"Is Disbelief Rational?" or "God, the Undecidable"

[taoist]

I am taoist.

I am also a PhD mathematician from the University of Illinois at Chicago who believes the existence of God or gods is a formally undecidable proposition based on my reading of Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

In the aftermath of a debate on another board, I was offered an invitation to debate the proposition "Is Disbelief Rational" with Pastor Bob Enyart of the Denver Bible Church, who hosts a syndicated radio program known as Bob Enyart Live.

If I accept this invitation, I will be Bob's studio guest sometime this coming summer, and in preparation I would like to challenge any theist (or any "strong" atheist for that matter) to defend any rational argument for the existence (or non-existence) of the God of Abraham, a supernatural, eternal creator of the known universe.

Is there anyone on this forum willing to take up the gauntlet?

[seebs]

I was once thinking about trying to arrange a fairly unusual multi-way debate with one strong atheist, one theist, and one agnostic. It'd be an interesting spectacle. Good luck!

[taoist]

seebs I was once thinking about trying to arrange a fairly unusual multi-way debate with one strong atheist, one theist, and one agnostic. It'd be an interesting spectacle. Good luck! Thank you, Seebs.

That idea had occurred to me as well, but as I'm new to this forum I thought I'd try a less ambitious gambit. If I could arrange such a discussion, it would of course be preferable as I feel both the opposing propositions to be unsupportable.

On a side note, though I recognize that many agnostics choose to eschew the label of atheist, I feel this is inherently inappropriate, as by its very etymology, atheism is anything which is not theism, and thus agnostics are atheists by definition, though strictly a subset of atheistic thought.

In the terms of those who choose to identify with agnosticism, I might be termed a "strong" agnostic, one who believes that agnosticism is the only rational position regarding the existence of any supernatural deity.

Having browsed this site rather extensively over the last two weeks, it seems clear to me the board has a decidedly secular bias. Given this observation, I'm actually rather skeptical that I'll be able to find a theist willing to engage this subject, but the arguments I propose are just as valid as counters to strong atheism.

In peace.

[Bill Snedden]

Not being a strong atheist or theist, I can't take you up on your challenge although it would be interesting to see the question debated.

I must say, however, that engaging Bob Enyart on any topic that includes the word "rational" seems rather....well...amusing... :D I wish you the best of luck and express my fervent hope that you aren't driven mad by the experience.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by taoist
In the terms of those who choose to identify with agnosticism, I might be termed a "strong" agnostic, one who believes that agnosticism is the only rational position regarding the existence of any supernatural deity.

Then we may have grounds for debate. I believe there are no gods. I think that is a rational position despite the fact that that it can't be proven correct. We rationally believe many things that have not been proven. I personally believe there are no horses in my bathroom, even though I haven't checked for quite some time.

Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44372) is my argument that gods are generally unlikely; and here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66165) is my proof that a particular Christian god does not exist.

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe that maybe-I'm-wrong means we don't really have a disagreement? For you to say.

crc

[wiploc]

Taoist, are you still with us?

crc

[taoist]

I must say, however, that engaging Bob Enyart on any topic that includes the word "rational" seems rather....well...amusing... :D I wish you the best of luck and express my fervent hope that you aren't driven mad by the experience.
Madness is never an option. And I'm glad to have been able to lend a bit of amusement to any discussion involving Bob Enyart and the Enyartians.

In peace.

[shivalinga]

I will debate if you still want it.

I am a student of Vedanta for the last 27 years.

If you are looking for a christian,that will not be my
point of view.

[taoist]

Taoist, are you still with us?

crc
Well, yes and no. I would like to return to this debate soon, but I've a few too many eggs in the air right now. It will probably be another month before I can reply in anything like a timely manner. Thanks to all who've taken an interest.

[greves]

is this topic still active?? i'll take taoist or anyone else up on this challenge, i would argue from the strong atheist perspective.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

is this topic still active?? i'll take taoist or anyone else up on this challenge, i would argue from the strong atheist perspective.

You may want to send taoist a private message to get his/her attention.

Jason

[Jim Lazarus]

lol - no you don't, Greves. Quit hoggin' all the fun. You just participated in a formal debate.

If Taoist would like to debate the issue of Strong Atheism, I also submit a willingness to participate and support the position of SA. I'll take Nightshade's advice and send him a PM.

- J Lazarus

[Godless Wonder]

I am taoist.

I am also a PhD mathematician from the University of Illinois at Chicago who believes the existence of God or gods is a formally undecidable proposition based on my reading of G�del's incompleteness theorem. If I am not mistaken, that theorem only applies to formal systems. AFAIK, religions, or assertions of some nontrivial god(s) (non)existence, are not formal systems.

Most people here would agree that it cannot be proven that no gods exist, and you would be hard pressed to find someone to claim that they have such a proof. However, I cannot prove that leprechauns don't exist. That does not mean that it's unreasonable for me to say that I believe that no leprechauns exist. I find the case for gods similar to that for leprechauns.
Without merit, and apparently mythological.

You can always ask, "what is the cause of the universe?" and then assert "whatever is the cause, if any, I label 'god'?" but this is only giving our ignorance a name, and does not actually amount to any new knowledge. Such a "god" is trivial.

So I only have a problem with disbelief in gods to the same extent that I have a problem with disbelief in leprechauns. Which is to say, no problem at all.

Ugh. Just noticed the OP'er, 5 posts since Dec. 2003. IOW, this thread is a zombie.

[greves]

shut up james i got dibs buddy :), iffin that he responds

[taoist]

If I am not mistaken, that theorem only applies to formal systems. AFAIK, religions, or assertions of some nontrivial god(s) (non)existence, are not formal systems.

Most people here would agree that it cannot be proven that no gods exist, and you would be hard pressed to find someone to claim that they have such a proof. However, I cannot prove that leprechauns don't exist. That does not mean that it's unreasonable for me to say that I believe that no leprechauns exist. I find the case for gods similar to that for leprechauns.
Without merit, and apparently mythological.

You can always ask, "what is the cause of the universe?" and then assert "whatever is the cause, if any, I label 'god'?" but this is only giving our ignorance a name, and does not actually amount to any new knowledge. Such a "god" is trivial.

So I only have a problem with disbelief in gods to the same extent that I have a problem with disbelief in leprechauns. Which is to say, no problem at all.

Ugh. Just noticed the OP'er, 5 posts since Dec. 2003. IOW, this thread is a zombie. You're not mistaken in your first tenet.

However, there's no reason I'm aware of that the existence of a supernatural being can't be assigned propositional statements sufficient to form a formal system. And therein lies the debate.

Certainly, I'm aware that no proof is available for existence or non-existence. I'd like to take it a step further however, and argue that no such proof is possible. Without such a position, I don't believe the debate I'm thinking of could get off the ground.

Seeing as this thread is a zombie and I've received, albeit months ago, an invitation via PM, it suits my sense of irony to request that Lazarus come forth.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Seeing as this thread is a zombie and I've received, albeit months ago, an invitation via PM, it suits my sense of irony to request that Lazarus come forth.

Welcome back taoist,

Since it's been a while since James has posted in this thread, you may want to send him a private message.

- NS, FD Moderator

[taoist]

Welcome back taoist,

Since it's been a while since James has posted in this thread, you may want to send him a private message.

- NS, FD Moderator
Why thank you, Nightshade. I'm pleased by your welcome.

Thank you as well for the suggestion, which I note is the same suggestion you gave to Mr. Lazarus. While it seems he read my pm response yesterday afternoon, I realize this is Super Bowl Sunday and so I'm not surprised that I've heard nothing since.

I'm sure he'll respond as he finds time.

[taoist]

And, of course, I'm hardly in a good moral position to bemoan his laxity.

;)

[li po]

wow, when is this getting off the ground? this should be fun.

[josephpalazzo]

I am taoist.

I am also a PhD mathematician from the University of Illinois at Chicago who believes the existence of God or gods is a formally undecidable proposition based on my reading of G?'s incompleteness theorem.

In the aftermath of a debate on another board, I was offered an invitation to debate the proposition "Is Disbelief Rational" with Pastor Bob Enyart of the Denver Bible Church, who hosts a syndicated radio program known as Bob Enyart Live.

If I accept this invitation, I will be Bob's studio guest sometime this coming summer, and in preparation I would like to challenge any theist (or any "strong" atheist for that matter) to defend any rational argument for the existence (or non-existence) of the God of Abraham, a supernatural, eternal creator of the known universe.

Is there anyone on this forum willing to take up the gauntlet?

To debate this is a futile exercise since either position, theism or atheism, is a leap of faith. I can see an exchange of viewpoints but why a debate in the first place? The next question would be: would this exchange bear any fruits?


:confused:

[taoist]

To debate this is a futile exercise since either position, theism or atheism, is a leap of faith. I can see an exchange of viewpoints but why a debate in the first place? The next question would be: would this exchange bear any fruits?


:confused:
Leap of faith? Bear fruits?

Those are, of course, theistic expressions. As is the analogy to iron sharpening iron with which I'm sure you're familiar. Every debate is an exchange of viewpoints. The benefits of a formal debate arise from the ability to precisely define the terms used in the sequel.

In this case I wish to examine carefully, with the aid of another, the concepts of rationality, disbelief and the supernatural.

While James expressed an interest in precisely defining god for this exchange, I am of the opinion that the other definitions will prove more dominant in this exchange.

Thank you for your thoughts.

[taoist]

wow, when is this getting off the ground? this should be fun.
Thank you for your support.

[josephpalazzo]

Leap of faith? Bear fruits?

Those are, of course, theistic expressions. .

As Nietzsche once said, 'I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.' In your case, one would have to substitute grammar for expressions.



The benefits of a formal debate arise from the ability to precisely define the terms used in the sequel..

A debate is usually a formal presentation of pros/cons to a stated proposition. My contention is that both sides can easily justify their positions and no conclusion can be reached. In fact in this case, a debate is an exercise in futility.

[taoist]

As Nietzsche once said, 'I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.' In your case, one would have to substitute grammar for expressions.



A debate is usually a formal presentation of pros/cons to a stated proposition. My contention is that both sides can easily justify their positions and no conclusion can be reached. In fact in this case, a debate is an exercise in futility.

Thank you again for your thoughts, joseph, and also for helping me to keep this thread active.

And since my sense of irony is hard-wired to my funny bone, thank you for the amusement as well. Now if a debate about the rationality of disbelief is an exercise in futility, what would you call a comment on such a debate?

:)

But seriously, you've seen my handle. I do not see debate as a contention of worldviews, but as a means of bridging the gap with light to illuminate the alternatives. Though I readily admit it's a minority view, I feel the winner of a debate is the one who receives the greater enlightenment from his or her opponent.

In peace, Jesse

[LeeBuhrul]

I am taoist.

I am also a PhD mathematician from the University of Illinois at Chicago who believes the existence of God or gods is a formally undecidable proposition based on my reading of G?'s incompleteness theorem.

In the aftermath of a debate on another board, I was offered an invitation to debate the proposition "Is Disbelief Rational" with Pastor Bob Enyart of the Denver Bible Church, who hosts a syndicated radio program known as Bob Enyart Live.

If I accept this invitation, I will be Bob's studio guest sometime this coming summer, and in preparation I would like to challenge any theist (or any "strong" atheist for that matter) to defend any rational argument for the existence (or non-existence) of the God of Abraham, a supernatural, eternal creator of the known universe.

Is there anyone on this forum willing to take up the gauntlet?

if you accept it like that...."is disbelief rational"...

the right debate should be "Is religious belief rational"

[taoist]

Mr. Lazarus has not been active since the 6th, according to his user profile, and so I'm unwilling to set aside his priority as yet by opening up the opposition.

***

Thank you for your interest, LeeBuhrul. Indeed, your position is correct, but in the original context of a debate with Mr. Enyart, the title was given as "... or God, the Undecidable" making the issue moot.

Again, it is my position that the existence of any supernatural being, especially the christian god, is a formally undecidable proposition and thus not rational. Similarly, the positive belief that such a being does not exist is also irrational, even though it is probabilistically compelling.

While I would prefer to undertake this debate with a theist, there are certain benefits of undertaking the formal process with a strong atheist which I cannot ignore.

In the meantime, I await the virtual resurrection of Mr. Lazarus.

[Jim Lazarus]

Hello Taoist.

Thank you much for your patience. Unfortunately you messaged me when my computer had crashed, and so I was unable to reply. It was a friend of mine who read your PM message to me.

I'm a bit disorganized at the moment - I'll reply again in an hour with more specifics, once I get my computer fully up and running again (downloading a million things as I type). I'm still interested in pursuing this, however.

- Laz

P.S. Yes, I'm familiar with Godel's work and life story. In fact, it's ironic you messaged me with that question, because my main concern as of late has been the contributions to philosophy made by all of the members of the Vienna Circle. Uncertain as to exactly how you plan to use his theorem, but I'll be interested to see.

- JL

[Jim Lazarus]

Okay.

The question under debate is whether or not we can rationally stand by a particular answer to the god-question - i.e., "yes" or "no".

This, obviously, requires that we provide a precise definition for the term "God", and here's my suggestion:

God = a being who is:

(1) The Creator/Designer of the Universe
(2) A disembodied mind, or "Spirit"
(3) Maximally Powerful
(4) Maximally Knowing
(5) Maximally Good
(6) Timeless

This is obviously more inclined toward a theistic god-concept. If taoist is interested in considering Deism and Dystheism in the debate, just let me know, although that would be probably end up a bit messy due to space constraints.

Now, I think this definition is pretty easy-going - it certainly encompasses the god-concepts of the theistic religions of modern day, and a certain number of the attributes could be said to be a corollary of others. For instance, assuming (1), we can derive (6) and [reasonably] (3) and (4). The attribute of (2) is taken for granted in modern day, even though the Ancient Greeks might be heard grumbling about it, if they could be here today.

Notice that just as with my debate with Wiploc, the attributes are describes in terms of "maximalities" instead of in terms of "omni" 's, simply because this is a more precise description of what theists really worship, even though they might continue to use the latter "omni" 's out of habit. The classical "omni" god, in the usual strict sense, is a rather immature concept that I do not think is really supported by god-believers when it comes down to it. These omni-attributes would entail that the god-concept is beyond logic - and while this might please a classical Van Tillian, most theists do not accept it.

If Taoist likes this definition, we can move on to the specifics of the debate - maximum words per post, duration between posts, etc.

I usually write quite a bit when presenting a formal case - so if it's alright with Taoist, I'd like to set the word limitation to 5,000 words each post (the maximum allowed by the forums).

Everything else I leave up to Taoist's preference at this point (and/or for him to elaborate on).

- Laz

[taoist]

Been working on my response, James ... it's going to take another hour or so to post it.

[Jim Lazarus]

Been working on my response, James ... it's going to take another hour or so to post it.

lol - sounds like you've got quite a bit to say. :Cheeky:

I'll try to be around until 2:30-ish.

- Laz

[taoist]

Hello, James,

Thank you instead for your patience, which has been orders of magnitude greater than my own, considering how long it's taken me to respond after my initial postings.

The idea here is that you should take up the sword of the rational disbeliever, while I descry the shield of Godel. Umlauts don't show up on my preferred browser, so I'm going to abandon them. In working this up, I've tried to keep duality in mind, that any argument for excluding rational disbelief is also an argument for excluding rational belief. But this is the case only for a divine being imbued with a single supernatural property.

As you might be aware, while an argument for excluding rational disbelief requires all properties of the divine be challenged, an argument for excluding rational belief requires that only one be shown invalid. This is a natural consequence of the definition being composed of a sequence of properties of the deity which must all be satisfied in an instance of DeMoivre's Theorem.

***

While the rational believer must show it is rational to conclude that

AND (property(i), i from 1 to 6)

the rational disbeliever must show it is rational to conclude that

NOT (AND property(i), i from 1 to 6) = OR (NOT property(i), i from 1 to 6)

Thus, if you can show that it's rational to exclude a god having any property(i), you'll have made your case.

***

In preparing my positions on the necessary attributes of a debatable god in this context, I ran into a roadblock on property 5, which is ill-defined. But when I removed the property, I found us with a chaotic supernatural being, making your position untenable as far as I can see. We must give god a natural purpose for his creation. Apathetically all-powerful is a hard nut to crack if you see my meaning. A couple ideas are occurring to me, but I'll have to get back to them. I don't want to place you into a naturally untenable position. No, I want to place you into a supernaturally untenable position, instead.

Of course, I could declare summary victory over the rational believer at this point as it's not possible to have rational belief in a divine being who cannot be rationally defined. Alas, I've chosen to debate an atheist. I'm going to keep working on this, and I hope that you'll give thought to it as well. I feel intuitively that this is resolvable, and I understand as I'm the originator, that it's up to me to resolve it. Still, I'm very open to suggestions.

***

You suggest that the god which I shall argue cannot be rationally denied be imbued with the following ...

Divine properties

1. creator/designer of universes, specifically our own
2. not physical reified
3. maximally powerful
4. maximally knowing
5. maximally good
6. timeless

I can't help chuckling as we specify the properties which, in effect, create our divine creator.

***

Property 1, I agree to the specification.

Property 2, I agree to the specification.

Property 3, I suggest that maximally be defined as more powerful than the sum total of all useful energy during the lifespan of our universe, with the added assumption that this energy is finite, as in a cold death universe. This caveat is added only to avoid the needless complication of mathematics involving cardinalities greater than that of the continuum. I can handle this, but ain't but a couple board members who'd be interested in following the argument, I think. Under this definition, I agree to the specification.

Property 4, I suggest that maximally be defined as encompassing knowledge of all space-time events on scales exceeding the Planck wall during the existence of our universe. Under this definition, I agree to the specification.

Property 5, Preemptive objection based on the non-existence of a well-ordered standard of good, causing the term maximal to be without referent.

Property 6, I agree to the specification.

***

Rational, Resolvable beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disbelief, Refusal to believe,

***

I would prefer to debate the properties piece-meal in posts limited to 1000 words. My own experiences in journalism have given me a prediliction for 30 column inch, ultra-concise argument. But first, there's that pesky natural purpose issue to resolve.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I would prefer to debate the properties piece-meal in posts limited to 1000 words. My own experiences in journalism have given me a prediliction for 30 column inch, ultra-concise argument. But first, there's that pesky natural purpose issue to resolve.

Hi taoist,

This might be potentially awkward for purposes of a formal debate. Keep in mind that formal debates can only have up to 10 rounds (2 statements from each participant per round). Since there are 6 properties and each property is to be dealt with piecemeal, it will be a minimum of 6 rounds just for opening posts on each property. This wouldn't leave much room for rejoinders on each issue. :(

- NS, FD Moderator

[Jim Lazarus]

Besides Nightshade's point, many of the arguments for my position are concerned with the properties taken as a whole. I'm arguing against the whole entity!! Not simply one property each individually.

Let's replace the property of maximal goodness with being maximally loving - which does not require a real standard of ethics, but is still accepted by all theists.

Let me suggest this:

Topic: Is Disbelief Rational?

Scope: I'll argue that it is rational to be a strong-atheist, you will argue that it is not.

Length of the debate: 6 Rounds

Length of posts: 5,000 words.

Duration between posts: 10 days.

Extent of quotes: Less than 50%.

Opening statements will be made concurrently, and the rest in turns.

- Laz

[taoist]

James, I've been considering your proposed comments along with Nightshade's input but I am still having problems with our definitions. While I believe we can come to a mutually agreeable format, it's like haggling over price before we've settled on the car.

I can't make the concept of maximally loving work, there's no consistent measure I can find, and believe me, I struggled hard with this last night. I've considered carefully the idea of maximally purposeful, but the concept turns out to be sweeping dust under the rug.

I'm not sure what to do with this yet, so let's let it percolate a bit. You seem very anxious to begin, but I can only apologize. Without well-defined properties, we don't have a well-defined god to debate. I have this horrid suspicion that the god concept may be fundamentally undecidable, that no set of properties that requires a purposeful god can be well-defined.

Please share your thoughts with me when you've got a moment. I hate like hell to leave you with a cliff-hanger like this, but, again, I can only apologize.

In turmoil, Jesse

[taoist]

Imagine for a moment you're being asked by a theist, "What God don't you believe in?"

A specific answer is, of course, "Yours." A general answer is "Any god." Well, then, what is it about the god concept which allows you to answer this question with firm disbelief?

[Jim Lazarus]

I'm not exactly sure what it is about this last property that's giving you trouble. Maximalities are meant to mean "as much for this particular property as is possible within the bounds of logic". So, when I say "maximally loving", this should be taken to mean "as loving as is possible for an entity within the bounds of logic". Similarly with power, and knowledge, etc.

It's not really that I'm anxious to begin, but it seems that you're having problems with exactly how a god-definition works meaningfully and coherently - and that's certainly not something you'll be able to work out in a debate proposal thread! Philosophers have been having problems with this for a very long time now. Simply, when debating this subject, it's necessary to take the attributes that theists apply to their god, form them into a general concept with those combined properties, and see if such a thing is possible. If it itself is self-contradictory, or if it is inconsistent with some known aspect of reality, or entails something that cannot be true, then we can reject the existence of an entity with those attributes.

Try to clarify your problem with "maximally loving" a little more. Maybwe can find a solution.

- Laz

[taoist]

... but it seems that you're having problems with exactly how a god-definition works meaningfully and coherently - and that's certainly not something you'll be able to work out in a debate proposal thread! Philosophers have been having problems with this for a very long time now ...

- Laz
Thank you, James,

Yes, exactly. It's a shame you couldn't have been looking over my shoulder as I tried to fit maximally loving into the definition of maximal in a partially ordered set, or you'd understand my conundrum better. What is the proper context of a chain here, what can we say about any individual in the group of entities that might take a hand in the structure of our world, how should we group physical entities in this universe in order to measure the concern of one of these individuals ...

In short, maximally loving of what? A particular individual human, a tribe, a race, a species, a biosphere ...? In the spirit of your suggestion, I'll begin a thread on maximally loving where we can examine these issues more fully. With some help from my fellow infidels, perhaps we'll be able to come up with something I can use.

While a standard discussion thread can be interesting, I find they suffer from arguments formed in the heat of passion and too little time considering the issues fully. Too many posters use them as a slightly more elaborate chat room, causing the signal to noise ratio to drop beneath a useful value. It's the rare individual who can see an issue clearly in context and respond coherently in only a few moments. This is meant to justify my perhaps presumptuous offer of a formal debate though I am not an habitué of this forum.

I ask you to keep in mind that you'll be debating a fellow atheist if we can resolve this issue. It's not my intention to have a "yea, brother, aren't those pick-your-brand theists utter fools" discussion. I want to examine the concept of rationality as it relates to belief and disbelief in any supernatural being who might take an interest in us. What, based on the scientific method as illuminated by modern abstract mathematics, is the most rational position to take in examining this issue? How do we best approach this subject with the "innocent" mind necessary to a scientist?

My motives are selfish, admittedly. I want to use you as a foil to develop a concept I haven't seen addressed before. As I've already imposed on your patience beyond the realm of the reasonable, I feel emboldened to ask you for still more as I resolve the issue preventing me from beginning what I hope will be a memorable debate.

In peace, Jesse

[Jim Lazarus]

In short, maximally loving of what? A particular individual human, a tribe, a race, a species, a biosphere ...? In the spirit of your suggestion, I'll begin a thread on maximally loving where we can examine these issues more fully. With some help from my fellow infidels, perhaps we'll be able to come up with something I can use.

Well, historically theistic religions have viewed God as being particularly concerned with humanity. The purpose of his creation and the outlines of his divine plan have to do primarily with us. So, when we say "maximally loving", I suppose we can say that this is toward humanity. This is not to say that theists do not think he is fond of any other aspect of his creation - but these other aspects are only here because they have something to do with us, and he is particularly loving of us as compared to everything else.

- Laz

[taoist]

Greetings again,

As you may have noticed, James, I did create a new thread in the EoG forum in the interest of hashing out this idea. I'm looking to create a concept of maximally loving that is in some sense quantifiable, at least up to a partial ordering. The thread is moving rather slowly, but there's at least one participant who seems interested in pursuing the idea.

Anyone interested in helping out or lurking the sequel should direct their browser to Who do you love? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=115515)

In peace, Jesse