From: "Ken Smith" <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Eight proofs that God exists


> Responding to Rowland's comment ...
>
> "Rowland Croucher" <> writes:
>
> >"Barry OGrady" <> wrote in message
> .
> >> On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:24:53 +1100, "Rowland Croucher"
> ><> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Barry OGrady" <> wrote in message
> >> .
> >> >> On 01 Dec 2001 18:54:03 GMT, 
> >(Johnallen7721005)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >1 The universe is governed by laws, and where there are laws there
are
> >> >also law
> >> >> >givers. The one whom created the laws of the universe is God.
> >> >>
> >> >> Humans designate concepts as laws. So humans must be God.
>
> >[etc.]
>
> >> >I'm with Barry here - not in the mode of his expressing his sentiments
> >(nor
> >> >probably the motivation behind them) but in his attempt to point out
the
> >> >flaws in each of these so-called 'arguments'...
> >> >
> >> >There's only one: Jesus Christ.
> >>
> >> Would you like to comment further and provide your proof?
> >> I could say that the proof of the IPU is the IPU.
>
> >'Proof' is an elusive concept, isn't it? (Ken Smith: want to comment on
> >that?)
>
> "Proof" is indeed a rather elusive concept - even for people trained
> in logic and mathematics.
>
> In mathematics "proofs" are really only detailed derivations showing
> that some particular statement is a tautology, that is, it follows
> from the assumptions and is not something independent.
> Even something as simple as 1 + 1 = 2 can be reduced to a series of
> steps showing that it follows from the laws of reasoning adopted, and
> the assumptions made in setting up what is meant by addition and
> equality in arithmetic.
>
> We cannot get away from some basic assumptions which we take for
> granted - or take on faith, if you prefer that wording.
> Even such things as the law of non-contradiction (e.g., something
> cannot be both red and non-red) form part of the assumptions we make.
> If you make different assumptions, you finish up with a different
> system of logic, which may be internally consistent, but produce
> results which conflict with those for other systems of logic.
>
> And if you ask "Which assumptions are really true?" you find yourself
> in very deep and murky waters.
>
> In 1931 Kurt Godel (there should be an umlaut on the "o" of Godel)
> proved a result which had widespread implications for logic -
> mathematicians are happy to live with this, but it hasn't yet filtered
> through to the general community - or even to some philosophers.
>
> He derived a theorem for any logical system which was capable of handling
> addition and multiplication of whole numbers (and that includes virtually
> all logical systems of interest - you do want to be able to check your
> grocery bill, don't you?).
> He proved that it was possible to formulate a statement within the
> system, which made perfectly good sense, but which couldn't be proved
> to be true, and couldn't be proved to be false.
> Such statements are called "undecidable".
> Now this was bad enough - surely any mathematical statement must be
> either ture or false, and mathematicians had been working on trying to
> develop a system which would allow them to divide all mathematical
> statements into two groups: the true ones, like 1 + 1 = 2, and the
> false ones, like 1 + 1 = 3.  Godel showed that not all statements
> could be so classified.
>
> But he then dropped a reral bombshell: he proved that one of the
> statements which was undecidable is "the rules of reasoning and the
> assumptions (axioms, to use the technical term) are consistent."
>
> Think about this for a minute.  If the rules and assumptions are
> inconsistent, then it is possible to prove anything, including false
> things like 1 + 1 = 3.
> But if the rules and assumptions *are* consistent, we cannot prove
> this.  Hence there might be something horribly wrong with our
> assumptions, and we just haven't been clever enough to find out what
> it is.
>
> This has been summed up by some mathematicians as `We don't know
> whether our assumptions are consistent or not, but we haven't run into
> trouble so far, so we'll accept them on faith."
>
> It doesn't matter whether you are a fundamentalist Christian or a
> fundamentalist atheist, or something in between: whatever you take as
> the basis for your life you have to accept on faith - you can't prove
> it to be true, but nor can anyone else prove it to be false.
>
> So in the end it boils down to saying something like
>
> >For me it is easier to believe that Jesus was what he claimed to be (God)
> >than to believe any of the alternatives about him...
>
> I admit that I can't offer any proof for my faith - but that's what
> faith is all about.
> I can offer reasonable arguments in support of my faith, but they are
> likely to be convincing only to someone who has had the same
> experiences of God as I have.
>
> >Over the years the people I've encountered or read who believe the
> >alternatives, have, I believe, some sort of ulterior motive for such
belief
> >(or non-belief)...
>
> In my experience (mainly among scientists) those who claim to be
> atheists, when pressed, in many cases either
> (a) admit that "agnostic" is a better description, or
> (b) agree that their belief is also based on faith, and cannot be
> proved.
>
> >If Jesus was/is God, then I guess he knows what he's talking about re the
> >kind of God we're invited to believe in, eternal life, the nature of the
> >moral law etc.
>
> >--
>
> >Shalom!    Rowland Croucher
> >http://jmm.aaa.net.au
>
> Salaam
> Ken Smith
>
>
> --
> Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
>    `The creation stories in Genesis, for instance, did not and do not
>     depend for their value on their acceptance as cosmologies ...'
> Norman Young, in "Creator, Creation and Faith"