Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless



29082014, 05:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 29082014 05:03 AM by phil.a.)




Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
The theist transcendent/immanent perspective is that reality consists of (a) God and (b) everything that God created.
So from the big picture, reality is a God/Stuff system. Godel's incompleteness theorem is a mathematical theorem which proves mathematically that it is not possible to describe a system in terms of itself. The maths itself is a bit complicated but the premise really isn't that complicated and may be intuited in the following mind experiment: If I have a container, and I want to store it in another container, that 2nd container will need to be bigger than the container that I want to store. It's not possible to put a box inside another identical box, it simply won't fit. Swap "container" for "descriptive system" and the same situation exists. If I have a descriptive system, I cannot use that discriptive system to describe (e.g. "contain") itself. A system can itself only be described in terms of a further more complex system. And yet  this error of describing a system in terms of itself is precisely what "intelligent design" sets out to do, because it is describing the God/Stuff system using no more than what's available in the God/Stuff system. Godel's theory proves mathematically that it's not possible to do this, therefore "intelligent design" is demonstrably meaningless. This does not prove god does not exist, just simply that the Intelligent Design argument is meaningless. Important note: any counterargument to Intelligent Design that is conducted on it's own terms (e.g. attempting to offer evidence that proves god does not exist) is also meaningless, because the premise itself is meaningless. So if you debate Intelligent Design on it's own terms, you're making the same mistake as the Intelligent design people. The only winning move is not to play! Don't waste your time engaging with the argument. Rather, simply dismiss it. So where does "intelligent design" come from in fact? My view is that it's a result of what Karl Popper might call a theoryladen analysis of the evidence, e.g. it's based on a looking at reality from the axiom that God exists (e.g. the position takes as an axiom the conclusion it attempts to prove). So it's nothing more than a projection of the theist's preexisting belief. Phil 

1 user Likes phil.a's post 
29082014, 05:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 29082014 05:43 AM by Free Thought.)




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
Yes... Well...
"I have feels. And they matter!" The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy. "Antienvironmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'"  Jake FarrWharton, The Imaginary Friend Show. 

29082014, 05:54 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(29082014 05:32 AM)Free Thought Wrote: Yes... Well... Yes I agree! What I am trying to do here though is clearly differentiate emotion from reason, because in a sense  the premise for the "intelligent design" argument is that these separate dimensions of human knowing haven't been clearly differentiated. I've already argued elsewhere that feelings and emotions are fundamental knowings of reality that can't be ignored in a complete model of reality, but that's a separate issue. Phil 

29082014, 06:31 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(29082014 05:00 AM)phil.a Wrote: ... Yabut, the flaw in Godel's reasoning is that maths is axiomatic. Therefore, god. 

29082014, 06:35 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(29082014 05:00 AM)phil.a Wrote: The theist transcendent/immanent perspective is that reality consists of (a) God and (b) everything that God created. You can make the analogy, but Gödel's Theorems don't actually say, or really imply, that. So, no, one cannot use Gödel's Theorems to disprove ID. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 

1 user Likes Chas's post 
29082014, 07:11 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(29082014 06:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:(29082014 05:00 AM)phil.a Wrote: ... It does not matter. It's true that maths is axiomatic, but the axiom is the same as the axiom used in theories of Intelligent Design. Because both use the same axiom, when using one to disprove the other, the axioms cancel out. Phil 

29082014, 07:15 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(29082014 06:35 AM)Chas Wrote: You can make the analogy, but Gödel's Theorems don't actually say, or really imply, that. You seem to be saying that because you don't find the analogy accurate, this therefore means that my overall claim is false. If that is what you are saying, I think it contains an error of reasoning. Phil 

29082014, 07:17 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(29082014 07:15 AM)phil.a Wrote:(29082014 06:35 AM)Chas Wrote: You can make the analogy, but Gödel's Theorems don't actually say, or really imply, that. No, I am saying that you are welcome to make an analogy, but Gödel's Theorems do not disprove ID. They simply aren't applicable. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 

1 user Likes Chas's post 
29082014, 07:29 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(29082014 07:17 AM)Chas Wrote:(29082014 07:15 AM)phil.a Wrote: You seem to be saying that because you don't find the analogy accurate, this therefore means that my overall claim is false. OK (perhaps this is what you mean but) I am not saying that they disprove ID, but rather that they invalidate ID. If that is what you mean, can you explain why they aren't applicable? Phil 

29082014, 11:35 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(29082014 07:29 AM)phil.a Wrote:(29082014 07:17 AM)Chas Wrote: No, I am saying that you are welcome to make an analogy, but Gödel's Theorems do not disprove ID. They simply aren't applicable. Chas can probably give you a more detailed answer (if he hasn't gotten weary of this whole argument), but briefly, Gödel's Theorems make very specific statements about formal systems in logic and mathematics, and they don't apply to anything beyond that. In particular, they don't apply to science, theology, metaphysics, or anything in "real life"  none of these are formal systems. You keep trying to apply Gödel's Theorems to areas that are way beyond their scope, and you just can't do that. It's like saying arithmetic invalidates MobyDick. They have nothing to do with each other. As to the thread title, mathematical proof also doesn't apply to anything outside of mathematics. Science is basically an inductive process  it doesn't "prove" things in the same way that mathematicians and logicians do. Mathematical theorems are absolutely true (given the axioms on which they are based), and true for all time. Science is always open to revision. 

2 users Like Grasshopper's post 
« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)