Kurt Godel, passed on in 1978. In the decade following, his 14 point Axiom was published regarding the Proof. Proof, that is of Creators existence. While Godel was not at all typically religious, nor a church goer, he displays what seems to be a deep intellectual curiosity with the topic. In fact, he deems himself theistic but not religious. In a 14 point essay, he lays out a point I find hugely interesting and worth discussion:
"The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived"
I find this astounding just 'as is' and even more so after reading into it. (for purely mystical/spiritual reader, he is not speaking at all of afterlife).
He does note how the existence of god would benefit theistic science while also commenting that religionS are bad but not religion. Which bothers me. Not because it is theistic science benefiting but more so how and what he was referencing. Was he referring to religion as the action of science while stating religions plural would be replaced by this one, because religions (plural) are bad?
The Ontological argument is by no means novel, even though it has ammassed quite a few and even become equitable novelties...
And its critique has been harsh. Especially two of my mentor P's, Emmanuel Kant and David Hume. Of Kant, we agree beyond the 'proprietary' issue and turn to experience -as that understanding beyond reason that Creator exists. An experience that voids both ends of The Ism of Theos. (if you caught the word play, you'll have an insight to why I titled my work around this. Enjoy!)
Reason is also the make up of the second support beam to thwart Godel's notion of theistic science as the absolute religion. Of Hume and myself, we agree on a major issue surrounding the polarity of The Ism and the existence of Creator. That polarity is often defined as Duality (by most lazy free thinkers) when in fact it is threefold called:
Priori, a priori and posteriori.
Recently my view has been unchanged, but skewed slightly, with the include of synthetic a priori (aka technology). By far without synthetic a priori empirical knowledge within the theistic science would not even exist, therefore dismissing Godel's notion and even the implied mathematics of metaphysics
-less the one about those worlds.
Is theistic science really the one religion?
Without synthetic a priori, would it survive or have such dominance and moxy?
By experience, can we agree or disagree that this world is not the only world we will live in? By experience -beyond reason, beyond the priori, can we conclude, yes, Creator exists?
-Ontological Proof . Kurt Godel . Oxford University Press;
-Ontological Point of View . John Hiel . Oxford University Press;
-Critique of Pure Reason (unabridged) . Immanuel Kant
-A Treatise of Human Nature, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (my fav) and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (humor, sarcasm but brilliant) . David Hume
It could be a religion if you want it to be as it is a contradiction in reality.
Sure, if that's what you want to believe, reality doesn't support the belief, though.
a)Reality has nothing to do with belief or disbelief.
b)the case for rationalizing reality is called priori which is precisely the problem that leads to belief or disbelief.
c)a religion does not -repeat- not require the belief of a deity, it only requires a concept of Theos (supremacy), a set of rules, constructs deemed adequate and parameters to 'create' a reality or consideration of reality. That can be done through what science calls testing, experiment, hypothesis, etc. Likewise it can be done through sensationalism. Religion is not limited to sensible/nonsensical dogma (two of the three priori).
Even Godel said this in a round about way, as has practically every other philosopher in history -most especially Aristotle, who might just be the first to argue for the complexity of being.
The contradiction it seems your seeing is the terms theistic science, which simply defines the approach: "Observable or Practical Theos". Still, it is extremely pungent and by all accounts of observation is vastly replacing all other practical or sensational constructs. This would fulfill that supremacy desire. Nonetheless, its Achilles heel: synthetic a priori.
That is the weakness of science and actually what makes it religion and religious. We have to ask: if the synthetic is removed, what would science really be. Like sensational Theos, when we remove the texts and dogma, what is it really...
A reality that lacks universal experience. A condition of Duality gone haywire -to the farthest extremes of the tres priori
http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/Train … -218593469
this is proof you are right...(I'm sorry I'm currently in the intangibles mode) Go ahead let him tug you down. I like to roam around somewhere in midair.
by wordscribe41 9 years ago
The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:"the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists because it is by FAITH that we believe. It is by faith we called on to believe....
by Dgerrimea 9 years ago
A youtube user by the name of Theoretical Bullshit made a video called "Random...Necessarily", which states that God's existence and qualities must be random, and exist for no reason with no cause.The logic behind it is that God is said to exist prior to anything else, as it was God that...
by Jefsaid 7 years ago
Science and religion has led to mass social order and material advancements. Arguably, these were necessary developments in our human evolution. However, in either case, they have set rules to the understanding of our existence based on human decisions that have dictated these two...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 19 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
by pay2cEM 7 years ago
This is a hypothetical question. If in fact whatever religion you happen to believe in was not true, what would it take to persuade you? Obviously, the more severe the charge, the more evidence we demand in order to accept it. For example, if your buddy told you he had Chinese for dinner last...
by Elizabeth 5 years ago
This Forum is primarily for a discussion between myself and Chris Neal (and anyone else who wants to join) about the nature of his personal experiences with what he claims to be god - and how those experiences relate to proof. For a critical (not criticizing) examination, discussion and...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|