How do Atheists respond to Godel

[Tomdstone]

I think it is rational to punish the manufacture or possession of birth control, but only concurrently with their prohibition.

In Euclidean geometry, when something is rationally proven as true, you have universal acceptance of the results, such as that the base angles of an isoceles triangle are equal. However, here you say that it is rational to punish the manufacturer of the birth control pill and prohibit their distribution. But I doubt that you are going to get more than 5% of the population to agree with what you consider to be rational in this case. IOW, it is questionable that what you claim to be rational, really is rational.

 

[Tomdstone]

That only follows if bodily death is strictly implied by bodily life. If bodily immortality is possible, then bodily death is not strictly implied by bodily life. In that case, axiom 1 survives.

People still weep when a loved one dies.

 

[Tomdstone]

If altruism and morality are explained by evolution, does that mean we are morally obliged to obey evolution? .

The evolution of altruism and morality is an ongoing study.

 

[Rhubarb]

Trufax. There isn’t eve an ironclad theory to model altruism and morality.

 

[dmar198]

In Euclidean geometry, when something is rationally proven as true, you have universal acceptance of the results, such as that the base angles of an isoceles triangle are equal.

Maybe, but acceptance of controversial truths doesn’t necessarily mirror acceptance of Euclidean geometry. Some proven scientific discoveries have been widely disbelieved long after they’ve been proven. Perhaps you can come up with examples.

However, here you say that it is rational to punish the manufacturer of the birth control pill and prohibit their distribution.

Sure, because the manufacturers would then be violating the law. If a law was passed banning birth control, in order to be rational it would have to permit manufacturers to comply. It wouldn’t be rational to go in and punish someone for doing evil if you don’t give them an opportunity to do right. First pass the law banning contraception; then let the manufacturers and distributors pull their products. If they violate the law, then you can punish them.

But I doubt that you are going to get more than 5% of the population to agree with what you consider to be rational in this case. IOW, it is questionable that what you claim to be rational, really is rational.

That conclusion does not follow from your premises, and one reason why is because you can’t jump from “most people disagree” to “therefore you aren’t being rational.” Also, I think the 5% guesstimate is also only true for Western society at the present time. Before 1939, I think, birth control was illegal, and therefore I think the percentages must have been different quite recently. In some countries, I think far more than 5% would be happy to ban contraception.

People still weep when a loved one dies.

That doesn’t make death a strictly implied part of life. Rather, it suggests the opposite.

The evolution of altruism and morality is an ongoing study.

True, and because it is being studied, there are some things we can say about it right now. For example, the following statements must be true:

Either evolution gives us obligations or something else does, or both, or neither. People either have obligations or they do not. Because of the law of contradiction, we can know that some option must be true in each of the previous two sentences. But all options reduce to absurdity except the one that says something other than evolution gives us obligations.

If evolution alone gives us obligations, and if we have obligations, then it logically follows that we are obliged to obey evolution at least in some matters. That reduces to absurdity for several reasons. Among them, if evolution is not a person, it does not need to be obeyed.

Therefore, something other than evolution, something personal, must give us obligations, or else we are not under any obligation to be moral, or to be anything else.

 

[Tomdstone]

Maybe, but acceptance of controversial truths doesn’t necessarily mirror acceptance of Euclidean geometry. Some proven scientific discoveries have been widely disbelieved long after they’ve been proven. Perhaps you can come up with examples. Sure, because the manufacturers would then be violating the law. If a law was passed banning birth control, in order to be rational it would have to permit manufacturers to comply. It wouldn’t be rational to go in and punish someone for doing evil if you don’t give them an opportunity to do right. First pass the law banning contraception; then let the manufacturers and distributors pull their products. If they violate the law, then you can punish them. That conclusion does not follow from your premises, and one reason why is because you can’t jump from “most people disagree” to “therefore you aren’t being rational.” Also, I think the 5% guesstimate is also only true for Western society at the present time. Before 1939, I think, birth control was illegal, and therefore I think the percentages must have been different quite recently. In some countries, I think far more than 5% would be happy to ban contraception. That doesn’t make death a strictly implied part of life. Rather, it suggests the opposite. True, and because it is being studied, there are some things we can say about it right now. For example, the following statements must be true:

Either evolution gives us obligations or something else does, or both, or neither. People either have obligations or they do not. Because of the law of contradiction, we can know that some option must be true in each of the previous two sentences. But all options reduce to absurdity except the one that says something other than evolution gives us obligations.

If evolution alone gives us obligations, and if we have obligations, then it logically follows that we are obliged to obey evolution at least in some matters. That reduces to absurdity for several reasons. Among them, if evolution is not a person, it does not need to be obeyed.

Therefore, something other than evolution, something personal, must give us obligations, or else we are not under any obligation to be moral, or to be anything else.

What do you mean by obligation? I think that the argument is that evolution can show why it is more beneficial for a society to be moral. Societies that had poorer moral codes tended to be weaker, than those that had stronger moral codes.

 

[dmar198]

What do you mean by obligation?

Google’s definition seems pretty apt: “an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.”

If evolution is the source of morality, then it seems that moral obligations are only an illusion. For the following reason, which I’ll take from your own explanation:

I think that the argument is that evolution can show why it is more beneficial for a society to be moral. Societies that had poorer moral codes tended to be weaker, than those that had stronger moral codes.

Evolution may show us which behaviors are ordinarily more beneficial for a society, but that’s different from what you yourself should or should not do. If I have an opportunity to get ahead by tearing down other people, and the only reason not to do that is because evolution says that caring for other people tends to makes societies stronger, than that’s no incentive. Other people need to Have dignity in order for a rational person to Treat them with dignity. Evolution cannot give people dignity.

 

[Jenny_A]

I would begin by noting that this is much like Anslem’s attempt to prove god:

It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God exists.

iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/

And it suffers from the same basic problem. That is that you can’t define anything into existence. To be omnipotent, super good, the ultimate evil being, or the essence of dog, one must exist. But just because we can say that, doesn’t mean a being that fits the definition must exist.

Godel and Anselm could both have benefited from set theory. Empty sets exist. Defining a set will not fill it.

 

[Tomdstone]

Google’s definition seems pretty apt: “an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.”

If evolution is the source of morality, then it seems that moral obligations are only an illusion. For the following reason, which I’ll take from your own explanation: Evolution may show us which behaviors are ordinarily more beneficial for a society, but that’s different from what you yourself should or should not do. If I have an opportunity to get ahead by tearing down other people, and the only reason not to do that is because evolution says that caring for other people tends to makes societies stronger, than that’s no incentive. Other people need to Have dignity in order for a rational person to Treat them with dignity. Evolution cannot give people dignity.

Evolution may explain how altruistic behavior arose and developed. Those groups which practiced altruistic behavior survived quite well and became stronger, whereas those that did not weakened and thinned out.

 

[wmw]

Evolution may explain how altruistic behavior arose and developed. Those groups which practiced altruistic behavior survived quite well and became stronger, whereas those that did not weakened and thinned out.

Or rather does it explain that there is a natural law and those groups who made laws that were more “in-tune” with the natural law practiced altruistic behavior according to natural law survived quite well and became stronger, whereas those that did not weakened and thinned out.

The science is only a set of popular possible hypothesis if it does not make an empirically testable experiment that can be distinguished from others.

 

[wmw]

Addressing the Godel proof:

I think it lacks from having to define all most everything particularly in terms of positive and negative. I think it may impress those of an era that believed that all things could be determined as positive and negative as it is as easy to see black from white.

Today, we live in an era that not only sees shades of gray, but is beginning to revel in it.

What about a case where God knows he can turn all bad to good and plans to do so. That our view within time gives us an illusion of injustice where none exists. That is not to say evil does not exist. Evil can still be an act that does an injustice that has to be reformed into justice.

 

[dmar198]

Evolution may explain how altruistic behavior arose and developed. Those groups which practiced altruistic behavior survived quite well and became stronger, whereas those that did not weakened and thinned out.

Maybe, but how would you answer this argument?

(1) The only thing that can give people a moral obligation to be altruistic is a person (and not just anyone).
(2) Evolution is not a person.
(3) Therefore, evolution cannot give people a moral obligation to be altruistic.
(4) If evolution cannot give people a moral obligation to be altruistic, then it is not wrong to ignore evolution’s suggestion that people be altruistic, unless a person (and not just anyone) also says to be altruistic.
(5) Therefore, it is not wrong to ignore evolution’s suggestion that people be altruistic, unless a person (and not just anyone) also says to be altruistic.

Do you think there’s a problem with that argument? Because I think it shows that evolution’s suggestions about altruistic behavior can be ignored, unless a person (and not just anyone) gives us a moral obligation to altruistic behavior. What am I missing?

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you think there’s a problem with that argument?

Yes.

 

[thinkandmull]

Maybe, but how would you answer this argument?

(1) The only thing that can give people a moral obligation to be altruistic is a person (and not just anyone).
(2) Evolution is not a person.
(3) Therefore, evolution cannot give people a moral obligation to be altruistic.
(4) If evolution cannot give people a moral obligation to be altruistic, then it is not wrong to ignore evolution’s suggestion that people be altruistic, unless a person (and not just anyone) also says to be altruistic.
(5) Therefore, it is not wrong to ignore evolution’s suggestion that people be altruistic, unless a person (and not just anyone) also says to be altruistic.

Do you think there’s a problem with that argument? Because I think it shows that evolution’s suggestions about altruistic behavior can be ignored, unless a person (and not just anyone) gives us a moral obligation to altruistic behavior. What am I missing?

Souls might be eternal, or maybe a certain combination of matter through evolution can make a soul. Evolution itself is not altruistic, but matter molded into a certain pattern by it could be. So I don’t agree with your line of reasoning.** Introspectively seeing that your soul is the form of you body is a different route though**

God creates out of nothing. So is it possible that matter instead creates souls out of nothing, instead of out of itself? That would be like in Aladdin, where the genie creates a genie more powerful then he. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the First Part of the Summa that non-living matter can, if it has a certain form, be made into life through a living “principle” although the principle does not transfer to the new being as if **giving **it its life. Its merely activates the seeds in nature to become living vegetable life. In animals, the female has a dormant egg of vegetable life, in mating it becomes active, than the semen, which has “vital spirits” within which exists a principle from the soul of the male, activates the egg to become a “sensitive” animal life, its soul coming from the matter, as the semen and its spirits die. You are seeing matter as just dead, and life only coming from a passing on of previous life. Yet again, we understand what a soul is and that it can’t come from matter because it is a spiritual form. However, if an atheist doesn’t see this that deeply, your line of reasoning won’t apply to him

 

[dmar198]

Yes.

Do you see a false premise? A fallacy? What?

 

[dmar198]

Souls might be eternal, or maybe a certain combination of matter through evolution can make a soul. Evolution itself is not altruistic, but matter molded into a certain pattern by it could be. So I don’t agree with your line of reasoning.** Introspectively seeing that your soul is the form of you body is a different route though**

You seem to be answering my argument by rejecting the conclusion on the basis of your own argument. Is that what you are doing? Because I don’t see where you think one of my premises was wrong.

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you see a false premise? A fallacy? What?

the term “give a moral obligation” is ill defined.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Godel devloped a proof for the existence of God based on the following:

Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property

Existence is positive in what real sense? The sun exists. Vacuum exists. Darkness exists. An imaginary thought in my head exists. Nothing exists.

…and if Satan exists is that positive?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Existence is positive in what real sense? The sun exists. Vacuum exists. Darkness exists. An imaginary thought in my head exists. Nothing exists.

…and if Satan exists is that positive?

As I put it earlier:

…But the problem isn’t the existence of an objective measure of goodness or positivity, it is the actual definition that will allow us to objectively decide which things are good or positive and which are not. Just knowing it exists isn’t enough, we need to know what it is in order to figure out if being God-like is actually positive. I assume that is why Godel included Axiom 3 at all, it lets him avoid the question and most people would just agree offhand since the word “positive” seems like a thing God-like-ness would be, and forget the fact that since “positivity” hasn’t actually been defined, they don’t know what they’re agreeing to.

Can you give me the actual, concrete definition of goodness or positivity which would allow us to start objectively evaluating properties to see which ones Godel’s proof would assert that God has? We could take the easy way and say that properties are good or positive iff God has them, but that would certainly lead to a circular argument.

 

[thinkandmull]

Aquinas maybe could have applied the Third Way to the human soul?