which is the closest we can come to absolutely proving something is built on core basic assumptions that cannot be proven.

Honest arguments clearly lay out the assumptions they make and allow the reader to decide if they accept them or not. Dishonest arguments hide their assumptions or deny that any such assumptions exist.

You can for example chose to believe that the universe is illogical and cannot be described with mathematics and that any success with this approach so far is just a very long string of random occurance but this belief is quite hard to reconcile with science let alone common sense.

[af_newbie]

Please show us that the universe can be treated as a Turing machine.  

Here is the formal logic behind claim #1. Credit for this goes to Perry Marshal who outlined it here:

See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

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

Read my previous post.  Our universe cannot be represented by the "elementary arithmetic". We have infinities and quantum effects that we know cannot be represented in a Turing automaton.

The above deduction is invalid.  Full stop.

[CoinCube]

Read my previous post.  Our universe cannot be represented by the "elementary arithmetic". We have infinities and quantum effects that we know cannot be represented in a Turing automaton.

The above deduction is invalid.  Full stop.

You are misrepresenting my statement. I only need to show that the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic to show that it is incomplete.

I never said the universe can be entirely represented with elementary arithmetic. If the universe can be entirely represented mathematically such math is far beyond human understanding.

Here is the entirety of my first argument.

An Argument for God

Claim #1 There are things in this universe that are true yet cannot ever be proven true no matter how much knowledge or technology advance.

This first step is a general statement about the possibility of truths that can never be proven and it can be derived from mathematical deduction.

Gödel’s theorem proved that any generated system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. What this means is that in any created system that determines basic arithmetical truths/answers, there is at least one statement that is true, but not provable in the system.

The universe is a non-trivial computational system. We know this from the Church-Turing thesis which tells us that physical systems can express elementary arithmetic. It is a system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.

Thus we can conclude that the universe is incomplete.

There is at least one thing in the universe that is true but cannot ever be proven from inside the universe. Optimal understanding of the universe necessitates we develop a way of evaluating concepts that are possibly true yet forever unprovable.

We know that we can prove some truths and we know that we cannot prove all truths. Therefore we must develop a theory of truth that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot.

[af_newbie]

Read my previous post.  Our universe cannot be represented by the "elementary arithmetic". We have infinities and quantum effects that we know cannot be represented in a Turing automaton.

The above deduction is invalid.  Full stop.

You are misrepresenting my statement. I only need to show that the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic to show that it is incomplete.

I never said the universe can be entirely represented with elementary arithmetic. If the universe can be entirely represented mathematically such math is far beyond human understanding.

Here is the entirety of my first argument.

An Argument for God

Claim #1 There are things in this universe that are true yet cannot ever be proven true no matter how much knowledge or technology advance.

This first step is a general statement about the possibility of truths that can never be proven and it can be derived from mathematical deduction.

Gödel’s theorem proved that any generated system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. What this means is that in any created system that determines basic arithmetical truths/answers, there is at least one statement that is true, but not provable in the system.

The universe is a non-trivial computational system. We know this from the Church-Turing thesis which tells us that physical systems can express elementary arithmetic. It is a system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.

Thus we can conclude that the universe is incomplete.

There is at least one thing in the universe that is true but cannot ever be proven from inside the universe. Optimal understanding of the universe necessitates we develop a way of evaluating concepts that are possibly true yet forever unprovable.

We know that we can prove some truths and we know that we cannot prove all truths. Therefore we must develop a theory of truth that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot.

Just because you can express some physical system using arithmetic, and such physical system is part of the universe, it does not mean that the universe can be used in the Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.  Why not?  Because this theorem applies to the system of arithmetic axioms.

If you want to prove that the universe is an incomplete system that has some axioms that are true but cannot be proven, you have to represent the universe as a system of such axioms, then the use of the theorem would be valid.

You are playing with "capable" and "can" words.

[CoinCube]

If you want to prove that the universe is an incomplete system that has some axioms that are true but cannot be proven, you have to represent the universe as a system of such axioms, then the use of the theorem would be valid.

Yes and this requires that the universe be fundamentally logical.

In other words every phenomenon in the universe must be describable by some type of mathematical axiom. Such axioms may be totally beyond current human understanding or knowledge but their existence must be possible.

As I said the fact that the universe is ultimately logical is assumed in my argument. I think this is both a reasonable assumption and mostly self evident.

Our limited understanding of quantum mechanics is evidence only of our ignorance and in no way shows that the universe is illogical or indescribable by mathematical axiom.

[Astargath]

If you want to prove that the universe is an incomplete system that has some axioms that are true but cannot be proven, you have to represent the universe as a system of such axioms, then the use of the theorem would be valid.

Yes and this requires that the universe be fundamentally logical.

In other words every phenomenon in the universe must be describable by some type of mathematical axiom. Such axioms may be totally beyond current human understanding or knowledge but their existence must be possible.

As I said the fact that the universe is ultimately logical is assumed in my argument. I think this is both a reasonable assumption and mostly self evident.

Our limited understanding of quantum mechanics is evidence only of our ignorance and in no way shows that the universe is illogical or indescribable by mathematical axiom.

Again you are a talking in philosophical terms. Godel's theorem cannot be applied to that, period. There is even a book for it because so many people tried to apply it incorrectly.

[af_newbie]

If you want to prove that the universe is an incomplete system that has some axioms that are true but cannot be proven, you have to represent the universe as a system of such axioms, then the use of the theorem would be valid.

Yes and this requires that the universe be fundamentally logical.

In other words every phenomenon in the universe must be describable by some type of mathematical axiom. Such axioms may be totally beyond current human understanding or knowledge but their existence must be possible.

As I said the fact that the universe is ultimately logical is assumed in my argument. I think this is both a reasonable assumption and mostly self evident.

Our limited understanding of quantum mechanics is evidence only of our ignorance and in no way shows that the universe is illogical or indescribable by mathematical axiom.

I wish science would work like that.  You just state that something must be possible, and boom you have a proof.

Your claim is basically:  Arithmetic axioms that describe the universe must be possible to exist, therefore one of them is true but cannot be proven.

I am telling you that there is no way of representing the world as a Turing machine.  So your "must be possible to exist" is just wishful thinking on your part.

Same as saying God must be possible to exist.  And your proof is just, well, it is only logical. LOL

BTW, the world as we know it at the quantum level, near or at singularities (Big Bang or Black Holes) is not intuitive nor logical.

PS. Even if you prove that the world is a computer simulation, how does this get you any closer to prove that your (Jewish like) God exists?
You know the one who likes to own slaves, wants to kill gays and is very interested in the Homo Sapiens reproductive system.

[CoinCube]

Again you are a talking in philosophical terms. Godel's theorem cannot be applied to that, period. There is even a book for it because so many people tried to apply it incorrectly.

Please try to keep up we just went through a long discussion of what is necessary to apply Godel's theorem in the way I have. Af_newbie summed it up immediately above.

If you want to prove that the universe is an incomplete system that has some axioms that are true but cannot be proven, you have to represent the universe as a system of such axioms, then the use of the theorem would be valid.

To apply Godel's theorem in the way that I did requires me to assume that the universe is ultimately logical aka that it is possible to describe every phenomenon in the universe mathematically. This is an assumption I make in my argument.

You can alternatively choose to believe as af_newbie apparently believes that the universe is illogical and thus globally indescribable with mathematics. Then you would reject my first claim as Godel's theorem would not be applicable.

I wish science would work like that.  You just state that something must be possible, and boom you have a proof.

Your claim is basically:  Arithmetic axioms that describe the universe must be possible to exist, therefore one of them is true but cannot be proven.
...

BTW, the world as we know it at the quantum level, near or at singularities (Big Bang or Black Holes) is not intuitive nor logical

You are twisting my words out of context again.

Who said anything about a proof? I have laid out a logical argument and like all logical arguments it rests on some basic assumptions.

I never said that I could prove the universe is logical. I said that if the universe is logical then it is incomplete. It is a conditional argument not a proof.

Everything in our lives including the reproducibility of science is consistent with a logical universe. Only at the very boundaries of our knowledge with esoteric phenomena such a black holes and quantum effects so poorly understood that their continue to be multiple competing theories explaining what exactly is happening it is more difficult to say things are logical.

Black holes and poorly understood quantum phenomena strike me as shaky ground to rest a belief in an illogical universe upon but to each his own.