| Topic List | Page List: 1 |
|---|---|
| Topic | Noted intellectual heavyweight Jordan Peterson argues with a bot on Twitter |
| Anteaterking 02/16/18 7:49:32 PM #114: | nicklebro posted... Take your pick. http://archive.is/khKVm This is nonsense. Godel's incompleteness theorems have nothing to do with the requirement of axioms, and there are certainly axiomatic systems that exist which do not require a God to exist (for example, Peano Arithmetic). He follows this up sometime later with: https://i.redditmedia.com/DePQF3Ssej79DxAwybWXdXGr0bEfFoi0qUECHd3UBjc.jpg?w=1024&s=151dda2bbdf6c08474455519f5d50622 This is again a complete misrepresentation of Godel's work, because in particular axioms are "provable" in the sense that within an axiomatic system F, if A_1 is an axiom, A_1 is trivially true within the system. Any logical system has to have axioms, because that is what makes it a logical system. In addition, the requirements on F that are necessary preclude most mathematical logic systems (for example, Eucidean geometry is consistent AND complete), let alone anyone's moral systems (which tend not to be recursively axiomated). So long story short, he's invoking Godel to make baby's first argument for God (the necessity of a creator to exist) seem like it has more weight behind it. Just as a note, I don't want to leave you hanging if you have any additional questions on this, but I'll be out for a while. I'll do my best to address your comments later tonight. --- ... Copied to Clipboard! |
| Topic List | Page List: 1 |
