Gödel, Tarski, & Logic. (for grace2u)

I do not agree that the universe is RULED by the laws of logic(rather, in a sense they RULE us). I did state however that there exist within the universe these fundamental laws that reflect the nature and character of God known by Him at a minimum and partly by us. They are in a sense a radiant property of this God. We see the radiance, and theism can begin to explain it. Meanwhile, atheists like yourself are forced to deny the realities of these truths.In our lengthy discussions from inconstancies within atheistic evolution, it was my custom to read and reread your statements in an attempt to understand what you are saying. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on many occasions and always allowed you to clarify anything that was unclear-as any rational individual would. The argument you are posing on the surface smack of straw man, although I grant I need to reread your post and try to understand where "you think" I am coming from before I present a more lengthy response, responding to your statements more directly.I will make a quick point however and will look forward to your response on it ...Since the laws of logic(reason) are not absolute or binding in your system of thought(or view of reality), what type of reason are you using now? What is your evidence for or against this system of reason? Do you agree that you are using logic now in this conversation or argument, in an attempt to show me where I am wrong? What are you presupposing in order to do this? Can anyone simply produce their own system of reason(laws of logic) in order to prove their case on this forum? I contend they can not. I contend that laws of logic(reason) must exist in order to even have this conversation. WE ARE BOTH, IN ESSENCE PRESUPPOSING THE SAME SET OF LAWS OF REASON(logic), I freely admit the obvious, while you contend that they do not exist. How can you not see this? Forget that I am a Christian... How can you be so biased such that you would dispute this??? If we did not both presuppose some set of universal truths, either one of us could make any argument we wanted and claim it to be true. While we could, it would be an illogical system. For some reason, you have gone off on a crusade, apparently thinking you have me cornered. In doing this, you are missing my point altogether. I will still respond to your post but please address these questions in as rigorous as terms as you can. Please think about what I am saying. Don't be too quick to respond. I expect you to give account to the questions I ask. The other option is you can contend that I and the forum, plus the universe as you've come to know it do not really exist and that this argument is going on inside the depths of your imagination. I would suggest that this is the only logical argument against my stated position. SO now, please address each of my (?'s) to you.Oh, one more question.. If we are not both presupposing the same laws of reason(logic)-if you do contend this, how is it possible for either of us to even begin to communicate our point to the other? This is what I mean when I say you might as well argue that you are the only entity in existence, all communication is futile and certainly science is.Thanks for the interest..."Christ eleison"

Of course not. I do not follow you're reasoning here. We are finite, God is infinite. How could the standard of an infinite entity be measured by the error prone standard of the finite. Because the man described laws of logic appear to be inconsistent in some cases or incomplete in others(or rather in their aplication to mathematics at times) certainly doesn't imply that the universal laws are similar. As I'm sure you know, you can only measure a system to the degree accuracy of the tool you are using. If the tool(man and his logic) is flawed(or imperfect), then how can the measurements taken be anything but that? We do suppose however, and evidence suggests I might add(I think even most logicians would agree on this) that there is some "absolute-truth" that can be obtained or reached. Else all scientific work would be futile. Again, you are missing the deeper point being made. We could use any language, however the methods used and reason sought or honored, would be aplicable for both languages. The methods of reason are the same. This reason ,is far more complex than any language or even logical system. Since all logical systems and philosophies are in a sense trying to understand what these concepts are. The fact that they are searching for this truth even suggests it exists. We see glimpses of it in mathematics, man's logic, science and humanity.Thanks...
"Christe eleison"

Ok .. :ae:.. you are getting a little better but still missing the mark I'm afraid.I could argue this point from two perspectives.
I could state that this is irrelevent since you have misunderstood my statements or ...
I could demonstrate how you misaplied Godel to the context of our discussion(that is an eternal data set, or at a minimum, one that can jump systems).Just to clear my previous comments: I must first begin by copying over the quote that I used to summarize my final point from inconsistencies within atheistic evolution.... I did say that these universal absolutes are REFLECTED by the laws of thought and laws of logic(reason).Now, in your statement: I contend that it is possible that there is one single set, but not known by man. How could man ever know that this is the case. Even if a theist said, here they are... I would still maintain that we do not know if that is truly complete. Again, we can only measure a system to the degree accuracy of our tools. Unless one postulates they are god-and therefore error free, they could never be for certain.Now, for the sake of discussion and to demonstrate you are wrong yet again, even though I really am not obliged to, I will demonstrate where your strict system does not in fact represent reality and where Godels infamous incompleteness theorem does not hold(this by his own definition). BTW it is not merely I that contend it doesn't hold in reality, but many philosophers will agree in the following(references provided if asked-I'm being lazy). I agree with your summary of the theorem...Please note the emphasis on --ANY SET OF AXIOMS AT LEAST SUFFICIENTLY COMPLEX(btw I'm not shouting here, simply emphasizing)--and then it continues.So,
1)Godel states that the proposed SET of axioms must be sufficiently complex. Now as I'm sure you know, the incompleteness theorem requires a system in which to operate in, else it falls apart.2)That is to say, if the data set is infinte, the theorem does not hold. I am sure we could argue all day and night whether or not the universe and the logic that describes it is infinite or not. I hope we could agree that it is. So, if the set of axioms is infinite(or can in essence cross systems), the theorem is invalid. This theorem is more a problem for a mathematician than a theist philosopher arguing that that an infinite God contains infinite and absolute logic that is reflected towards His creation.BTW, I am not arguing against Godel, merely that you have misapplied his theorem in this case.Nice try..I will have to address your other point tomorrow, its getting late.Take care and I still do appreciate your comments ,"Christe eleison"

I thought you were a mathematician not an engineer.... I will read your post in more detail after I respond to :ae:Thanks for the contribution.."Christe eleison"[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-20-2003]

At least we can agree on one point. Perhaps there is hope...