Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Am_LebanoN  Thus you cannot demonstrate what you just stated since proving it would be dismissing it. I'd like to see you try though. |
Not necessarily. It's not proving that nothing is provable. It is simply proving that there are statements whose truth can never be demonstrated, and actually, the fact that this is demonstrated within the system itself, is a hallmark of the second part of the proof, which demonstrates the inconsistency of system.
BTW, these theorems have existed for almost a century. I first saw them as an undergrad in a course on advanced discrete methods, and the following is copied right out of my notes from back then (since the originals are sloppy and not as rigorous). I hope you can read my handwriting...
http://pdfvia.com/showfile-2373/it_proofs.pdf Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Am_LebanoN That is interesting as theory and I do agree with it but it is a useless reasoning as you'll never apply it to your life. Will you stop searching for answers and trying to uncover truths because of the belief that no proof of any theory is conclusive, ultimately ? Which would lead you to nihilism rather than agnosticism. And while the 1st is inapplicable, the latter is hypocritical. |
Not at all. I place a great amount of trust and "faith" in the utility of logic and science, specifically in terms of our ability as human beings in uncovering truth and advancing knowledge and by extension humanity though these tools. This is something that is true of me in a professional capacity, was true of me as a student, and is true of me on a personal level as well.
However, I would point out that it it is impossible for any human being to their life completely rationally and logically. We are wired to think, cognate, and act, in emotional and illogical terms. Even when rationalizing matters, we rationalize things within contexts, and build our reasoning and arguments on biases, preconceived notions, and "common sense", all of which is the opposite of rationality. I will agree with anyone who states that the concept of God is illogical, and therefore belief in God flies in the face of reason. However, those who disbelieve in God on the basis of being logical and rational are no less hypocritical than any other human being, because of their nature as human beings in that their actions, thoughts, and feelings are governed by emotion to a large degree. What is the difference between what you believe towards the idea of God, verses what you believe towards family, friendship, lovers, peers, offspring, and the rest of humanity? Is not everyone's dealings in these capacities irrational to an extent? If so, then are not such individuals expressing a double standard when they criticize the irrationality of others' belief in God, when they live lives that may be equally or more greatly influenced by non-rational factors?
I would go so far as to argue that the notion of whether or not God exists is not an important question in the context of the possibility, or lack thereof, of his existence. Yes, if you want to have a scientific debate on the existence of God, then it becomes relevant, but most people who believe in God do so without requiring proof, and most who don't believe in God don't have a proof of God's non-existence. The more important question has to do with the evaluation that every individual makes an on whether or not belief in such a God is useful or holds utility for them as individuals. Some make this evaluation consciously, and others do it consciously. But regardless of the process, the reality is that belief in God for many is an integral part of their everyday life, it is a part of their social and cultural identity, and holds meaning for them in an individual level as well. This is just as true for individuals who have no belief in God, but rather put their faith in science and rationality in terms of giving context, meaning, and depth to their understanding of their existence and that of the universe.
28th May 2009
