The Roles of Logic and Science in Questions of Theology

[_Gadianton]

JAK,

You say, "Your last sentence is correct, I'm not sure you write it." JAK, my last sentence was, "his conclusion is not simply a restatement of a premise." So does that mean you disagree with the statement I made previous to that one, that Godel's argument is not a tautology? Holy cow.

You wrote,

I detailed and your quotation of him demonstrates, he assumes the truth of his conclusion. Hence, there is no foundation as you wish to believe.

Another analysis for this fallacy in reasoning is:

Begging the Question

That’s what Gödel does as I detailed in a post responding to what you presented.

The conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises.

JAK, JAK. You do realise, right, that "tautology", "begging the question", and "circular reasining" are all different ways of saying the exact same thing? And all of those mean exactly what I wrote in my last sentence, that the conclusion is a restatement of one (or more) of the premises. You accused Godel of begging the question, and you explicitly write that the conclusion of his argument is assumed in one of the premises! So how is it that you tell me you saw nothing wrong with my last sentence, where I said "His conclusion doesn't merely just restate a premise" --- you said, clearly that his conclusion DOES just merely restate a premise.

There is no wiggle-room here JAK. If you meant something other than his conclusion merely restates a premise when you said he begs the question, then you are wrong, because the two are the same thing.

[_Gadianton]

With regards to your interest, # 1, I addressed it already. You didn’t comment on what I said.

Because you said nothing relevant to my contention with JAK who did not argue as you did:

Everyone in this entire world can argue against Godel’s argument, one doesn’t need credentials to do so. Just as everyone can argue against K. Armstrong.

JAK said (and Marg, do you lick everything JAK says from his palms or don't you?),

And how many books have you had published? What is your particular qualification for passing judgment on the scholarship of Armstrong?

Do you agree with yourself, or do you agree with JAK? Because you don't agree with each other. I'm just trying to hold JAK to his own standards. If the argument had been that CC didn't offer any arguments against Armstrong, I would have just continued on with my lurking without saying anything.

don’t you think it is up to you to explain why you think Godel's ontological argument is not a tautology?

Some of the reason why I don't really want to take on yours and JAK's finer points in critique of Godel. First, neither of you, I don't think, have the foggiest idea of who Godel was or what his contributions to logic were. (hurry JAK, hurry, do 1000 google searches in the next 10 minutes and try and pretend otherwise..). Second, you both make bold and reckless condemnations of Godel neither of you having studied formal logic at all, let alone modal logic which just makes the subject more complicated, JAKs 10000 google searches and quotes on modal logic was a pathetic and silly exercise. And instead of picking lets say, just the wiki article, and reading it carefully and noting the standard responses to Godel, he tried to do his own thinking and tackle the most noteworthy logician in history with his own original insights based on half a day's study of modal logic. Sorry, if I can't help but be condenscending. And finally, NO, it's not my responsibility to argue why Godel's argument ISN"T a tautology. His argument, in formal terms, is clearly stated on wiki. It's up for you and JAK to show why it's a tautology, given that to my knowledge, JAK is the first person to discover this flaw in Godel.

I thought to some extent all deductive arguments were, but whether or not they are called tautological depends on how close or obvious the connection is between premises and conclusion

NO, NO, NO. not all deductive arguments are to some extent "tautologies", why would they be? A deductive argument is either a tautology or it isn't. And Godel is not going to argue a silly tautology. get real.

My question for you Gad: Do you agree with CC? Is logic essential to theology/theological claims?

Yes.

that value derived from logic is dependent upon reliable assumptions.

In science there are scientific natural laws assumed because they hold up under testing and objective evaluation

But formal logic and modal logic are usually devoted to subjects that are philosophical rather than scientific.

In theology the basic assumptions of the supernatural do not hold up to testing and objective evaluation.

Theology covers a lot of different subjects, but remember, a lot of theology came from putting Aristotle's writings into the service of God, notably, natural theology. Not to say Aristotle was right, but he wasn't a blundering idiot. And the "testing" of metaphysics isn't easygoing. Testing for necessity and contingency etc..

After many assumptions, theology may argue some causal link. The problem is that the initial assumptions were truth by assertion. Hence, applying “logic” following faulty assumptions really means we have no logic or we have flawed logic."”

Why woudl the link be "causal"? And aren't all initial assumptions truth by assertion? If they aren't, then they can be broken down into simpler components and hence, they wouldn't be assumptions anymore.

Does the conclusion conclude that a God exists as an actual entity, by actual I mean a thing which exists in reality.

Yes, but "actual entities" in philosophy are slippery. Does "truth" actually exist? Does the number "5" actually exist?

The weakness or problem with the way you are using this modal logic is that it is a game or system which does not have to connect to the actual world but you are using it as if it does connect.

This is always a criticism of logic. And by the way, no one uses formal or modal logic to state arguments in physical sciences or when discussing emperical evidence. It's mostly a tool for philosophy. Most people, including and sometimes especially scientists or engineers, will think tools of philosophy are stupid until they get into questions that contemporary science can't answer. And then these people go on to speculate beyond the bounds of science not realizing they are becoming philosophers, and then these people will usually get it pointed out to them why they are bad philosophers.

If it is used as if it links to the actual world but there in fact is no link, then it's used incorrectly.

Why would modal logic, which is largely used to explore possible worlds, need these solid links to the actual world? Usually those who head to modal logic do so because the study of the "actual world" isn't able to resolve their questions. The links you want are there, but not as dirt samples.

Well that's fine but then one should be clear and honest about the limitations of what an ontological argument regarding a God concept can say. It can not say, it has logical proof of the existence of an actual God.

What is an actual God? Is Aristotle's unmoved mover a God? Why or why not?

Yes but Godel's logic is a closed system. I'm sure JAK appreciates that if one wants to restrict one's reasoning to such a closed reasoning system, it is limited to what information can be derived from it with regards to the actual world we live in.

What is a closed system and an open system? Why are closed systems limited? Can you give an example of a formal proof done in a system that isn't closed?

[_marg]

I'm just reading your response to me Gad, just so you know I rarely disagree with JAK's logic. He is extremely careful with the words he uses, what he says is very clear, precise and logical. Unlike you, he has been forthcoming in this discussion and addressed all that was put to him. He doesn't ignore or attempt to weezle out of arguments made to him.

Now you wrote this "Second, you both make bold and reckless condemnations of Godel"

So before I look at anything else you say ..please quote me to support your claim above.

[_JAK]

JAK,

You say, "Your last sentence is correct, I'm not sure you write it." JAK, my last sentence was, "his conclusion is not simply a restatement of a premise." So does that mean you disagree with the statement I made previous to that one, that Godel's argument is not a tautology? Holy cow.

JAK:
Gadianton, you’re either d******** or s*****. Why do you misquote a single short line?.

Reread my post.

In regard to a statement of yours, I state:

Your last sentence is correct. I’m not sure why you write it.

You misquote me that attributes to me:

(Gadianton) JAK,

You say, "Your last sentence is correct, I'm not sure you write it."

Which is it, Gadianton. Are you s***** or d********? It’s one or the other. You cannot even quote a short statement accurately from one of my posts. That word "WHY" makes a totally different statement to you than your false quote which you then straw man attack as if I had said your misquote.

Given that stupidity or dishonesty, discussion with you is pointless.

At least re-read my post Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:08 pm to recognize your own s*******y or d********y.

JAK

[MODERATOR NOTE: Non-celestial aspersions have been edited out.]

[_JAK]

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Zillion's Philosophy Pages

First let me try to state in clear terms exactly what he proved, since some of us may have sort of a fuzzy idea of his proof, or have heard it from someone with a fuzzy idea of the proof..

The proof begins with Godel defining a simple symbolic system. He has the concept of a variables, the concept of a statement, and the format of a proof as a series of statements, reducing the formula that is being proven back to a postulate by legal manipulations. Godel only need define a system complex enough to do arithmetic for his proof to hold.

Godel then points out that the following statement is a part of the system: a statement P which states "there is no proof of P". If P is true, there is no proof of it. If P is false, there is a proof that P is true, which is a contradiction. Therefore it cannot be determined within the system whether P is true.

As I see it, this is essentially the "Liar's Paradox" generalized for all symbolic systems. For those of you unfamiliar with that phrase, I mean the standard "riddle" of a man walking up to you and saying "I am lying". The same paradox emerges. This is exactly what we should expect, since language itself is a symbolic system.

Godel's proof is designed to emphasize that the statement P is *necessarily* a part of the system, not something arbitrary that someone dreamed up. Godel actually numbers all possible proofs and statements in the system by listing them lexigraphically. After showing the existence of that first "Godel" statement, Godel goes on to prove that there are an infinite number of Godel statements in the system, and that even if these were enumerated very carefully and added to the postulates of the system, more Godel statements would arise. This goes on infinitely, showing that there is no way to get around Godel-format statements: all symbolic systems will contain them.

(and more)

Source

Also recognize that Godel is one of many in Symbolic Logic: Theory and Practices

See These

JAK

[_JAK]

Rather than respond to posts, you engage in Argument By Question, Argument From False Authority, Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology), Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring), Fallacy Of Division, Ad Hominem (attack of persons as substitute for addressing issues), Introduction of the Irrelevant, and Error Of Fact (misquote of JAK). There are likely others which I have omitted.

Gadianton asked:
What is a closed system and an open system? Why are closed systems limited? Can you give an example of a formal proof done in a system that isn't closed?

A closed system of argument is an argument having no information flowing into or out of it which is not accounted for in the system.

Closed systems, are self-limiting as they provide for all that is in the system.

Gadianton asked:
Can you give an example of a formal proof done in a system that isn't closed?

This begs the question. The issue is the extent to which the process of gathering and assembling information is open to whatever is found in research. The issue is not about “formal proof” exclusively or the construction of a syllogism or syllogistic implication.

JAK

[_JAK]

Gad wrote:
1) If CC doesn't have the scholarly credentials to question Armstrong who isn't even a real authority in her field, then JAK most certainly does not have the scholarly credentials to to question Godel, who was probably the most noteworthy authority in history, of his field.

A flawed “if/then” construction. There is no relationship established between Gad’s “if” construction and the “then” conclusion.

The more Gad writes the more he demonstrate misunderstanding. Further, the “if” part of a statement must be established before any “then” conclusion can be reliable.

If-then statements are called conditional statements, or just conditionals. Failure to have established as reliable the if statement, the latter is irrelevant and/or unreliable.

In addition:

Your claim is an opinion stated as if it were a fact:
To wit: “...Godel, who was probably the most noteworthy authority in history, of his field.”

The only qualifier in the statement is “probably” which also necessarily means maybe not. As marg pointed out to you, KA is irrelevant except as I used her as one who has studied and written extensively on religions their emergence, their competition, their evolution, and their roles. It was a minor reference initially made against a statement that:

richardMdBorn wrote:
“KA (Karen Armstrong) strikes me as worse than superficial.”

My response to that was listing many of Armstrong’s publications which demonstrate Born’s opinion reveals ignorance of KA’s biography and extensive writing.

Born further attacked Bill Moyers.

richardMdBorn stated Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:09 pm:
"I don’t consider Moyers to be an authority on religion. Bernard Lewis is an authority."

Following that I posted two websites detailing Moyer’s biography and journalistic accomplishments. None of those argued that Moyers was “an authority on religion.” So the attack on Moyers was a straw man attack (challenging that which was never argued).

Hence the attack was a straw man attack and irrelevant to the discussion of Godel’s faulty or “fuzzy” construction. Not only did I detail that, I posted a website which also, and in a different construction, criticized Godel's flawed reasoning.

JAK

[_richardMdBorn]

JAK,

You don't appear to have read my last comment

I don't consider Bill Moyers to be an authority on who is a foremost student of religion. I note that you STILL haven't dealt with my first quote about KA. Given the number of errors Armstrong makes in that article about Islam and the West, it's hard to see how she could be an authority on much of anything.

Repeating your answer to my previous comment doesn't get us anywhere. I disagree with his comment that

Public Broadcasting Host BILL MOYERS on Karen Armstrong: She was a spark plug in my PBS series on Genesis, her books are best sellers, "The History of God", "The Battle for God", "Jerusalem". She's written a biography of Buddha, and a short history of Islam. Soon we'll have her new memoir of her life after the convent where she spent seven years as a nun. Joining me now is one of the world's foremost students of religion, Karen Armstrong.

I am unimpressed with BM. I grew up in the DC an am familiar with his credentials which are weak in my opinion.

If you will discuss my original quote about KA, perhaps we could make progress.

[_Gadianton]

JAK:
Gadianton, you’re either dishonest or stupid. Why do you misquote a single short line?.

Oh good Lord...

Your last sentence is correct. I’m not sure why you write it.

You misquote me that attributes to me:

[color=#3CB371](Gadianton) JAK,

You say, "Your last sentence is correct, I'm not sure you write it."

Which is it, Gadianton. Are you s**** or d********? It’s one or the other. You cannot even quote a short statement accurately from one of my posts.

Well, the answer JAK, is that I'm s*****. Because you see, first of all, I'm actually responding to what appears to be a computer program with no discernable trace of a personality. Second of all, I seem to have accidently left out the "why". It must have just completely slipped as I typed that sentence.

[_marg]

JAK,

You don't appear to have read my last comment

I don't consider Bill Moyers to be an authority on who is a foremost student of religion. I note that you STILL haven't dealt with my first quote about KA. Given the number of errors Armstrong makes in that article about Islam and the West, it's hard to see how she could be an authority on much of anything.

Repeating your answer to my previous comment doesn't get us anywhere. I disagree with his comment that

Public Broadcasting Host BILL MOYERS on Karen Armstrong: She was a spark plug in my PBS series on Genesis, her books are best sellers, "The History of God", "The Battle for God", "Jerusalem". She's written a biography of Buddha, and a short history of Islam. Soon we'll have her new memoir of her life after the convent where she spent seven years as a nun. Joining me now is one of the world's foremost students of religion, Karen Armstrong.

I am unimpressed with BM. I grew up in the DC an am familiar with his credentials which are weak in my opinion.

If you will discuss my original quote about KA, perhaps we could make progress.

This is the argument/issue Richard : Is logic essential to theology?

JAK pointed out "KA is irrelevant except as I used her as one who has studied and written extensively on religions their emergence, their competition, their evolution, and their roles. It was a minor reference"

It really makes no difference to the argument that you don't respect KA, she does have the qualifications for the minor purpose JAK used her. If JAK had been arguuing about Islam and used her, you'd might have a legitimate complaint. But what you are doing now is simply diversionary tactics, which have no relevancy to the argument. You and Gad are coming across as harassing rather than as sincere individuals in discussion. If you want to make progress focus on the issues of the argument.