Two views : Scientific one

Argument of the day: On atheism

1.Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that it is impossible for the Bible to be both true and complete."Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem applies to any consistent formal system which:Is sufficiently expressive that it can model ordinary arithmetic Has a decision procedure for determining whether a given string is an axiom within the formal system (i.e. is "recursive")Gödel showed that in any such system S, it is possible to formulate an expression which says "This statement is unprovable in S".If such a statement were provable in S, then S would be inconsistent. Hence any such system must either be incomplete or inconsistent. If a formal system is incomplete, then there exist statements within the system which can never be proven to be valid or invalid ('true' or 'false') within the system.Essentially, Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem revolves around getting formal systems to formulate a variation on the "Liar Paradox". The classic Liar Paradox sentence in ordinary English is "This sentence is false."Note that if a proposition is undecidable, the formal system cannot even deduce that it is undecidable. (This is Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem, which is rather tricky to prove.)The logic used in theological discussions is rarely well defined, so claims that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that it is impossible to prove (or disprove) the existence of God are worthless in isolation.One can trivially define a formal system in which it is possible to prove the existence of God, simply by having the existence of God stated as an axiom. (This is unlikely to be viewed by atheists as a convincing proof, however.)It may be possible to succeed in producing a formal system built on axioms that both atheists and theists agree with. It may then be possible to show that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem holds for that system. However, that would still not demonstrate that it is impossible to prove that God exists within the system. Furthermore, it certainly wouldn't tell us anything about whether it is possible to prove the existence of God generally.Note also that all of these hypothetical formal systems tell us nothing about the actual existence of God; the formal systems are just abstractions.Another frequent claim is that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that a religious text (the Bible, the Book of Mormon or whatever) cannot be both consistent and universally applicable. Religious texts are not formal systems, so such claims are nonsense.

2.Occam's Razor: wot is it actually?"People keep talking about Occam's Razor. What is it?"

William of Occam formulated a principle which has become known as Occam's Razor. In its original form, it said "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily." That is, if you can explain something without supposing the existence of some entity, then do so.Nowadays when people refer to Occam's Razor, they often express it more generally, for example as "Take the simplest solution".The relevance to atheism is that we can look at two possible explanations for what we see around us:There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there, which came into being as a result of natural processes. There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there, and there is also a God who created the universe. Clearly this God must be of non-zero complexity.Given that both explanations fit the facts, Occam's Razor might suggest that we should take the simpler of the two -- solution number one. Unfortunately, some argue that there is a third even more simple solution:There isn't an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there. We just imagine that there is.This third option leads us logically towards solipsism, which many people find unacceptable....

Thnx.

Have a Nice Day :)