Why do discussions about religion always lump God and afterlife together?

[erowe1]

Look, if I say it is both raining and not raining that on the surface seems self-refuting (contradiction, not true). But if you extend that to a particular set, say it is raining here but not raining there, the contradiction is overcome.

The only way for it to be a self-refuting statement is by not doing that. But that has nothing to do with Godel's incompleteness theorem or the coherence theory of truth or anything I've said in this thread.

If you say make an absolute claim, "It never rains anywhere," along with another one, "It sometimes rains somewhere," then you have a contradiction that a coherence theory of truth could not accept.

 

[1stAmendguy]

Backing up, Godel absolutely says that. No formal logic whatsoever can ever be complete and consistent including yours erowe1.

 

[erowe1]

Backing up, Godel absolutely says that. No formal logic whatsoever can ever be complete and consistent including yours erowe1.

You said, Godel's incompleteness theorem "states that within every logical system there is going to be some propositions that are self-refuting."

I said it doesn't.

It still doesn't.

 

[1stAmendguy]

You said, Godel's incompleteness theorem "states that within every logical system there is going to be some propositions that are self-refuting."

I said it doesn't.

It still doesn't.

So you don't accept the principle or you're saying that you don't think it says that. If it's the latter then I'll say you're wrong.

 

[erowe1]

So you don't accept the principle or you're saying that you don't think it says that. If it's the latter then I'll say you're wrong.

I'm being perfectly clear in what I'm saying. I'm saying that it doesn't say that. It doesn't.

If a system contradicts itself, then it proves itself to be false.

What Godel proved was not that all possible arithmetic systems must contradict themselves (in other words, that there is no mathematical truth, not even Godel's incompleteness theorem).

What he proved was that no possible arithmetic system can ever prove itself not to be self-contradictory.

Of course, some systems can still prove themselves to be inconsistent (like RCA's claim that led to this discussion). But Godel wasn't talking about things that have already been demonstrated to be inconsistent, he was talking about things that haven't been proven either inconsistent or consistent, and whether or not they can be proven consistent, which they can't.

He also wasn't talking about all logic. But I don't mind extending it to that.

 

[pcosmar]

 

[PatriotOne]

As the other logical poster said, I said they "could be false". Now you are having problems with English. Are you having a mild stroke of some kind?

Even that statement wasn't even the crux of my post which you still have not addressed. WHY DOES ONE HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF A RELIGION TO BELIEVE IN A GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? When you recover from your stroke, feel free to answer the QUESTION.

If it makes you feel any better I believe in an afterlife (or I should say I don't believe in death of what some call the spirit) and do not belong to any religious group.

 

[RCA]

If it makes you feel any better I believe in an afterlife (or I should say I don't believe in death of what some call the spirit) and do not belong to any religious group.

You also must be in the minority. How often do you hear in the media someone hold such a belief? I know those people exist, but it's never in the mainstream or talked about much at most dinner tables and it's a shame that for the vast majority it's either all (organized religion) or nothing (atheism).

 

[JK/SEA]

You also must be in the minority. How often do you hear in the media someone hold such a belief? I know those people exist, but it's never in the mainstream or talked about much at most dinner tables and it's a shame that for the vast majority it's either all (organized religion) or nothing (atheism).

try not to get caught up in the brain-washing game....

listen to your heart. Shut out the noise.

 

[pcosmar]

You also must be in the minority. How often do you hear in the media someone hold such a belief? I know those people exist, but it's never in the mainstream or talked about much at most dinner tables and it's a shame that for the vast majority it's either all (organized religion) or nothing (atheism).

The individual is the ultimate minority,, and MSM and much of society focuses on Collectivism.
Whether Religion, or race,, or nation,,,,

Faith is very much an individual state. Religion is a collective practice.

 

[robert68]

In post 13 you said, "all the religious dogma of the world could be false."

That claim is a religious dogma.

Why? Is it always religious dogma to say all beliefs in set x could be wrong?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Why? Is it religious dogma to say all beliefs in set x could be wrong?

Yes, because it is a universal statement based upon your worldview. The world is not composed of religions and non-religions. All worldviews are religions. All worldviews presuppose things they cannot prove. All worldviews use axioms of thought that they aver.

 

[RCA]

Why? Is it always religious dogma to say all beliefs in set x could be wrong?

But of course, in circular debating world. ;-)

 

[RCA]

Yes, because it is a universal statement based upon your worldview. The world is not composed of religions and non-religions. All worldviews are religions. All worldviews presuppose things they cannot prove. All worldviews use axioms of thought that they aver.

So if I believe that 2+2 equals 4 is a religious worldview? Again, you can't use words that you hold to be true to say that truth doesn't exist. That is in itself is a logical fallacy. Like saying "humans don't own their one bodies", by using one's own mouth to proclaim such a thing. It's complete logical nonsense.

 

[robert68]

Yes, because it is a universal statement based upon your worldview. The world is not composed of religions and non-religions. All worldviews are religions. All worldviews presuppose things they cannot prove. All worldviews use axioms of thought that they aver.

First of all, I didn’t say set x contained religious views.

Secondly, define “worldview”. What’s the difference between a view and a "worldview"?

 

[RCA]

First of all, I didn’t say set x contained religious views.

Secondly, define “worldview”. What’s the difference between a view and a "worldview"?

lol

 

[PatriotOne]

You also must be in the minority. How often do you hear in the media someone hold such a belief? I know those people exist, but it's never in the mainstream or talked about much at most dinner tables and it's a shame that for the vast majority it's either all (organized religion) or nothing (atheism).

Wouldn't argue with that. Gotta keep the people divided ya know. It is becoming more and more popular to say "spiritual but not religious" outside the confines of the institutions though. I research this stuff quite a bit so maybe I just see the trend because I'm looking in the pertinent places.

 

[Sola_Fide]

So if I believe that 2+2 equals 4 is a religious worldview? Again, you can't use words that you hold to be true to say that truth doesn't exist. That is in itself is a logical fallacy. Just saying "humans don't own their one bodies", by using one's own mouth to proclaim such a thing. It's complete logical nonsense.

Mathematic equations are basically logical arguments, they are overwhelmingly religious statements. Look at all of the things that you are presupposing in an equation like this. The validity of logic, the universality of laws, the unchanging nature of laws, an ordered universe where predictablity can be assumed, etc. Mathematical laws do not justify themselves.

 

[RCA]

Mathematic equations are basically logical arguments, they are overwhelmingly religious statements. Look at all of the things that you are presupposing in an equation like this. The validity of logic, the universality of laws, the unchanging nature of laws, an ordered universe where predictablity can be assumed, etc. Mathematical laws do not justify themselves.

This statement disqualifies you from any form of rational debate, since any truths in your statements are so unpredictable. In other words you can never say "nothing is true", because that statement becomes untrue also. Sorry dude, facts are facts. If you don't believe in facts, then why do you think that hitting the keys on your keyboard result in strange characters appearing on this forum. Why don't they produce obese Easter bunnies with three legs that lick your ear and call you Sally. If I lived in your world of "nothing is certain" I'd go insane immediately. How do you even drive a car or take a shit with all that uncertainty rattling around in your head?

 

[Sola_Fide]

This statement disqualifies you from any form of rational debate, since any truths in your statements are so unpredictable. In other words you can never say "nothing is true", because that statement becomes untrue also. Sorry dude, facts are facts. If you don't believe in facts, then why do you think that hitting the keys on your keyboard result in strange characters appearing on this forum. Why don't they produce obese Easter bunnies with three legs that lick your ear and call you Sally. If I lived in your world of "nothing is certain" I'd go insane immediately. How do you even drive a car or take a shit with all that uncertainty rattling around in your head?

"Facts are facts" is one of the most uninformed and irrational things that one can say. It displays a total unfamiliarity with what we are talking. Facts are NEVER just facts. There are no brute facts. There are no facts that are unrelated to your governing presuppositions.

Your worldview defines what you even think "facts" are. No offense, but you really need to read some Kuhn or some Clark to be able to intelligently engage in this discussion.