Hacker News Reader

Comment by User23 | Hacker News Reader

You ought to put some more effort into understanding the millennia of thought that has gone into the topic before making sophomoric errors.

You've unintentionally acknowledged my original point with your obsession on the nonexistence of the biblical God. Why aren't you going on about your lack of belief in Susano-o?

What you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity. Granted, the particulars of the incarnation are a matter of testimony. Setting that aside though, the logical argument for the necessity of a creator God is no different than the logical argument that we live in a "simulation."

View on HN

> who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity

Care to unpack that for me? Are you arguing for a "God", or a Prime Mover? I think they are very distinct - people attribute certain anthropomorphized qualities to a "God". I don't find an argument that there must being a prime mover particularly compelling, and if there were such a thing, I would very much doubt that it would represent any sort of deity as we define it - if anything I'd expect it to be energy and chaos. I'd just like to know which side of this argument you're going with.

See "He Is There And He Is Not Silent" by Francis Schaeffer.

However, be aware that this book is more a sketch or outline of an argument, not detailed at every step. You're going to have to do a lot of thinking about various points to decide whether you agree with his argument.

You're also going to have to pay careful attention to his definitions of words, specifically his distinction between rationality and rationalism.

Taking a weak sketch of an argument and then filling in what you want to see seems to me to be a realization of one's own desires, and not a convincing argument in and of itself. I've no interest in reading a Christian Apologists attempt to find a way to rationalize out a creator - if I'm going to be convinced of such a thing, I expect there to be convincing, obvious, evidence, and not to end up at the end of a metaphysical cul-de-sac and to have to "God" my way out of it.

I never said it was weak. It's not. I said that you're going to have to think through whether the "but what about"s that you come up with really counter his point, because he's not going to address every "what about" that exists.

> What you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity.

And what you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a disbelief in a transcendental creator in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical impossibility.

> You ought to put some more effort into understanding the millennia of thought that has gone into the topic before making sophomoric errors.

The arrogance is simply astounding.

> because it's a logical impossibility.

Really? Why don't you share your theorem?

We know that the existence of God can be found logically, because Gödel wrote a formal proof.

> The arrogance is simply astounding.

Indeed, I'm impressed by your self-awareness.

> We know that the existence of God can be found logically, because Gödel wrote a formal proof.

This, of course, is why if you look online there are no refutations of said proof.

I would suggest you're being incredibly pedantic - formal logic being a place far removed from the logic to which they were referring. It seems roughly analogous to me that just because mathematically infinity exists doesn't mean it must exist as physical property.

I didn’t see any logic, informal or otherwise. God doesn’t exist because I don’t want Him to isn’t any kind of argument at all.

You're right - that's not a terribly well thought out argument. They should have said:

"I don't believe in any deities existence as such a claim would require extraordinary evidence. Not only have we been provided no extraordinary evidence, we have been provided no evidence at all, save possibly the very existence of creation itself, but we can safely reject the argument that a creator deity exists because creation exists due to the innate problem with first causes arguments - if you assume that everything must have a first cause, that first cause can't have had one, thus there isn't an innate requirement for a first cause, making first causes an argument against themselves. There being no evidence provided, therefore I can safely rejected the supposition that such a being would exist."

That would have made more sense.

Yes, that does make more sense. Of course I would counter that the universe and our existing in it came to be out of random mindless chaos is also an extraordinary claim.

I’d state it as there must be a singular uncaused cause on account of the tree of causality has to have a root. We call that uncaused root of causality God. The refutation requires that we accept that some events have causes and some don’t and oh well no idea to really know which is which. Since the entire scientific and engineering endeavor relies on events having causes, I find that conclusion philosophically unsatisfactory.

If we don't assume a beginning or end, then we end up with infinite time, with infinite variations, and with that it's a pretty much certainty that this would exist as it does, for this iteration.

Science and Engineering rely on cause and event largely in mathematical abstractions - if we draw the line out far enough "why is that real ball moving through space" the answer stretches all the way back to the big bang, and we lack the ability to see what came before. From what I understand of current science - the theory is that it was due to a big crunch, which was due to a big bang - infinite loops in an infinite cycle.

Again though, you're saying that the singular uncaused occurred just because - in a system that otherwise must have a cause and effect that MUST have had a cause and effect, unless you decide to draw a special case for it, where I can see no reason why you would. It's basically a special pleading to jam god into a hole of knowledge, just like we used to do with demons and witches before we understood the real nature of diseases.

> We know that the existence of God can be found logically, because Gödel wrote a formal proof.

And that is when the whole world converted overnight never to question dogma again, right? Wait, that didn't happen. Because is not posible to prove any god, let alone the overlord dictator that is, by your own "logic", making me type this words disregarding him/her.

If there are no gods, then I'm right. If there are gods and they are your kind of illogical creators that somehow do not need an explanation themselves, completely powerful and complex beyond imagination, yet simple enough to classify as "first movers", and caring enough to "die" for us but not before having a plan in-place to resurrect themselves, then leaving for some reason, he/she/it/they WANT ME to be an atheist, so I'm still right. Or are you going against your gods?

Anyway I'm done answering you. At least I hope you learned what an Atheist is and don't keep going around claiming that we are as bad as the rest because we also have "faith" in atheism! Sadly, I'm not holding my breath.

Godel's proof is just a formal logic version of Augustine proof, which has been disproven.

Here's the "proof": God is perfect, all perfect things must exist, therefore God exists

Which is easily refuted by observing that the statement merely shows that either a perfect God exists or it does not. The fact that one can posit a perfect God does not make it real. Even a kid can understand that.

No it's not. It's a formalization of St. Anselm's ontological argument. It's clear to me that you have no real interest in the subject, but on the off chance I'm wrong you can easily find both the medieval ontological argument and the modern formal one online.

In any event I think Gödel's proof is worth understanding simply as a nice example of modal logic and the power of formalisms. Anselm's informal attempt at a proof is famously unreadable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com