Is God Irish?

[Philosophy Now]

Roger McCann maps the limits of theology.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/92/Is_God_Irish

[Resha Caner]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the difficulties of a rationalist approach to the question, "Does God exit?" I especially liked the section on the applicability of Godel, and how that flowed into the final "proof" that God is likely to exist. For those who have read the article (one of the free ones BTW), I'd be curious to hear thoughts on the 4 statements:

1.) For over a thousand years attempts have been made to establish the existence or non-existence of God logically. None have been successful. I conclude that ‘God exists’ is more likely to be logically undecidable than logically decidable.

2.) If God does not exist, I know of no reason why ‘God exists’ is more likely to be logically undecidable than logically decidable.

3.) However, if God does exist, then the ‘unknowable’ aspect of God would make ‘God exists’ more likely to be logically undecidable than logically decidable.

4.) So because ‘God exists’ is likely to be logically undecidable, I conclude that God is more likely to exist than to not exist.

[thedoc]

Is God Irish?

Yep.

Any more questions?

[Steve_Reilly]

“n 1931 the Austrian logician Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) proved his Incompleteness Theorem, which says that within any rationally-definable logical system, statements exist that are neither provable nor disprovable using the axioms of that system.” Not so.
Gödel proved that within any formal axiomatic system containing a certain amount of number theory there are arithmetic statements that are undecidable in that system. So to the question, “ Could ‘God exists.’ be one of Gödel’s logically-unprovable , statements?”, the
answer is an obvious no, unless he’s referring to a special case where we turn ‘God exists’ into a formal mathematical statement and then attempt to prove it using axioms that contain number theory. And even then the question might still be settled with a different axiomatic system.

God’s existence may very well be undecidable. But if so, the undecidability does not stem from Gödel’s famous theorem.

[Resha Caner]

God’s existence may very well be undecidable. But if so, the undecidability does not stem from Gödel’s famous theorem.

Well, note that the phrase was "logically undecidable". I think that implies codifying the statement somehow. Even if the author didn't intend that, the implications of Godel's work extend beyond the specific details of the proof. Mathematics is typically seen as the highest form, the most successful, the best way to determine things. So, if one strives for that ideal, one is placed under Godel's theorum.

Of course it can't be proven that mathematics is the best way to determine things ... but then that's kind of the point.

Regardless, I discussed this on another forum and someone convinced me there is a flaw in the argument.

[SecularCauses]

“n 1931 the Austrian logician Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) proved his Incompleteness Theorem, which says that within any rationally-definable logical system, statements exist that are neither provable nor disprovable using the axioms of that system.” Not so.
Gödel proved that within any formal axiomatic system containing a certain amount of number theory there are arithmetic statements that are undecidable in that system. So to the question, “ Could ‘God exists.’ be one of Gödel’s logically-unprovable , statements?”, the
answer is an obvious no, unless he’s referring to a special case where we turn ‘God exists’ into a formal mathematical statement and then attempt to prove it using axioms that contain number theory. And even then the question might still be settled with a different axiomatic system.

God’s existence may very well be undecidable. But if so, the undecidability does not stem from Gödel’s famous theorem.

Godel destroyed logical positivism in a single stroke. In any event, we certainly don't need incompleteness theorems to debunk christianity, islam, and judaism. A little common sense and a fifth-grade education will suffice.

[Steve_Reilly]

Regardless, I discussed this on another forum and someone convinced me there is a flaw in the argument.

Do you mean the argument in the article? What was the flaw?

[Resha Caner]

Do you mean the argument in the article?

Yes.

What was the flaw?

As the argument was stated there is a problem with step 3. The appeal to the unknowable in the "if" half of the statement doesn't justify the "then" part. It fails the unicorn test. If one replaces the object in the argument with something else, one ends up saying that anything we can imagine is likely to exist. Not true, because I can imagine contradictory objects.

I thought I could fix that issue by replacing "unknowable" with some other aspects such as "unapproachable". And I think those replacements basically do fix the original problem, but doing so revealed another problem: logic follows existence, not the other way round.

So, I might be able to use logic to show the existence of something to be unlikely, I might even be able to use logic to show that consequent objects are likely to exist, but I can't use logic to show the existence of something so fundamental as God is likely. It's the whole cogito ergo sum problem. What fundamental object has logic ever proven to exist?

For example, using logic, prove that physical matter is likely to exist. It's not logic that proves it. It's experience: matter is all around me, so assuming it exists is a pretty safe assumption (aside from all the "What if you're a butterfly dreaming you're a man?" types of nonsense).

[attofishpi]

God did truly make the Isle of Man Irish...(aisle)

(to scale)



www.androcies.com

[chaz wyman]

Roger McCann maps the limits of theology.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/92/Is_God_Irish

It seems to me that the logical difficulties to define what you might mean by god, is consistent with any other imaginary entity which does not exist.
When the logical or geometric method is applied to the question, what ends up being defined is Nature. A disinterested and necessary world unconcerned with human life and morality.

"Irish?"
I'm a bit surprised to find PN indulging in this racial slur.
Shame on you.

We all know God is American.

[Godfree]

Roger McCann maps the limits of theology.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/92/Is_God_Irish

It seems to me that the logical difficulties to define what you might mean by god, is consistent with any other imaginary entity which does not exist.
When the logical or geometric method is applied to the question, what ends up being defined is Nature. A disinterested and necessary world unconcerned with human life and morality.

"Irish?"
I'm a bit surprised to find PN indulging in this racial slur.
Shame on you.

We all know God is American.

Well done Chaz , how to make sense of nonsense ,
god is actually African , monkey invented god long before man roamed the planet ,
the evidence for this is in every culture on the planet ,
the same superstitious nonsense from one country to another ,
and that is where you will find the PROOF god does not exist ,
the real world is proof no god exists ,
to see god we must go into fantasy land , not the real world ,
reality is it'self proof there is no god ,,!!!!