ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Atheism & Agnosticism

Ten Reasons To NOT Believe In God

Updated on July 18, 2016

For Those Who Are Truly Willing To Explore The Question

Just as there is no way to definitively prove that God exists, there is no way to prove that he doesn't.* Interpretations of the available physical evidence will always be subject to personal bias. Critical examination of “holy books” can be easily dismissed with the claim that such texts are merely "metaphorical" or "allegorical" or have been "mistranslated." Thus, we are left with logical arguments to guide us in an honest quest for the truth.

This hub is designed for people on both sides of the question. For those who believe in a supreme being, it is hoped the arguments below will encourage an open-minded and objective examination of that faith. For those who already reject such belief, hopefully they will illuminate your skepticism in new ways, and will help you articulate the logic of your position in discussions with others.

(note: Any reference to “God” below is to the monotheistic male deity of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths)

*(I've recently reconsidered this notion, and have made an attempt at actually disproving the existence of Yahweh, the deity of the Bible and Quran, in my hub "The Disconfirmed Deity")

So simple, even a child can do it
So simple, even a child can do it

REASON ONE: HE’S UNNECESSARY

The progress of human understanding has closed more and more of the gaps of ignorance that used to be filled by God. The scientific explanations for nature agree with processes and conditions we can actually see, measure and experience, requiring fewer assumptions (and fewer leaps of blind faith) than the belief that “God did it.” This is the test of “Occam’s razor.”

REASON TWO: HE’S IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE

If God truly existed he would make it possible, especially for those who are skeptical, either by demonstration or by sound logical argument. He would know exactly what it would take to “open the heart” of every non-believer. Yet for more than two millenia the greatest philosophical and scientific minds of humanity - presumably inspired by God - have offered nothing more than circular and illogical arguments.

REASON THREE: HE’S ILLOGICAL

An omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) God is an absurd logical paradox. He is either unable to create an impossible task for himself or is unable to perform it once created (because it's impossible). If God knows the past, present and future, these states are known quantities and God is unable to change them, and is not omnipotent. If they are subject to change, then God cannot know them with certainty, and is not omniscient. Additionally, if he knows his own actions in advance, even his free will is in question.

REASON FOUR: HE’S UNORIGINAL

The idea of God(s) has changed in form and number over the millenia, from many to few and eventually, to one. As numerous mythologies have come and gone, borrowing and discarding from each other along the way, only the generic idea of deities has persisted. This suggests not a single, specific eternal god but a fluid and evolving human imagining of the supernatural.

REASON FIVE: HE’S TOO MUCH LIKE US

Every aspect of the mythology of God is limited by human circumstance and understanding. Like humans, he is jealous, vengeful, misogynist and cruel. Like humans of the time, his “holy” books reveal an extremely limited knowledge of the physical universe. Like humans, his religious identity is geographical, depending largely on one's nation or culture of origin. This sounds like a god created in Man's image, and not vice versa.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?      Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus

REASON SIX: HE’S INCOMPETENT

He abandoned his innocent and ignorant first human creations, Adam and Eve, to be corrupted by a talking (?) serpent in the Garden of Eden, then blamed them for their failure. When their descendents went further astray, he killed them all and tried again with Noah's family. When their descendents failed as well, he sacrificed his son to assume the debt of their failure. How many fixes does an all-knowing and all-powerful God need until he gets his human creation right?

REASON SEVEN: HE’S INCOHERENT

If God truly existed, he would speak to each of us personally, clearly and conclusively. He would not rely on fallible priests, rabbis and mullas to represent him. His “holy” books are ambiguous and full of contradictions and inconsistencies, and there are countless contrary religions and denominations, suggesting a human, not divine, origin.

The truth is so much more spectacular than the myth
The truth is so much more spectacular than the myth

REASON EIGHT: HE’S ASLEEP ON THE JOB

According to the religious texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God used to personally intervene constantly in human affairs through miracles, commandments, etc. He spoke clearly to some in his own voice or, more often, through angels. This was millenia ago, and any supposed witnesses or participants are lost to history. Now there is only silence, and prayers go unanswered.

REASON NINE: YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN OTHER GODS

With regard to most gods, you consider it perfectly normal and rational to not believe, and your skepticism is well-placed. Yet for one reason or another, you've chosen to set your skepticism aside and accept one particular deity as genuine. If those believers in other myths are mistaken, perhaps you're mistaken in your belief too.

REASON TEN: YOU DON’T REALLY BELIEVE IN HIM, EITHER

God is supposedly an all-pervasive deity who sees your every action and knows your every thought, and he decides your eternal destiny in either Heaven or Hell. Given the stakes, this should be the overriding concern in every moment of the life of every believer. Is it for you?


Comments

Submit a Comment

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 21 months ago from Michigan, USA

    Thanks for visiting and commenting, Lawrence! :-)

    But why must the notion of 'everything' apply ONLY to our universe? If it's a valid logical precept, then it applies to everything, or nothing. In effect, your objection is only a semantic one.

    With only a slight modification, we can still just as easily apply your modification to the notion of God. We can simply say that "everything that exists within God has to have a cause external to itself," and that "whatever or whomever created God has to be external to it, hence is not necessarily restricted by it."

    The notion of a "prime cause" is actually antithetical to the fundamental premise of the cosmological argument -- that everything must have a cause. By itself, the premise is a sound logical argument, as it can be applied universally and consistently.

    However, that there must be a FIRST, or "prime" cause is a PHILOSOPHICAL argument, because it is wholly arbitrary (there is no known logical precept that demands or requires it).

  • lawrence01 profile image

    Lawrence Hebb 21 months ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

    Paladin

    I see the argument/discussion is going on well here and it's getting interesting.

    The points you raise in the prevoius reply are only true to a certain extent!

    The 'everything' you talk about that must have a beginning is actually 'everything that exists in our universe' that has to have a cause external to itself! That means that whatever or whoever created it has to be external to it hence is not necessarily restricted by it.

    The 'cause' itself actually can't have an external cause otherwise he/she/it can't be the 'prime cause' because it becomes part of the creation.

    Whether the notion of 'God' makes sense is partly subjective but the reasons you give above haven't fully taken into account the cosmological argument.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 21 months ago from Michigan, USA

    Thanks for the link, Himangsu. Unfortunately, the link you provided sheds absolutely no light on whether or not a god (or gods) exists. All it does is presuppose that there is some fundamental "superior" (exterior) cause for the universe, which is nothing but a reiteration of the very old -- and inherently flawed -- cosmological argument.

    This argument fails in two very fundamental ways, even if we accept the premise that everything -- including the universe -- must have an exterior cause. First, it brings us no closer to knowing that the cause is a supernatural deity, especially the deity of one's choice.

    Second, if we accept the premise, logical consistency demands that we apply it to EVERYTHING -- including our presumed deity. Therefore, our "god" must have a cause external to him or herself. And THAT creator must ALSO have an external cause, and that cause, in turn, must have ANOTHER cause -- and so on, and so on, ad infinitum. Which essentially subordinates one's chosen deity into one tiny, insignificant step in an infinite regression of external causes.

    Once one carefully and comprehensively considers the argument your link proposes, the decision is pretty easy that the notion of God doesn't make much sense.

  • profile image

    Himangsu Sekhar Pal 21 months ago

    Here is a link below:

    https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/is-fine...

    One can go through this link and decide for oneself whether there is any God or not.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 24 months ago from Michigan, USA

    Welcome back, Himangsu!

    No, what I said is that everything could hypothetically be timeless. And that's only true because we don't yet quite fully understand the nature of time. When you add the qualifiers, "changeless," "immortal" and "everlasting," you alter the nature of the question.

    For example, "changeless" or "everlasting" makes any potential references much more narrow and specific. And "immortal" necessarily refers to a living being.

    Which brings us back to my essential point -- that this combination of adjectives (timeless, changeless, immortal and everlasting) could be SAID about anything. With no basis in fact, such a claim can freely be made about anything or anyone. But SAYING it doesn't make it true.

    As for atheists becoming "deaf, dumb and blind" in response to your question -- I'm sorry, but I find that incredibly hard to believe. As I previously pointed out, your proposition is simply another version of the age-old ontological argument, which most atheists would easily recognize as fatally flawed (for the reason noted in the previous paragraph).

  • profile image

    Himangsu Sekhar Pal 24 months ago

    I posted a comment in your blog few days ago, but it did not appear immediately. I opened the blog for several days after that with a hope to find my comment posted in the blog. But not finding it posted there I decided to post another comment, thinking that perhaps it has been deleted by the hub-author. (The hub-author has every right to post or not to post any comment in his blog. It is fully his discrimination, and I have nothing to say about it.) But when I entered my username, this automated comment was returned: ‘The username you specified is not available. Please try another one.’ So I was compelled to use my pseudonym here. So it is not my fault that I have posted two comments in two different names in your blog. It is due to the fact that my first comment took at least five days to appear in it.

    You have written: ‘Indeed, EVERYTHING in the universe could hypothetically be “timeless”, and that still wouldn’t require a deity of any sort.’

    Indeed, for the first time in my life I come to learn from someone that ‘EVERYTHING in the universe could hypothetically be “timeless”.’ This is because whenever I have posed the below question to any atheist or to any atheistic scientist, without any fail and without any exception he has turned deaf, dumb and blind: ‘What is timeless in this universe that required an explanation from science?’ He is blind, so how can he read my question? He is deaf, so how can he hear my question? So how can he answer my question if he is totally unaware of it? Therefore my question remained unanswered all the time. Now I learn from you that EVERYTHING in the universe could hypothetically be timeless. A timeless thing is an eternal, everlasting thing. It lasts forever and ever and it can never cease to be. This is because in the case of a timeless thing time does not pass at all. For a proper timeless thing there is no next moment. That is why it cannot change, it cannot cease to be, because occurrence of any sort of change requires time. This is the precondition that must have to be there if any change is to occur. This is the reason as to why God is not only called timeless, but at the same time he is also called changeless, immortal and everlasting.

    So, do you think that EVERYTHING in the universe could hypothetically be timeless, changeless, immortal and everlasting?

  • lawrence01 profile image

    Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

    True. But the possibility is there! Its also why I put in the hub that what is under discussion now was the 'order of magnitude' as Moffat was the one said "upto 600 times present speed"

    Lawrence

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 2 years ago from Michigan, USA

    I just found another, more comprehensive article on the same experiment:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-292...

    According to this article, the affect CAN apply to an entire light beam, but the effect (the slowing down of the photons) "...only applies at short range."

    This suggests that, even if some crazy natural effect managed to mimic the "liquid crystal device" used in the experiment -- which seems pretty dubious -- the effect would have been short lived. It certainly would not have been enough to account for the orders of magnitude difference between billions and thousands of years (which some creationists insist upon as the age of the universe).

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 2 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Found it!

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-3...

    According to the article, they slowed down one photon (in a pair of photons) to a speed less than light speed by sending it through a special mask -- a "software controlled liquid crystal device."

    This doesn't exactly sound like something that one would find in nature, out in the universe, and it apparently only works with a single photon (which is why they couldn't discover it before, because they always experimented with BEAMS of light). Still, it does cast doubt on the absolute nature of light speed.

    In any case, if you read near the end of the article, they specifically mention that it's not something that's going to apply on cosmic scales, as in those used to determine the distance of stars and the age of the universe:

    "...Light is used to make extremely precise measurements such as how far the Moon is from Earth. The good news is that we are not in for any nasty surprises on that scale..."

    Fascinating article! Thanks again.

  • lawrence01 profile image

    Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

    I put the link on the hub last night. I also found out NASA is using the hypothesis to start research on the idea of a 'Warp drive'

    If they're right it would still obey Einstein's theory but would warp time itself!

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 2 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Thanks! I'll see if I can find it.

  • lawrence01 profile image

    Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

    Paladin

    Just checked on google and the BBC has an interesting article where in 2012 researchers were able to slow photons below lightspeed and keep them there even in a vacuum!

    It doesn't prove it happened in the past, but it does make VSL more than a hypothesis! I'll try to rember to put a link on the hub tonight.

    Lawrence

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 2 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Lawrence, the sources you cite on your hub suggest that the changing speed of light over time is only a HYPOTHESIS, and proposed by only a couple of scientists (while that doesn't make it wrong, it's certainly NOT a scientific consensus, recognized by "all sides").

    So, unless you have other sources beyond what you included in your hub, I must disagree with your earlier assertions that "lighspeed itself has been shown to have been much faster in the early universe and is recognised by all 'sides' of the argument (sic)."

  • lawrence01 profile image

    Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

    By the way. You were right about light not having mass as it has momentum, so sorry for that point.

    Lawrence

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 2 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Thanks, Lawrence. I'll check that out!

  • lawrence01 profile image

    Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

    Paladin

    I've got a hub on the issue "Young earth, distant starlight" that explains the theory put out by Dr John Moffat (protege of Einstein)

    Have a read as that has the information I'm using.

    Lawrence

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 2 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Lawrence, I beg to differ. You may be correct with regard to the reach/exceed differentiation, though I don't think so, for theoretically it would require an infinite amount of energy for any amount of mass to reach light speed. Of course, it's been a while since I've brushed up on my physics, so I might have to re-check that.

    However, one detail about which I'm certain is that light does NOT have mass, and is NOT affected by gravity.

    It may appear that light is affected, for example, by gravitational "lensing." However, it isn't the light -- or any individual photon -- that is affected. Rather, it is SPACE that is affected gravitationally (or inertially) by the presence of mass. The photons themselves are unaffected.

    I must also disagree with both your assertion that light speed has been shown to be much faster in the early universe and that it is recognized by 'all sides of the argument.' I have seen no such scientific exposition on this assertion, and certainly have heard of no such scientific consensus. Could you offer a link on this, so I can check your source?

  • lawrence01 profile image

    Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

    Paladin

    Just a little correction as you said in your reply that 'nothing with mass' can travel at the spped of light.

    This isn't quite true as light itself has mass (it can be affected by gravity). Nothing with mass can exceed lightspeed (lighspeed itself has been shown to have been much faster in the early universe and is recognised by all 'sides' of the argument).

    Lawrence

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 2 years ago from Michigan, USA

    I'm not sure whether I should reply to either of the above comments, as each contains contain segments of text that are almost verbatim copies of text from the other. Yet each comment is from a 'different' user with a different ip address. In fact, HubPages automatically identified them as spam (which I had to change). Strange....

    Still, given the curious nature of the argument presented (a new variant of the ontological argument), I'll offer a reply (though it will be a single comment addressed to both).

    Himangsu/Uchitrakar, the flaws in your argument are numerous, and fairly easy to spot if one examines it objectively.

    First, you assert that "If God does not exist, then there will be no one about whom it can be said that he is spaceless, timeless, immortal etc..."

    This is simply untrue. This could be SAID about ANY being, deity or non-deity. Simply SAYING something about a creature doesn't make it true. I could make the exact same assertion about the neighborhood cat that visits my yard each day, and it has no bearing on whether the same could be said for any other creature.

    Next, you assert that "So God does not exist means nothing is timeless in this universe."

    Again, this isn't true. Whether or not any god exists has NO bearing on whether ANYTHING ELSE in the universe is timeless. Indeed, EVERYTHING in the universe could hypothetically be "timeless," and that still wouldn't require a deity of any sort.

    Next, you declare that, "in special theory of relativity it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops."

    This only theoretically true, and has no practical application, because general relativity reminds us that NOTHING with mass can accelerate to the speed of light. So, even if a photon can conceivably exist in a "timeless" state, that has no bearing on ANYTHING else in the universe!

    So, in the context of your argument, there is no contradiction -- unless you're arguing that "God" is a photon!

    As for the supposed 'unanimity' of "mystics," anyone who takes the anecdotal accounts of such con artists and hucksters seriously needs to have their BS detector repaired!

  • profile image

    uchitrakar 2 years ago

    God is said to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. He is also said to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite. So if we deny the existence of God, then we are also saying that there is no one in this universe about whom it can be said that he is omnipotent, omniscient, spaceless, timeless etc. So God does not exist means nothing is timeless in the universe. If nothing is timeless, then why was it necessary for science to show how anything could be timeless? Because in special theory of relativity it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops. By denying the existence of God science is also denying the existence of any permanent state of timelessness in this universe. At the same time science has shown as to how a state of timelessness can be reached. Is it not self-contradictory on the part of science?

  • profile image

    Himangsu Sekhar Pal 2 years ago

    God is said to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite. If God does not exist, then there will be no one about whom it can be said that he is spaceless, timeless, immortal etc.

    So God does not exist means nothing is timeless in this universe. If nothing is timeless, then why was it necessary for science to explain how anything could be timeless? This is because in special theory of relativity it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops.

    By denying the existence of God science is also denying the existence of any permanent state of timelessness in this universe. In spite of that science has shown how a state of timelessness can be reached. Is it not self-contradictory on the part of science?

    It can be shown by simple logic that the existence of a spaceless and timeless being in this universe implies the relativity of space and time. This is because if such a being is really there, then space and time are non-real, non-existent for that being, whereas for us human beings space and time are very much real, existent. Therefore the same space and time have two different values for different beings, which means that they have no absolute value. Science has also shown that space and time are indeed relative. On the basis of this it can be argued that if special theory of relativity is scientifically correct, then there is no justified ground for discarding mystical experience as a mere hallucination, because mystics have repeatedly and unanimously reported that both their senses of space and time were gone when they have met God.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 2 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Thanks, Lawrence! You have a great day as well, in lovely New Zealand (envious)!

  • lawrence01 profile image

    Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

    Paladin

    Thanks for the reply. I'd agree with what you say but I only came across the argument proper the other day so I'm still reading up on it (when I get the chance).

    As for me I enjoy good debate and I've learned lots from those who don't share the same opinion

    Have a good day

    Lawrence

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 2 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Oh, and of course, I forgot to specify that the Kalam argument's necessity of the universe's cause being 'external' (if we accept that premise) also does nothing to require that that 'external' cause is a deity. It's only insists that the universe's cause is outside itself, and demonstrates nothing about the nature of that cause.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 2 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Actually, Lawrence, there's no aspect of the Kalam argument that demonstrates that the universe's cause must be eternal, only EXternal! And that premise alone solves nothing, for one can simply say that God's cause must also be EXternal to him! And THAT cause's cause must be external to it, and so on and so forth.

    All the Kalam argument does is change the semantics somewhat, but the essential flaw in the argument remains the same.

    Incidentally, I forgot to thank you before for your kind words regarding my hub. Whether one agrees or not, it's nice to know one's work is appreciated! :-)

  • lawrence01 profile image

    Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

    Paladin

    Thanks for the reply. I'm just getting my head round it at the moment (and I believe in God!)

    As for the Kalam argument saying that God must have a beginning apparently not as the cause has to be outside of that which has a beginning. The cause itself has to be eternal otherwise it too becomes part of that which was created!

    Apparently tge mathematical model is based on the absurdity of infinity. I'll be looking into it.

    Lawrence

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 2 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Yep. I've heard of the Cosmological Argument (as well as the Kalam version, which adds a few more particulars), and I'm sure you won't be surprised when I say I don't find it convincing (first, because it means that God must ALSO have a cause; and second, because the universe's cause could be a million things OTHER than a deity)

    I must admit, I've never heard of the mathematical approach from Islamic scholars. So if you happen to write a hub on this, I'll be sure to check it out!

    Thanks for visiting and commenting!

  • lawrence01 profile image

    Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

    Paladin

    I will be honest I first looked you up because I was trying to point you to my hubs on the proof for Jesus and the Bible.

    I'm glad I did look you up as I really enjoyed what you put together here, it's refreshing to come across an original thinker with a sense of humor.

    I disagree with you and your arguments didn't shake me but I think theres a lot to discuss here.

    One argument for God I read recently is the "Kalam" argument.

    Never heard of it? It's actually a Medieval Islamic (in origins) argument that goes like this

    (1) Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause.

    (2)The universe had a beginning. (The Big bang theory or God simply speaking the effect is the same!)

    (3) The universe had a cause.

    I've been thinking of doing a series on the arguments for God, I might just do them as a way of gettibg discussion going

    Lawrence

    By the way. The Islamic scholars of Medieval times did come up with a sound mathematical way of proving it. Aquinas never wrote about the universe having a beginnibg as he thought it would be too easy to oeove God existed and at the time no one thought it did!

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    The problem is, nobody has come up with a "sound mathematical way" to PROVE God's existence, either -- despite your claims to the contrary -- not Gödel or anyone else.

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    It doesn't matter if someone is a scientist and an atheist: the point is they need to come up with a sound mathematical way to disprove Godel's theorem. That takes all the emotion out of the argument.

    To date there has been no successful attempt to disprove Godel's theorem by any scientists (including B. Russell). Perhaps it can't be scientifically contradicted. When it has been please let me know.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Oz, nobody's getting "emotive" about a theorem. If I'm getting "emotive" at all, it's at your dishonest claim that, because Gödel was a mathematical "genius," he MUST be also correct about God (we BOTH know why you're clinging to this ridiculous proposition, and it has nothing to do with Gödel's authority as a mathematician).

    However, since you seem to believe that mathematical genuises must be right about everything, I offer you the example of Bertrand Russell -- a mathematical "genius" by anyone's objective standards, and a Nobel laureate who was also respected by Einstein (with whom, in fact, Einstein collaborated). And Russell was an outspoken ATHEIST.

    So the mathematical genius has spoken! God doesn't exist! And you can't contradict him, because he was a genius, and you're just a hubber!

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Its unscientific to be emotive about a maths theorem. Objectively string theory is on a par with the God theorem: both cant be proved by a test of some kind. Only one attracts an emotive reaction from certain atheists. The same atheists dont get emotive about string theory.

    Why? Because they treat one with contempt due to a subjectively held belief.

    You or I are not in a position to claim Godel was a lousy mathamatician or that he was illogical. To do so is just an error: Godel was a genius. We are hubbers!

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Actually, God has NOT been "proven" by maths. As I just suggested to you in my previous comments -- and as you can easily see for yourself -- translating the concept of "God" to a mathematic quantity or variable has its own problems.

    I think you're confusing the mathematical concept of "proof" with the evidentiary meaning of the word. A mathematical "proof" doesn't constitute evidence for something. It only means that a conclusion logically arises from its component axions, definitions and corollaries. It says NOTHING about whether the component premises themselves are true.

    This is easily discerned when the right analogy is presented. For example, I can offer the following theorem:

    A1 -- All horses are mammals

    D1 -- Unicorns are horses with horns on their heads

    T1 -- Therefore, all unicorns are mammals

    This theorem can be formally translated into the mathematical syntax of Henkin semantics -- just as Gödel's theorem was -- and be "proven" -- just as Gödel's was. Even as a purely logical statement (all mathematics aside) the conclusion is correct, assuming all the premises are true.

    And THAT'S the problem! You can easily recognize that -- even though it can be mathematically "proven" -- the theorem ISN'T true, because you know the definition (of unicorns) is hogwash.

    Gödel's theorem suffers from the very same shortcoming. His theorem is incorrect because the propositions and premises of his theorem are flawed -- just as in the theorem above -- and the mathematical translation doesn't affect this one iota!

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    I have often felt atheists assume I am saying Godel's theorem finally proves God's existence. Although God's existence has been proven by maths it needs to be taken to the next level with verifiable experiments to be finally "proved" with tangible experimentation.

    Many theories have been "proved"by maths (eg String theory) but have not been subjected to repeatable experiments.

    There is no contradiction in this: God has been proven by maths until someone comes along with an actual math opposing formula and not just words.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    "...I dont believe Godels work actually proves God exists of course..."

    Well, at least this is a philosophical and logical improvement from your initial comments here on this hub:

    ------

    "...Try reading Kurt Godel's theorem. Godel was Einstein's successor and proved with pure logic and math that God exists..."

    ------

    I congratulate you on moving in the right direction. There's hope for you yet, my friend! :-)

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    I am mainly interested in Godel as he shows it is possible to talk in logical terms about God.

    By "translating" a statement into coherent math that works gives such statements great credibility.

    I dont believe Godels work actually proves God exists of course: only that his work stops the criticism that such a subject cant be treated scientifically. My own input doesnt go beyond this as I dont have the math to do so.

    I totally agree with Godels grammar. The idea of necessity is commonsense.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Yes, Oztinato, but what you're refusing to acknowledge -- for obvious reasons -- is that the "math theorem" is a TRANSLATION of a theorem originally expressed in simple grammatical language, which you, I and anyone else reading this are undoubtedly competent to analyze.

    Furthermore, it's questionable whether the mathematical translation of Gödel's theorem is even accurate. For example, how do you represent God as a mathematical value? Gödel appears to use the simple variable "G," but he uses it to represent both "God" and "God-like beings" (which, for a number of obvious practical reasons, aren't the same thing).

    And if you represent "God" in mathematical syntax with a simple quantitative variable, how abstract (hence, essentially useless) does that make a representation of a QUALITATIVE entity like a supreme deity?

    Given how easy it is to understand how problematic Gödel's mathematical theorem is -- even WITHOUT understanding modal logic -- it's obvious you have "chosen" to rely on Gödel's "math theorem" for one reason only -- because it appears to agree with what you've already decided is true.

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Well in my humble understanding Maths is the highest form of logic.

    We can both debate on an on but unless either of us can come up with a math interpretation of our arguments we wont get anywhere. I have chosen to rely on Gödel's Math theorem as logical proof.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Of course it doesn't, Oztinato. That's complete bollocks (and I suspect you know it).

    Just because an argument or thesis has been translated into another language -- be it the mathematical syntax of modal logic or simply another semantic language -- doesn't mean the original can't be analyzed on its own merits.

    You're obviously using the math angle as an excuse to avoid any examination that may cast doubt on what you've already concluded to be the truth.

    Still, you've promised to look at the Gödel hub in the future, so let's see how far my analysis of your true motivations proves correct.

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    If the grammatical version of the theorem has been turned into a complex math equation then ideally a refutation also needs the math to back it up.

    I dont claim to have that math.

    I am interested in the existential repercussions of logical proofs of Gods existence.

    Of course when I get time I will take a look at your hub.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    That's completely true. However, we DON'T need a degree in mathematics or advanced logic to examine and analyze Gödel's original ontological theorem, which is in plain English -- a point I tried to make clear numerous times.

    And now, I HAVE analyzed it, and have published a hub with my observations and conclusions:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Gdels-Ont...

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    I certainly wasnt trying to push any buttons.

    It remains clear that unless we have the right higher university qualifications all our math assertions are pointless and remain subjective.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    I've finally finished my analysis of Gödel's theorem, and have published a hub on the subject. Here is the link:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Gdels-Ont...

    Hopefully, this hub will prove an informative resource for both believers and non-believers, and especially useful for atheists who are confronted with ridiculous assertions that Gödel's theorem somehow "proves" God's existence!

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Sorry for coming on so strong in that last comment, but you definitely pushed the wrong buttons when you just threw up your hands and refused to exercise your intellect and your reason. I started asking myself, "Why am I even wasting my time talking to this guy? He prefers to not even think!!"

    So, if I can't convince you to examine the theorem on your own, perhaps you'll listen to the words of the two researchers (Benzmüller and Woltzenlogel) whose supposed "proving" of Gödel's theorem you seem to revere so much (emphasis mine):

    ----------

    "The critical discussion of the underlying concepts, definitions and axioms remains a HUMAN responsibility..."

    ----------

    In other words, it is left for people like you and me to "critically discuss" the axioms, definitions, component theorems and corrolaries of Gödel's original theorem, despite the suposed "confirmation" of its mathematical extrapolation.

    I've already indulged in significant examination of Gödel's theorem, and it's becoming more and more clear to me as I continue that the theorem that you so cavalierly call "great" actually sucks worse than I original noticed. Its terminology is poorly defined, its axioms are highly redundant, and its component theorems depend upon unsupported (and even counterfactual) assumptions and circular reasoning.

    Once I feel that my analysis of Gödel's ontological argument is comprehensive and complete (sometime in the next few weeks), I'll publish the hub I'm currently writing on it, and post a link here.

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Paladin

    Sorry you feel that way.

    I am not of the mind that you or I can change such a great theorem.

    This debate is not about claiming to change theorems.

    Perhaps you could present your new ideas to an international math group.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Oztinato, I can't believe what I'm reading here. This has to be a joke.

    Let me get this straight -- you're saying that neither you nor I "have the qualifications or right" to challenge Gödel's pathetic ontological argument. ARE YOU SERIOUS?

    You clearly have a "working" mind. You can read English. And I presume you understand the basic elements of logic, and have some basic understanding of how the world works. How can you NOT be "qualified" to challenge his argument?

    And HOW DARE you proclaim that we don't have the RIGHT to challenge it!

    Earlier, you complained when I accused you of dishonesty and making things up out of 'thin air.' But now, I realize it's even worse than I imagined. You've completely and unequivocally abdicated your sense of reason to an argument that you're not even going to TRY to understand -- because you think you don't have the "qualifications" or "right" to do so.

    Frankly, that angers me, because it means you refuse to even THINK about the reasons why you believe what you do, and to me, that is the highest form of dishonesty. It's what religious delusion does to otherwise rational people, and it SICKENS me.

    Oztinato, you've just admitted you can't verify the "veracity" of Gödel's ontological argument, and you've just declared that you're not "qualified" to challenge it. But if you're not qualified to verify it or challenge it, NEITHER are you qualified to promote it as an authoritative argument -- for the same reasons.

    If you continue to do so -- if you continue to promote a theorem that you just admitted you REFUSE to understand -- you will be a bald-faced liar, and if that bothers you, too damned bad.

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Paladin

    I don't accept that you, or indeed I, have the qualifications or right to challenge either Gödel's ontological argument or his maths.

    We can only debate the repercussions of its already proven validity, as it is has been shown to be faultless by modern (impartial) ethical theoreticians, modern maths and computers.

    I do NOT respect comments by people like Richard Dawkins (who is merely a biologist and would be ethicist) regarding Gödel.

    I am waiting for real experts to prove the veracity or otherwise of Gödel's ontological and mathematical proofs.

    Gödel's God proofs remain faultless, hence we have at least some Logical proof of God's existence. Ergo, a belief in God is scientifically speaking eminently logical.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Oztinato, I never suggested -- in any of my comments here -- that I was challenging Gödel's reputation as a mathematician. I couldn't possibly presume to.

    What I DID challenge -- and continue to challenge -- is his ontological argument. It is as baseless and unconvincing as every other version of the standard ontological argument, and Gödel's reputation as a mathemetician has nothing to do with that one way or the other.

    The question of God's existence neither "starts" nor "ends" with Gödel's theorem. What you're basing your entire assessment on is the supposed translation of the theorem into mathematical syntax -- which NEITHER of us can be certain is actually accurate or valid.

    Still, this mathematical "translation" could be "proven" a hundred times -- a THOUSAND times -- and it still wouldn't make the original theorem any less mediocre. You've now seen it with your own eyes, and can see for yourself how banal and useless it is.

    Of course, if you wish to keep ignoring Gödel's actual argument -- his original theorem -- I can keep posting it here, just for your benefit. ;-)

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Well it seemed fairly clear you were challenging Godels reputation and then you circumnavigated that denial with another attempt at the same kind of challenge.

    So yes it seems clear that most non Believers try to challenge Godel.

    The problem of course in a debate such as this that we are not in a position to challenge the math that supports it. The only worth the Godel theme has here is that he has presented a logical scientific math based proof of Gods existence. Thats where it starts and ends.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    To begin, I must first apologize for the length of my post. There's a lot of ground to cover here.

    Oztinato, nobody is challenging the respect Einstein and Hawking may have had (or has) for Gödel as a scientist (though I believe I could reasonably challenge your assertion that Gödel is Einstein's "successor," but that's not germaine to our discussion).

    My point -- and it could be that I haven't expressed it clearly enough -- is that Gödel's standing as a scientist or theoretician doesn't mean that everything he proclaimed is correct. As I suggested before, even Einstein and Hawking both made self-admitted errors in their work. Even brilliant minds can be wrong.

    As for your last statement, it's not clear whether the "best math minds" in the world agree or disagree with the mathematical "translation" of Gödel's Ontological Theorem. As I said before, your own reference suggests that Einstein never saw it.

    And even if he did, here's a news flash -- Einstein WASN'T one of the best math minds in the world. In fact, Einstein needed help with the mathematical aspects of his relativity theories, and it was his friend Mercel Grossman and the Italian mathematician Tullio Levi-Civita who helped him finalize his equations and correct his mistakes.

    As for Hawking, while he's a brilliant theoretical physicist, there's nothing to indicate that he's among the "best math minds" in the world, either.

    And, as I suggested earlier, before anyone can convince me (or, I'd wager, any other objective observer) that the mathematical "translation" of Gödel's theorem has been "proven," they must first convince me that the "translation" is an accurate representation of the original theorem, or that such a translation is even possible.

    In any case -- and, again, I'm repeating myself here -- whether or not the mathematical translation of Gödel's Ontological Theorem has been "proven" to the satisfaction of some scientists, his theorem in ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE is completely unconvincing.

    I've been toying with the idea of posting his theorem in its original language, and I believe now is the right time to do so, so everyone can see that it's the same old abstract, generic ontological nonsense that apologists have been pushing for centuries.

    Here is Gödel's Ontological Theorem, in all it's mundane glory:

    ----------

    -- Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both:

    -- A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive:

    -- Positive properties are possibly exemplified:

    -- A God-like being possesses all positive properties:

    -- The property of being God-like is positive:

    -- Possibly, God exists:

    -- Positive properties are necessarily positive:

    -- An essence of an individual is a property possessed by it and necessarily implying any of its properties:

    -- Being God-like is an essence of any God-like being:

    -- Necessary existence of an individual is the necessary exemplification of all its essences:

    -- Necessary existence is a positive property:

    --Necessarily, God exists:

    ----------

    As anyone can see, it's the standard ontological method of attempting to arbitrarily define a quality, assigning that quality exclusively to God, then declaring that, since the quality exists and since only God possesses it, God exists.

    However, even Benzmüller and Woltzenlogel admit that Gödel never defines what is meant by a "positive property." So, not only does Gödel's argument suffer from the usual generic problem of the ontological argument (in the sense that it can be arbitrarily applied to practically anything, hence, proving nothing), it also suffers from a lack of a qualitative definition.

    In other words, epic fail.

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Paladin

    the acceptance of the Incompleteness theorem by Hawking is meant to show 1. the respect that Godel has in the REAL scientific community, and 2. it is the other side of the coin to the same debate. ie. Godel's theories were often God oriented and critical of the theist trends in modern scientific thought (such as science's claim it can solve every problem).

    There is no doubt that Einstein also showed the same respect to Godel: their conversations were highly personal and touched on all topics especially science for years. I can quite safely argue that Godel was Einstein's successor; others can try to dispute it.

    I feel my argument is the better one as no one can in all honesty claim to have greater knowledge of these matters as Hawking and Einstein without looking foolish.

    The Ontological proof (and its mathematical equation) stand as testimony to the soundness of a formal mathematical proof of God's existence. It is not up to us here to disagree with it, but rather the best math minds in the world.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Oztinato, I'm sorry if you consider my comments "personal attacks." It just seems to me that you're being a bit disingenuous in some of your comments and your overall tactics.

    For example, your very own source (Wiki) has stated that Gödel didn't show anyone his Ontological Theorem until 1970 -- 15 years after Einstein died. Yet you continue to insist that Einstein was "completely familiar" with Gödel's ideas, without a shred of evidence that he ever actually saw his Ontological Theorem -- actually DESPITE evidence to the contrary! You're just assuming.

    And you keep pointing out that Hawking "embraces" Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. But the topic of this discussion ISN'T Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem! It's his ONTOLOGICAL Theorem.

    I know -- from your initial comments -- that you understand the difference between the two theorems. So the only plausible explanation for your constantly referring to Hawking's view of the Incompleteness Theorem is that you're dishonestly trying to deflect from the ACTUAL topic of our discussion.

    In any case, the most absurd aspect of this debate is that you're arguing a point that is completely irrelevant! Even if both Einstein and Hawking DID understand and agree with Gödel's ONTOLOGICAL Theorem, it wouldn't make it correct!

    Brilliant minds are often wrong about subjects outside their field of expertise. Sometimes, they're wrong even about subjects WITHIN their fields of expertise (Einstein and Hawking among them)!

    You've been trying for the last week or so to lend weight to your own assessment of Gödel's ONTOLOGICAL Theorem by claiming that two of history's greatest minds also agree with it. But your own reference points out that Einstein NEVER read the theorem, and Hawking concurred with an altogether DIFFERENT theorem.

    Perhaps I still need to post the original text of Gödel's ONTOLOGICAL Theorem here, just to move this discussion back on track (and to see you try to defend it without resorting to appeals to authority).

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    paladin

    I do not respond well to personal attacks. Its a sign that you are losing the debate as well.

    Einstein was completely familiar with Godel and his ideas. he would not have embraced his company so0 readily if he wasn't interested. As I said these theorems and ideas don't happen overnight.

    I have clearly said that Hawking embraces Godel's incompleteness theorem.

    If the insults and personal attacks don't stop there is no point in continuing.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Oztinato, indeed, the "facts" are available on Wiki to read. According to Wiki, Gödel showed NOBODY his Ontological Theorem until 1970 -- 15 years after Einstein's death -- when he allowed Dana Scott to copy and distribute it. So, again, your suggestion that Einstein understood and agreed with the theorem is B.S.

    You're also full of it when you suggest that Gödel formulated his Ontological Theorem near the end of Einstein's life. Again, according to Wiki, Gödel formulated the theorem as early as 1941 -- 15 years BEFORE Einstein's death.

    And you keep making references to Hawking and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. But that's not what we're talking about, is it?

    In your very first comment on this hub, you declared that Gödel's "God" (Ontological) Theorem meant that my reason number 2 is wrong (that God's impossible to prove). When I confused it with his Incompleteness Theorem (which has also been used to try to "prove" God's existence), you made a big deal out of drawing a distinction between the two -- and were quite adamant about it.

    Now, when faced with the prospect of examining Gödel's Ontological Theorem at face value, you're subtly trying to shift the focus back to his Incompleteness Theorem -- which is on much firmer philosophical ground.

    Again, Einstein never read Gödel's Ontological Theorem and, while Hawking may be impressed with Gödel's INCOMPLETENESS Theorem, he clearly doesn't agree with his ONTOLOGICAL Theorem (because he's an atheist).

    Even if Einstein and Hawking agreed with Gödel's Ontological Theorem, it wouldn't make it correct. But they don't. So your assertion that the "finest scientific minds" agree with Gödel's Ontological Theorem is just something you pulled out of your butt.

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Paladin

    the facts are on Wiki for all to read.

    Einstein discussed everything with Godel nearly every day during the last years of his life (while Godel was formulating his theorems). It can all be fact checked. Such all encompassing work is not just formulated overnight.

    Hawking's free online essay about Godel's Incompleteness theorem does indeed factually dismiss the power of science to ever find the "theory of everything" and implores scientists to stop trying this approach (all based on Godel's work).

    The only other "theory of everything" (so called string theory) is also regarded as a philosophy and is based on another "a priori" premise.

    All objective readers will decide for themselves as to the correctness of these propositions for and against Godel: however the finest scientific minds and computers of the last hundred years all agree with Godel.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    I'm sorry, Oztinato, but you're simply wrong regarding Einstein, because Einstein NEVER SAW Gödel's theorem.

    Gödel didn't even make his ontological theorem known until 1970, when he had Dana Scott copy it out for limited distribution. Albert Einstein died in 1955 -- 15 years earlier. So your assertion that...

    "...Einstein...understood the maths and the implications of Godel's God theorem..."

    ...is absolute, unadulterated B.S, and EVERYONE can "seriously doubt" it! Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

    As for Hawking, whether or not he ever claimed that "science can never answer all questions" has NOTHING to do with whether Gödel's theorem is valid. And he obviously doesn't agree with the theorem's implications regarding the existence of God because he's a declared atheist.

    As for your two numbered assertions, you're absolutely wrong on both counts. The idea of God has yet to be proven, so you're statement that the "idea of God is the only provable theory" is nothing but a completely unfounded assumption.

    As for the "God" theorem being the "only possible answer to a 'theory of everything,'" you clearly have misunderstood the meaning of the TOE. It doesn't mean a theory that literally explains EVERYTHING. It is much more specific. Rather, it is the goal of physicists who seek to unify the laws governing the four fundamental forces of the universe:

    -- the strong nuclear force

    -- the weak nuclear force

    -- electromagnetism

    -- gravity

    Thus far, physicists have managed to combine the first three in some limited fashion but, thus far, we have yet to add gravity to the mix. THIS is the dream that Einstein was pursuing to his dying day, and what most physicists still dream of even today. But Gödel's theorem says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about this.

    So, again, you're just spitting in the wind, and clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Paladin

    of course I disagree with you. Einstein's mind of course understood the maths and the implications of Godel's God theorem. No one can seriously doubt that.

    The existential implications are the whole point of the argument here: Hawking agrees that science can never answer all questions, hence indirectly giving greater weight to Godel's key idea of "necessity". Hawking's comments are often agnostic.

    I completely understand the repercussions of these theorems: In terms of both science and existence it means 1.the God theorem is the only possible answer to "a theory of everything"; 2. the idea of God is the only provable theory regarding the "human dilemma" as science admits it cannot existentially answer all questions.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Oztinato, whether Einstein and Hawking understood the supposed "existential repercussions" of Gödel's theorem isn't even an issue.

    You're suggesting Einstein agreed with the theorem, but it hadn't been mathematically "proven" while he was still alive. In fact, it had to be ALTERED from Gödel's original format before Benzmüller and Woltzenlogel could even perform their computer "confirmation!"

    As for Hawking, he is a self-declared atheist, so it's IMPOSSIBLE that he agrees with the "existential repercussions" of the theorem -- specifically, that God exists.

    In both cases, you're simply trying to name-drop, making an appeal to authority to bolster your case. And in the case of these two scientists, they don't even agree with you!

    In any case, as I suggested before, what matters is if YOU AND I understand the "existential repercussions" of Gödel's theorem. Given what you claimed in your last comments -- regarding it's application to the "insolvable problems" of physics and "existential human dilemmas" -- you clearly DO NOT understand it.

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Paladin

    I understand its existential repercussions completely, as did Einstein and now Hawking.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Sorry for the second post, Joseph, but I've managed to answer part of my own question, in a manner of speaking.

    A couple of things have been nagging me about Plutarch's account of Artaxerxes' life. As Plutarch is generally respected as an authoritative historical source, his claim that Artaxerxes ruled for 62 years seems an outrageous error. Also, he refers to Artaxerxes' first choice of successor as "Darius," when Artaxerxes' initial successor was actually Xerxes II.

    Now, after taking a longer and more comprehensive look at Plutarch's biography, I understand the reason for the apparent mistakes: Plutarch's life of Artaxerxes isn't the biography of Artaxerxes the First. It is the biography of Artaxerxes the SECOND!

    The narrative in Plutarch's story matches the events of the SECOND Artaxerxes -- his struggle with his brother Cyrus over who was to rule, his troubles with his mother, Parysatis and his battles with the Greeks.

    Even more to the point, Plutarch begins his "Life" of Artaxerxes with the following sentence (emphasis mine):

    "The first Artaxerxes, preeminent among the kings of Persia for gentleness and magnanimity, was surnamed Longimanus, because his right hand was longer than his left, and was the son of Xerxes; the SECOND ARTAXERXES, THE SUBJECT OF THIS LIFE, was surnamed Memor, or Mindful..."

    Part of the understandable confusion arises because the repetition of names through multiple reigns. For example, the first Artaxerxes and the second Artaxerxes BOTH had a son named Ochus:

    Artaxerxes 1's son Ochus became Darius II (after replacing Sogdianus, who replaced Xerxes II).

    Artaxerxes 2's son Ochus became Artaxerxes III after replacing his first successor, yet ANOTHER Darius!

    (Incidentally, it's no accident that Plutarch makes no mention of Sogdianus (another point that's been bothering me). He was a successor to the FIRST Artaxerxes, not the subject of Plutarch's narrative).

    So the supposed "confusion" between the "first" Darius II and the "second" Darius II in the aftermath of the first Artaxerxes' death is a complete fiction. The first son (and first successor) was named Xerxes, not Darius.

    Plutarch's reference to a co-rule between Artaxerxes and his son applies to the SECOND Artaxerxes (nearly a hundred years after the ascension of the first) -- so it has NOTHING to do with your timeline, nor with our debate.

    So it seems NEITHER of us has to "refute" Plutarch. :-) Still, I'd like to see that co-rule quote from the tablets...

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Joseph, where does Plutarch state that the Artaxerxes/Darius co-rule lasted from 434 to 426 BCE? Or, for that matter, where do any of the Murashu tablets say this?

    Please provide specific references I can check for myself. Thanks.

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 3 years ago

    So you're just going to chuck the Artaxerxes/Darius co-regency Plutarch and the Murashu tablets attest to which lasted from 434 BCE to 426 BCE?

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Sorry for the second post, Oztinato, but it appears you're somewhat confused about what Gödel's "God" Theorem actually says. Either you haven't read it, or perhaps you're relying on someone else's assessment of it.

    Would it help if I posted it here -- at least Dana Scott's updated version of it (which is the version mathematically "confirmed" by Benzmüller and Woltzenlogel)?

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Yes, Joseph, I assumed you added the ten years instead of subtracting them. With all the negative numbers, it's a wonder we both don't get more confused. :-)

    And, yes, I've heard of the Murashu tablets. They're the same tablets we've been discussing all along (at least some of them are part of the Murashu collection). And -- again -- from what I understand, those tablets are merely double-dated, which doesn't confirm a co-regency.

    I think we both agree on the ENDING date of Artaxerxes' rule. The problem is that you insist on counting 51 years back to date the beginning, whereas the evidence tells me that we need to count back only 41 years.

    As for "refuting" Plutarch and Diodorus -- again, there's no need to. Neither of their accounts "affirm" that Artaxerxes' rule began in 475 BCE. That is based entirely upon YOUR assumption that Artaxerxes ruled 51 years, counting back from 423 BCE.

    Diodorus says NOTHING about the length of Artaxerxes reign, and I'll remind you -- AGAIN -- that Plutarch claims it lasted SIXTY-TWO years!

    So, are you going to "refute" Plutarch, or are you going to become an atheist? ;-)

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Oztinato, I believe you're mistaken about Gödel's "God" Theorem being proven to "the satisfaction" of Stephen Hawking. The last I knew, Hawking was a confirmed atheist.

    In any case, what you're doing is making an appeal to authority, which isn't a logically valid or convincing argument. What is important is if Gödel's argument is convincing to YOU, and why -- not Stephen Hawking.

    I asked you repeatedly why you found Gödel's theorem convincing, and you eventually offered an answer that is at least reasonable -- that the theorem "holds up to mathematics." That's fine if it's the ONLY way we have to examine the theorem. But it's not.

    Gödel's theorem exists in an English translation that you and I can both examine and analyze for ourselves, without having to make the assumption that the mathematical syntax is accurate. In that more original form, the theorem is merely another form of the age-old ontological argument for God's existence and, like the ontological argument, it is wholly unconvincing.

    As for your second-to-last paragraph, where you proclaim that Gödel's "God" Theorem is needed to solve unanswered questions in physics, and that it "works" on "human dilemmas," you're WAY off base. The theorem says NOTHING about any of this.

    Are we even talking about the same theorem?

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 3 years ago

    I take it then you've never heard of the Murashu Tablets. From these we know that Artaxerxe's co-regency with his legitimate son Darius, not to be confused with his illegitimate son Darius Ochus, began in his 41st regnal year and ended on his 49th, that is to say from 434 BCE - 426 BCE. (The dates in my last rejoinder got thrown off by the BCE math. I should have been going the other way.)

    Taken in conjunction with Diodorus' account we can work backwards from the date of Darius Ochus' first regnal year to arrive at Artaxerxe's first regnal year:

    Darius Ochus: 423 BCE (as per CBM 12803 and The Encyclopedia Britannica)

    Sogdianus: 424 BCE

    Xerxes: 424 BCE

    Artaxerxes: 425 BCE (rules for 51 years until his death in 425 BCE which includes the Artaxerxes/ Darius co-regency: 426 BCE - 434 BCE (From Artaxerxes' 41st regnal year until his 49th as per Tablets of Murashu))

    So you're faced with the challenge of refuting Plutarch and Diodorus, whose historical recordings not only affirm 475 BCE as the first regnal year for Artaxerxes but make 464 BCE an impossibility, as well as the Murashu tablets. It's either that or become a theist :)

    The floor is yours ...

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Paladin,

    the God theorem has been proved to the satisfaction of highly qualified mathematicians/physicists like Stephen Hawking. It is also historical fact that Godel and Einstein were the closest of friends in the last years of Einstein's life and spent many hours discussing these theorems. They were arguably cross checked by Einstein and found to be worthy. Subsequent history and powerful computers concur.

    The "necessity" of string theory is that wave/particle behavior needs to be solved. In other words string theory "works" as a theory.

    Likewise a "God theory" is needed to solve the insolvable problems left out by physics. It too "works" on many levels; the main level it works on is paradoxically the existential human dilemmas we face as sentient beings (which is part and parcel of the definition of a God concerned about the human condition).

    As the saying goes "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Damn this delete function!!!

    No, Joseph, I'm not confusing Ochus with original Darius. And, no, you HAVEN'T proven that Artaxerxes began a co-regency with ANYONE in 414 BCE. If Artaxerxes began a co-rule in his 41st year, it would have been in 424, not 414 BCE.

    Even by your own timeline, you haven't proven that. You've insisted, time and time again, that Artaxerxes began his rule in 475 BCE. If he began a co-rule in his 41st year, that would make it -- BY YOUR OWN TIMELINE -- 434, not 414 BCE. Either your math sucks, or I'm missing something here...

    As for Plutarch, his narrative doesn't support your argument, either, so there's no need to "refute" him. Yes, he states that Artaxerxes began a co-rule with one of his sons, but he doesn't specify WHEN that co-rule began, nor does he specify HOW LONG that co-rule lasted. It could have been a week, or it could have been a decade, for all we know.

    In any case, it's interesting that you continue to refer to Plutarch, who actually contradicts your timeline -- which depends upon a 51-year long reign for Artaxerxes. But Plutarch clearly states that Artaxerxes reigned for 62 years -- which you seem to conveniently keep forgetting.

    As for Diodorus, I don't know what you think that proves. All his quote states is that Ochus succeeded Sogdianus, who succeeded Xerxes (II). It says nothing about the existence or length of any co-regency.

    In the end, the only evidence you appear to have for a co-rule of Artaxerxes and ANYONE is a quote from Plutarch, who contradicts your timeline.

    Some evidence! :-P

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 3 years ago

    Need more evidence? Diodorus Siculus wrote, “In Asia King Xerxes died after a reign of one year, or, as some record, two months; and his brother Sogdianus succeeded to the throne and ruled for seven months. He was slain by Darius [aka Ochus], who reigned nineteen years.” (Diodorus of Sicily, XII, 71, 1) (Brackets mine).

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 3 years ago

    Once again, you're confusing Artaxerxes legitimate son, Darius, with his illegitimate son Ochus (who changed his name to Darius when he became king in 423 BCE).

    As I've already proven, in his 41st regnal year, that is, 414 BCE, Artaxerxes begins a co-regency with his (legitimate) son, Darius (not his illegitimate son Ochus, aka Darius). This co-regency lasts eight years until Darius' plot to murder his father fails and is himself executed BY ARTAXERXES. Artaxerxes then resumes sole rulership until his death in 424 BCE. He is succeeded by another legitimate son, Xerxes II but he only rules for a few short months because he's murdered by his half-brother, Sogdianus who is subsequently murdered by his brother Ochus a few months later. 423 BCE thus becomes the first regnal year of Ochus (who changed his name to Darius once upon the throne).

    All of this is clearly explained by Plutarch whom you have yet to refute!

    So you see, all of these tablets reference Darius' co-regency with his father Artaxerxes in 414 BCE, not Ochus' regency (a.k.a. Darius) which began in 423 BCE, his first regnal year.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    But, Oztinato, I'm not convinced that Gödel DID prove mathematically that God exists!

    That's from sensational (and irresponsible!) news headlines regarding the academic paper by Benzmüller and Woltzenlogel -- the two scientists who supposedly did the "proving." Of course, news publishers know that such headlines are going to get attention, but they're not entirely accurate.

    What Benzmüller and Woltzenlogel actually did was prove a modified version (by Dana Scott) of Gödel's theorem as expressed in mathematical syntax. However, to constitute evidentiary "proof," the theorem must fulfill three fundamental requirements:

    First, the axioms, definitions and component theorems must all be logically coherent or consistent. The computer programs the two scientists used insist that they are -- at least as expressed in their mathematical syntax.

    Second, the mathematical translation of each must express the logical or philosophical meaning of the original language EXACTLY. I'm not convinced this is even possible, though I lack the mathematical knowledge to say so with authority.

    Third -- and most importantly -- the original axioms, definitions and component theorems of the complete theorem must present a rational, comprehensive and convincing argument. They don't, and this is where I insist Gödel's argument fails.

    Whether or not the overall theorem -- as expressed in mathematical syntax -- can be "proven" by computer software as logically consistent and coherent doesn't constitute evidentiary proof. If the original argument isn't convincing, all the mathematical translations in the world aren't going to prove anything.

    As for the Incompleteness Theorem, I disagree with your assessment of it's implications as well. But let's stick to this theorem for the moment.

    Incidentally, I also share your dislike of string theory, and I've never embraced its absurd notions of additional dimensions (actually, it's beginning to fall out of "vogue" with many scientists as well). So that's a non-starter with regard to this topic.

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Yes, that's why I qualified my statement ie only according to maths Godel proved (mathematically) that God exists.

    What is needed is a repeatable scientific experiment to prove the math in real life.

    However, just as with so called string theory (which is another a priori assumption based on necessity) this is as yet unprovable by scientific experiment. This does not stop string or God theorists from using either theory to explain and work with the math in real life.

    Both theories may, or may not, ever be proved by actual scientific repeatable observable experiments.

    The necessity of string theory is that it explains the way particles behave both as particles and waves.

    The necessity of God theory is that it gives an ultimate casual factor to the universe which science can't provide (as shown by the Incompleteness theorem). In other words the God theorem alone is capable of being a "complete" answer or "true" in the final sense of the word.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Fair enough. I'll happily reply to both.

    As to the first, yes I was mistaken about the two theorems, and I've no problem admitting that. They both have been used as ontological arguments for the existence of God, and the first articles I came across dealt with the Incompleteness Theorem. Hence, I mistakenly believed that was what you referring to.

    That settles that, and it should no longer exist as a distraction or an excuse.

    As for point number 2, I disagree. Gödel's "God" Theorem (the more exclusively ontological theorem to which you're referring) does NOT prove that a belief in God is "not illogical." Furthermore, I propose that it doesn't prove ANYTHING with regard to God.

    In any case, your original point wasn't merely that Gödel's theorem makes belief in God more logical. It was that the theorem actually PROVES God's existence. I'll quote your initial comment here:

    "...Godel...proved with pure logic and math that God exists."

    Hopefully, now, you'll offer your evidence for this statement.

    You're welcome. :-)

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Paladin

    to an unbiased observer i have put forward two observations that are true and need a response;

    1. you were mistaken about the two theorems being the same

    2. the Godel ontological proof theorem proves that a belief in God is not illogical.

    To proceed we need a response to hopefully both of these points. I would be happy if you responded to point 2.

    Thanks.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Oztinato, your "observation" doesn't prove anything. All you've done is make one more statement that you can't explain. How can we take your word on this or any other statement when you refuse to explain ANY of them?

    You've tried to escape the burden of justifying your assertions by claiming that the theorem "stands up to math." But how do you know this?

    Please explain...

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Paladin

    I already did put up; I'm still waiting for a response to my observation re

    "The fact that the God theorem stands up to math means that a belief in God is not in fact illogical".

    You haven't responded to this as yet!!

    I take it you have now admitted you know there are two separate theorems and that you were in fact wrong that they were one and the same?

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Thanks, GConey! It's been my policy -- ever since my first few hubs -- to try to keep the total words in any of my pieces to 1,000 or less. I think that's just about right to keep people interested and make one's points without droning on and on.

    It's good to know one's efforts are appreciated!

  • gconeyhiden profile image

    gconeyhiden 3 years ago from Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A

    Hi Paladin, My humble opinion is this hub is concise and accurate and makes it's points brilliantly. Your making all the points I try to make w.o going on and on. A big thumbs up!!!!

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Actually, Joseph, ALL of the tablets DO suggest a 41-year reign, including the aforementioned BM 33342, which has been corrected from 51 to 41. But there are more.

    For example, according to Dr. Stolper, BM 54557 refers to a time period up "to the end of month XII, year 41, accession of Darius.”

    Or consider Bertin 2889, which, according to Dr. Francis Joannès, refers to "day 26, month XI, year 41, accession-year of Darius."

    Or BE 10 no. 4, which is "dated to day 14, month XII, year 41, accession-year of Darius II, king of the lands"

    Or BE 10 no. 5, which makes a reference to "until the end of Adar (month XII) of year 41, accession-year of Darius, king of the lands.”

    Or BE 10 no. 6, which mentions "the first month of year 41 to the end of month XII of the accession-year of Darius."

    Or PBS 2/1 no. 1, which is "dated to day 22, month XII, year 41, accession-year of Darius II."

    Or BE 10 no. 7, which notes a "receipt for produce for, “year 41, accession-year of Darius.”

    Or PBS 2/1 no. 3, (involving missing characters), which makes reference to "up to the end of month XII, year (4)1, (ac)cession year of Darius."

    In the end, all you have left in your ever-diminishing list of evidentiary resources is a particular interpretation of ancient tablets (which is contradicted by the translations of the experts who can actually read them), and a couple of historical narratives (Thucydides and Plutarch) which actually CONTRADICT your 475 BCE chronology.

    THIS is what you're basing your conclusion of a "fulfilled" prophecy on. I've seen better proof for the Loch Ness monster (at least they have photographs)!

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Oztinato, I've suspected from the beginning that you don't understand Gödel's theorem -- either of them. But now, given your persistent refusal to explain how either of them prove God's existence (even after you claimed you'd be happy to do so), I'm CONVINCED that you don't understand them.

    So, unless you quit equivocating and evading and justify your assertions in your next comments, I'm going to procede from the assumption that you're just posting nonsense you don't even comprehend, and treat your comments accordingly.

    Also, if I ever find you posting this Gödel nonsense in other hubs I come across, I'll challenge you there as well.

    In other words, put up or shut up!

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Paladin

    OK so now that you have finally admitted you were wrong about the two separate theorems being the same I am free to continue?

    Is that correct?

    The fact that the God theorem stands up to math means that a belief in God is not in fact illogical.

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 3 years ago

    Except that no tablet suggests a 41 year reign in the first place! They ALL point to the brief co-regency between Artaxerxes and his legitimate son Darius which Plutarch wrote of.

    Given this fact and since the first regnal year of Ochus, aka Darius II, was in 423 B.C.E., the 51st year of Artaxerxes was in 424 B.C.E. and his first regnal year was in 474 B.C.E. not 465 BCE. Thus, the twentieth annum of Artaxerxes’ rulership would correspond to 455 B.C.E.

    The prediction states there would be sixty nine weeks of years “from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader.” (Daniel 9:25) Secular history, in conjunction with the Holy Bible, presents proof that Jesus visited John and was then baptized by him , thus becoming the Anointed One , Messiah the Leader, at the start of fall of 29 C.E. Computing back from this point in the historical past, we are able to determine that the sixty nine weeks of years commenced in 455 B.C.E. In that year the pivotal “going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem” occurred.

    To surmise, 455 BCE + 483 years (the 69 weeks of years) = 29 CE the precise year Christ was anointed as the Messiah and the prophecy at Daniel 9:25 is fulfilled.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Sorry for the double post, Joseph, but I've finally managed to find a source that quotes BM 65494, making a reference to "month 6, day 4, year 50" of Artaxerxes' reign. However -- again, an expert in the field (C. B. F. Walker of the British Museum) has stated that this is an error, and that it should actually read "40."

    Thus, you appear to have at least two tablets that suggest that Artaxerxes ruled for at least 50 years, but both of them have been corrected by experts. Are you still insisting that the experts -- as well as all the other tablets that suggest a 41-year reign -- are wrong, and you are right?

    In any case, I'll still wait for the evidence I requested in my preceding comments.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Joseph, you must have had plenty of practice at creating strawmen, because you seem awfully good at it! ;-)

    I'm not saying that tablet 12803 doesn't read "51st." I NEVER claimed that. I'm not even saying that the complete phrase you quoted --

    "51st year, accession year, 12th month, day 20"

    -- isn't actually on the tablet!

    What I AM saying is that specific quote can't be found anywhere in the report. Not in the image, not in the notations and certainly not on the two specific pages you cited as your evidence.

    It may seem like a minor semantic quibble to you, but if you're going to put something in quotation marks as a specific reference -- especially citing specific pages -- one ought to be able to find it somewhere in that reference, should they not? At the very least, they ought to be able to find it on the pages you cite.

    I also never specifically claimed that BM 65494 doesn't prove that Artaxerxes ruled more than four decades. In fact, I admitted that I knew nothing about that particular tablet (I'm actually still searching for an authoritative translation).

    Nor am I ignoring your claim that the other tablets you mention suggest a co-regency of Artaxerxes and Darius (though I suspect you're assuming that the double-dating on some of the tablets constitutes such evidence).

    What I AM claiming is that these tablets don't support your overall argument that Artaxerxes' reign began in 475 BCE, and that this somehow makes the verses in Daniel a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

    You may recall, I even asked for proof -- in the translation of an actual EXPERT - of this in my most recent comments, but you're too busy building strawmen to provide it. Something tells me I'm going to have a long wait... ;-D

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Hehe. Oztinato, you don't get off that easy. I already stated that I agreed that there are two different theorems -- two comments ago.

    As for whether both are proven, that is entirely UP TO YOU to demonstrate. I'm still looking forward to your explanation of how this "God" theorem demonstrates the existence of God.

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Paladin

    well it looks like a Mexican stand off as I can't continue until we clear up the fact that we are talking about two Godel theorems.

    Do you or do you not acknowledge that we are talking about two separate/proven Godel theorems?

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 3 years ago

    So let me get this straight:

    - you claim the text "51st year, accession year, 12th month, day 20" is nowhere to be found in CBM 12803 yet Dr. Clay claims this phrase should actually read 41st year instead of 51st year

    - you have no clue what BM 65494 states yet you insist it doesn't prove that Artaxerxes ruled more than four decades

    - and, finally, you still choose to ignore all of the references to Artaxerxes' co-regency with his legitimate son Darius as per BM 54557, Bertin 2889, BM 33342, BE 10 no. 4, BE 10 no. 5, BE 10 no. 6, PBS 2/1 no. 1, BE 10 no. 7 and PBS 2/1 no. 3.

    And I'm the one trying to convince themselves? lol :)

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Joseph, how can I ignore the "actual" text of the plate in question when it doesn't exist? The text you claim is there --

    "51st year, accession year, 12th month, day 20"

    ...is NOWHERE to be found in the entire report of the Babylonian Expedition. Not on the specific pages you cited, nor in the entire text of the report (including the notes).

    You linked to an image of the plate, but the phrase isn't on the plate, either. In fact, the plate is entirely in cuneiform, and the ONLY way either you or I can tell what is there is by relying on experts who've translated it.

    The actual expert -- the author of the report -- Dr. Clay (Professor of Semitic Philology and Archaeology) makes it clear that the ONE tablet you choose to quote contains a scribal error. However, since the expert and ALL the other tablets disagree with you, THEY must be wrong!

    As for the other tablets you've cited, there is no translation that I can find of their contents that suggests a co-regency of Artaxerxes and either of his sons. If you have an authoritative source for these translations (aside from Gertoux, a demonstrated liar and NOT an expert), please provide it!

    As for Plutarch's reference to a co-regency, you've conveniently forgotten that he also insists that Artaxerxes ruled for 62 years! Which pretty much destroys your timeline, doesn't it? ;-)

    As for CBM 12803, you DO realize that's the same as plate 57, don't you? Why are you repeating yourself in questions 1 and 3?

    And where the heck did B. M. 65494 come from? That's a completely new reference you just pulled out of your bag!

    Joseph, you say that I'm "pretending" that all your "evidence" for the "divine inspiration" of the Bible doesn't exist. But there's certainly no need on my part to pretend.

    Thus far, your evidence is practially non-existent:

    -- You cite the JPS Tanach to support your definition of "sevens," then, when a closer look at the tanach obliterates your timeline, you ignore it altogether, never to mention it again.

    -- You quote ancient tablets which actual experts translate as saying something else altogether, but you insist that THEY'RE the ones who are wrong.

    -- You quote Thucydides, until a more complete reading of his narrative makes your own chronology physically impossible, then you abandon him, too (though I notice you did try to sneak him back in more recently).

    -- You quote Plutarch, but when a more complete reading of HIS narrative contradicts your timeline as well, you simply choose to ignore the offensive part, and continue to quote the rest.

    -- You cite an academic paper from a graduate student as an authoritative source for historical references, but when it's demonstrated that he clearly lies at least once in his paper, you say it's "inconsequential."

    Joseph, your argument simply isn't convincing. EVERY piece of "evidence" you've cited thus far -- from the historical narratives to the translations of ancient tablets by actual EXPERTS -- appear to contradict and undermine it.

    Of course, you can continue to insist that all this disintegrating "evidence" somehow "proves" that your argument is sound, that the prophecy in Daniel 9 truly applies to Jesus and that the Bible is "divinely inspired." But by this point, the only person you're going to convince is yourself.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Oztinato, now you've now made three assertions for which you STILL have to offer any explanation or proof:

    First, you claimed that Gödel's theorem proves God's existence, but your explanation is still forthcoming...

    Next, you claimed that his "God" theorem has been proven, but you haven't yet demonstrated this.

    Finally, you NOW claim that God is "quite possible to prove by science, math and logic, but offer no evidence of this either.

    You appear to be quite adept at making claims, but severely lacking in offering anything to back them up. I'm still waiting...

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 3 years ago

    Actually some better questions are::

    1. Why did you ignore the actual text of plate 57, which I referred you to multiple times?

    2. Why do you ignore Artaxerxe's brief co-regency with his legitimate son Darius as per s per BM 54557, Bertin 2889, BM 33342, BE 10 no. 4, BE 10 no. 5, BE 10 no. 6, PBS 2/1 no. 1, BE 10 no. 7 and PBS 2/1 no. 3 as well as Plutarch?

    3. Why do you ignore the fact that, in addition to CBM 12803, B. M. 65494 proves that Artaxerxes ruled beyond four decades?

    And finally,

    4. Why do you monomaniacally insist on pretending all of this explicit evidence of the Bible's divine inspiration and God's necessary existence just doesn't exist?

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    Paladin

    I would like to proceed but unfortunately both Godel's theorems were proved and not just the incompleteness theorem.

    I feel as if you are unclear that there are two separate theorems both of which have been proved.

    Nevertheless as the God theorem has been proved it contradicts the first three points you have made in your premise ie. god IS necessary(as proved by Godel), God is quite possible to prove (by science/math) and God is provable by logic.(ie the theorem).

    Your reason 8 ("asleep on the job") is a negative proof of God that atheists often use. By blaming God you atheists are providing a negative proof.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Joseph, why did you reference pages 34 and 83 of the Babylonian Expedition Report in your earlier comments, when neither page -- nor the entire report -- makes reference to the "51st" year notation?

    In any case, it's interesting that you suggest that Dr. Clay's correction of tablet 12803 is in error, since ALL the other tablets you referenced in an earlier comment state that Artaxerxes's reign lasted 40 years or so. Funny how the ONE tablet out of the ten is correct, and all the other nine -- and Dr. Clay -- are wrong!

    If that's not cherry-picking, I don't know what is!

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Actually, Oztinato, the real question is whether YOU understand the difference between the two. You may recall, about six weeks ago, in the hub "Faith: Crazy Belief Without Evidence," you mentioned "Gödel's recently proven "God Theorem."

    However, it WASN'T his "God theorem" that had been recently "proven." Rather, it was his INCOMPLETENESS theorem. This is what led to all the confusion in the first place -- that you made a reference to one theorem, while actually citing recent events that concerned the other.

    Now that we both appear to understand the difference, please procede with your "proof" -- either with the traditional ontological argument or Gödel's version of it -- that God exists.

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 3 years ago

    Had you bothered to go to plate 57 you would have come across this: http://bit.ly/R9Ot0H. You'll notice where he inserts a note indicating 41 years as a purported correction for the 51 years of Artaxerxe's actual reign. Problem with this "correction" is that it ignores the brief period Artaxerxes coruled with his legitimate son, Darius.

    In other words, there's no need for a correction; there is no scribal error and 465 BCE is eliminated as Artaxerxe's accession year.

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    I will be glad to move onto those points Paladin as long as we now both agree that the ontological proof is NOT the same as the incompleteness theorem. Once we fully clarify that in our minds, I will proceed.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    That's very interesting and enlightening, Oztinato. But you still haven't explained to us how Gödel's theorem -- or the more conventional ontological argument -- proves God's existence.

    We're still waiting...

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Joseph, either you have a very short memory, or you simply choose to forget any evidence that contradicts your argument.

    As I already demonstrated in an earlier comment, the report you quote from the University of Pennsylvania's Babylonian expedition says nothing about a "51st year" of Artaxerxes' reign. There is no such quote, and no such citation -- on the tablet translation or in the discussion of it.

    First, I'll repeat again the relevant quote from Dr. Clay (from the report):

    "The dated tablets of Artaxerxes I show that he ruled, instead of forty years, as given by Diodorus, about forty-two years."

    As for the supposed reference to "51st year" (of Artaxerxes' reign) on tablet 127, here is the actual text, which is a "Receipt given for the payment of wool":

    ------

    "'2 1/2 minas of silver the price of 5 talents of wool, Dannu-aheshu-ibni, son of Bel-iddina, received from the hand of Belshunu, son of Mannu-ki-Nand, as per order of Ellil-shum-iddina. He shall deliver the money, namely 2 1/2 minas. Dannu-aheshu-ibni with Ellil-shum-iddina paying for Belshunu.

    The names of five witnesses, of the scribe and the date follow."

    ------

    That's it. The reference to the tablet (on page 83) has only the following specifications as to date:

    Dariamush [Darius] II

    Ascension year

    month 12

    day 20

    That's all. The reference to the "51st year" is conspicuously ABSENT. Either you falsely added that to the reference or -- more likely -- you simply trusted another source who did so.

    So, Joseph, I'll ask again: How many of your sources have to be revealed as unreliable or untrustworthy before you accept that your 475 BCE argument is wholly unsubstantiated?

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 3 years ago from Australia

    paladin, it is meant to show you what the facts of Gödel's two different theorems are. Comprende?

  • Joseph O Polanco profile image

    Joseph O Polanco 3 years ago

    And yet Gertoux's paper is inconsequential to the fact that Artaxerxes began ruling in 475 BCE. For instance, a tablet links "the end of Artaxerxes’ reign and the beginning of the reign of Darius II {that is to say Ochus} [with] the following date: “51st year, accession year, 12th month, day 20, Darius, king of lands.” (The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts, Vol. VIII, Part I, by Albert T. Clay, 1908, pp. 34, 83, and Plate 57, Tablet No. 127, designated CBM 12803) {Braces mine.}

    Given Artaxerxes' relatively brief co-regency with his legitimate son Darius, as per Plutarch, and since the first regnal year of Ochus, aka Darius II, was in 423 B.C.E., it means that the 51st year of Artaxerxes was in 424 B.C.E. and his first regnal year was in 474 B.C.E." not 465 BCE.

  • Paladin_ profile image
    Author

    Paladin_ 3 years ago from Michigan, USA

    Oztinato, we're all very pleased to see that you can copy and paste from a Wiki page. But that doesn't explain how Gödel's theorem proves God's existence -- or, for that matter, how the ontological argument proves it.

    Please elaborate, in your own words.