“The domain of natural science is natural science, not metaphysics. The fields are logically incompatible.”
- Xenocrates
Naturalists are the strongest of all atheists. They believe that all things can be explained by natural laws and causality. They believe that nature is all that there is and therefore, natural science can be used to invalidate God’s existence. The obvious challenge with this position is that it presumes the domain of natural science extends to all other fields of knowledge. Not only does it make this imprecise leap of logic, but it also misconstrues the intention of Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution with the intention of using it for something it was never designed. This is the fifth and final post in the series exposing the innate fallacies of atheism. Be forewarned; this one’s an epic.
Richard Dawkins
Professor Richard Dawkins (pictured above) is practically the messiah of modern day atheism. His many books and lectures are renown. His arguments provide the lion’s share of much of this post’s content as the chief of modern day naturalism and evolutionary biology. With his recent book “The God Delusion” (2006), Dawkins established a series of very prolific theories that uphold the position of Naturalism and to a wider extent, attempts to justify atheism on a whole. His previous work in the admittedly well written “The Selfish Gene” and “The Blind Watchmaker” are also seminal works which provide material for this post.
Arguments and Rebuttals
The following is a series of arguments for atheism, largely from a naturalist standpoint and the respective rebuttals:
1. The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit
Argument: God is too infinitely complex to ever be a realistically probable occurrence. This is a postulate by Richard Dawkins. He calls this argument the ‘Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit‘. It basically says that the probability of life occurring on this planet is no greater than a hurricane assembling a Boeing 747 simply by blowing through a scrapyard. Therefore the probability of a designer for this world would be so incredibly more complex, that the odds of his occurrence are phenomenally less so.
Counter-Argument: Improbability is not synonymous with impossibility. Furthermore, irrespective of the degree of cosmic improbability of an occurrence, the mere fact that it has occurred or could occur makes the original postulate intrinsically redundant. It only proves that God doesn’t exist as far as life on earth doesn’t exist.
2. Occam’s Razor
Argument: The belief that God created the universe and that nothing created God makes too many unprovable assumptions. Using Occam’s Razor, it is far simpler to say that the universe exists, as it achieves the same functional objective.
Counter-Argument: The assumption that the universe just exists creates the problem of infinite regression, where the cosmological argument of the chicken and the egg scenario presents itself. Tracing the origin of all things in the universe would create a recursive chain of cause and effect that would never end as it would not stop at the Big Bang.
Infinite regression defeats the logic that the universe has a finite beginning. Using a far simpler premise (that an infinite creator instantiated the finite universe) solves the infinite regression problem. There’s no use worrying about assumptions that cannot be proven by the infinite creator premise, as there’s no way to use natural science to substantially prove (or disprove) an infinite universe anyway.
Furthermore, if the universe was infinite, then how do atheists reconcile the fact that scientists almost unanimously believe it started with a big bang? If the universe had a starting point, then it logically has an ending point. Anything that has a beginning, has an end. So if the universe has a beginning, how is it infinite? If an infinite universe started with a big bang, what came before that? I still await a satisfactory answer.
3. The Omnipotence Paradox
Argument: If God is omnipotent such that he can do anything, then can God build a rock that even he cannot lift? If the definition of omnipotence is saying that God cannot cannot do something, then the paradox proves that an omnipotent God cannot possibly exist, and thus God does not exist.
Counter-Argument: If we accept that God is omnipotent, do we also accept that his omnipotence transcends human logic? If we don’t, then how do we get to the point of accepting God as being omnipotent as the question boldly does? If God exists, then how does an omnipotent God become bound by the laws of human logic? Doesn’t that automatically defeat the purpose of referring to him as being God in the first place?
This question pretends to be a paradox when it is nothing more than an attempt at intellectual dishonesty through a play upon words. It’s a clever trick that few people see through.
4. The Omniscience Paradox
Argument: If God is all-knowing and all powerful, can God change his mind? If He is all knowing, then all things are predestined. If he’s all powerful, then he should be able to change his mind. However, if he can change his mind, that negates omniscience, since that defeats the definition of predestination, which automatically eliminates omniscience. But if God cannot change his mind, then he is not omnipotent. This proves that God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and thus by definition, God does not exist.
Counter-Argument: This question is another logical trick, not a paradox. If God exists, and he is omniscient, then by definition, he will never need to change his mind. If God needed to change his mind, it would mean that he made a mistake and is thus not omniscient. The question dishonestly ignores the fact that omniscience implies perfection which automatically eliminates error – and thus the necessity for God to ever change his mind.
Therefore, the question is fallacious for all the same reasons why the universe exists this way and not any other way. Ability does not automatically imply necessity if there is perfection. And just to be abundantly clear, I’m referring to perfection for God’s purposes. As the universe was perfectly predestined via God’s omniscience, this eliminates any necessity for God to change His mind.
5. The Free Will Paradox
Argument: If God is omniscient, that means he already knows every possible outcome and thus humans don’t have a choice. However, if He gave humans free will, it assumes that God doesn’t know what the outcomes of each human’s decision will be and thus God is not omniscient, which would mean that God does not exist.
Counter-Argument: A counter-argument isn’t really necessary here, as this argument is based on a fallacy of popular (usually Christian) religion. In a sense, I actually agree with the premise. There’s no such thing as choice. Choice is an illusion of power. Predestination implies that choice does not exist. An omniscient God has already predestined the course of every outcome of every action of every atom in the universe.
Theists erroneously believe that humans have free will because of misinterpretation of scripture. In Christianity, the Bible does clearly say that God predestines all things (which automatically implies that choice does not exist). However, many theists tend to ignore these parts of scripture for their own comfort.
This also means that God already knows who is going to heaven or hell. Any theistic counter argument against this premise presumes that humans control their own destiny – a false teaching of many Christian circles. That knowledge only resides with God and thus those arguments are likewise automatically invalid.
6. The Transcendental Argument
Argument re Logic: If logic is necessary, yet logic is contingent on God’s will, then logic is in and of itself irrelevant, since God could determine something illogical and it would still be true. But this is impossible, since (using the Omnipotence Paradox) it is impossible for God to create something so heavy that even he cannot lift.
Counter-Argument: This argument commits a fatal logical flaw: Assuming that if God exists, that he is bound by the limitations of human logic. If God exists, then his omniscience means that he contains all the knowledge in the universe. Humans are still investigating the universe, which implies that we have only a tiny subset of that logic. Thus to bind an omniscient God to an incomplete locus of logic is as effective as stabbing a whale to death with a sewing needle.
Argument re Science: If there exists a scientific explanation, then supernatural phenomena such as Miracles do not exist. For miracles assume that laws of science were bent to facilitate their occurrence.
Counter-Argument: The occurrence of Miracles does not automatically imply that any law of science was defied. It usually indicates the occurrence of something that is highly improbable – such as someone surviving a terrible car wreck or even the existence of life on earth. As was mentioned before, improbability is not synonymous with impossibility.
Furthermore, miracles also constitute a scientific occurrence for which we have yet to explain. After all, It was Albert Einstein who postulated that any science sufficiently advanced enough would be indistinguishable from magic. If we traveled back in time and used concentrated dried grape extract from a sachet of Kool-Aid to mix into a jar of water, we would be described as working miracles, just as Jesus was.
Argument re Morality: Morality is bound to the Divine Command Theory, which states basically that if God commands something that appears to be evil, it is therefore good – which makes morality an arbitrary thing contingent on God’s will. If that is the case, then this conflicts with objective morality, which states that we do good because that is what we perceive from the word of God. Then again, how can we be sure that what we perceive from God’s word to be God’s will, if there are so many holy texts? (e.g. Qu’ran, Bible, Torah, Book of Mormon etc.).
Counter-Argument: The Divine Command theory is a flawed teaching of theism. The Divine Will theory; that God is sovereign – supersedes it. Therefore, the perception of the morality of an act, whether good or evil is redundant, since a sovereign God would neither be good nor evil (see earlier arguments on the problem of evil).
Good and evil are man made concepts that are relative to the observer. None of that is relevant if the outcome is predestined by an omniscient God. This would mean that all things that happen are God’s will – both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ alike. That is a part of the true nature of God.
Finally, the existence of a multiplicity of texts is a function of human interpretation and culture. This has nothing to do with morality. In fact, there’s no such thing as divine morality as that erroneously presumes that God is omnibenevolent. He is not. Morality is as relative to human culture as is religion. Religion and morality are mutually exclusive.
7. Infinite Recursion
Argument: All things must have a creator. This also applies to God. However, if God has a creator, then his creator must likewise have a creator, and so on ad infinitum. This problem of infinite regression proves that it is simply illogical that God could possibly exist.
Counter-Argument: If God is all powerful, then that automatically eliminates the need to have a creator. The argument is thus demonstrably fallacious.
8. Theological Non-Cognitivism
Argument: God cannot be proven using scientific methods, therefore God does not exist. Also, the nature and description of God makes him unknowable to limited human intellect and thus, ‘God’ does not exist.
Counter-Argument: The absence of proof does not prove absence. It only proves that the proofing tools are inadequate. The argument makes as much sense as trying to prove the existence of atoms using a magnifying glass.
9. The Extra-Temporal God
Argument: The theist argument that God is beyond time is illogical because the very act of God creating the universe (and thus time) presumes that time and space already existed. This implies that if God exists, then he is bound by a parameter of the universe, which is time. If God is bound by a parameter of the universe, then he is not God. Therefore God does not exist. (Read more here.)
Counter-Argument: This argument assumes that the theistic argument which postulates that God is extra-temporal (i.e. outside of time and space) is referring to time as a thing that is contained in or is a function of the universe. Time is nothing more than a construct of the human mind to quantify the passage of moments. Time in and of itself is not a thing and is thus not something that can be created or manifested empirically as a phenomenon or characteristic of the universe without using man made tools that emulate the concept of time (such as a watch).
Thus, the concept of time is just a human approximation for the passage of moments. It allows the human mind to gain relativity about past and present events. Apropos, the concept of time is not needed by God (or even by the universe) as the value of relativity is lost on an infinite being that by definition existed before (and will continue to exist after) the universe.
10. Scientific Naturalism
Argument: Simply put, all things that exist are natural phenomenon that can be explained by natural laws. By definition, God isn’t a natural phenomenon. Ergo, God doesn’t exist.
Counter-Argument: If we become successful in creating a unified theory of everything, we will effectively be creating a natural scientific definition of god.
Why there is a debate in the first place
John T. Scopes was charged with teaching evolution in a Tennessee school in 1925.
The more I researched the arguments for Naturalism, the more I realised that they constitute an extreme form of evolutionary theory called “Ultra-Darwinism”, which seeks to explain everything using evolutionary theory – something Charles Darwin never intended. In fact, the contention between Atheism and Religion is an argument that had gone off on a tangent for some 80 years now, corrupting the original premise behind evolutionary theory.
It thus is useful to note why there is an ongoing debate between religion and atheism. The first thing we need to do then is to establish the history of this contention. The main proponents are Naturalist Atheists and Creationist Theists. But before these these two factions came to be, there came the controversial 1925 trial of John Scopes, now known as the infamous man-from-monkey trial. He was a teacher in Tennesee who was charged with teaching evolution in schools.
The Emergence of Creationism
John Scopes’ defense sought to defend Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution which very nicely explained the development of life. This ultimately put his christian prosecutors on the ropes, since the Bible doesn’t do quite so nicely a job of tying up these loose ends. The whirlwind of debate that followed evolved to become an extreme version of Christianity call “Creationism” which similarly sought to explain everything in a bid to combat Evolutionary theory.
The basic tenet of Creationism is that the Bible can be interpreted literally. They believe God literally created the world in 6 days, that dinosaurs and people coexisted together in the same era (since God created everything in less than a week), and that Noah’s flood wiped out any living thing that didn’t make it into the ark. This, they claim, explains dinosaurs, fossils and all other animals now extinct for which we have found fossilized remains.
Needless to say, much of this is highly inconsistent with scientific discovery, especially since they also add that the earth is just over 6,000 years old (a tenet printed in many King James version Bibles even to this day). To add insult to injury, the prosecution argued that if Darwin’s theory assumes men evolved from monkeys, then monkeys should not still exist. Needless to say, Scopes was ultimately convicted and fined $100.
The Emergence of Ultra-Darwinism
Before this trial, Christians widely accepted evolutionary theory as a scientific approximation of the allegories in the Bible. Most Christians never believed at that time that the earth was literally created in 6 days. Darwin’s theory of evolution simply filled in the gaps left by the Bible, without effectively contravening anything therein. However, just so that Scopes could be prosecuted, Creationism was invented to be just as refined, using the Bible almost exclusively.
Naturally, the existence of Creationism and the subsequent conviction of John Scopes provoked the minds of those who championed Evolutionary theory. In response, they were compelled to form a movement that eventually evolved to become an extreme form of Darwinian theory, called “Ultra Darwinism” or “Universal Darwinism”. The basic idea behind this movement is to fill in the holes in Darwin’s theory that were used to convict Scopes.
The debate has raged on between these two factions ever since, creating the misconception that Darwin’s naturalist Theory of Evolution necessarily validates Atheism. However, the debate has gone on for so long, that almost every breed and class of atheist out there fallaciously and religiously claims Darwin’s theory of evolution as a part of their defense, thinking that it validates atheism. This, as I will now demonstrate, could be no further from the truth.
The Truth about Darwin and Evolution
Charles Darwin - eminent naturalist, founder of the Theory of Evolution & Natural Selection.
In Charles Darwin’s magnum opus, On the Origin of the Species (1859), he postulates that life evolved through a process of evolution and natural selection. It lays out in a logically structured, easy to follow arrangement, using simple, accessible language, how life evolved from simple creatures, becoming more and more complex in a bid to adapt to the changing planet. Needless to say, this theory is one of the most profound contributions to science.
However, nowhere in the book does it make any assertions that these theories invalidate God in any context – even though Darwin was painfully aware that it could be misconstrued as such. Darwin was a scientist of the Naturalist order. He didn’t write the book to disprove God. Rather, he merely wrote it as a theory based on his now famous visit to the Galapagos islands in the 1830’s aboard the HMS Beagle. His intentions were to add to the scientific knowledge base of Natural Zoology, not to become embroiled in a religious debate.
In fact, Darwin was a Christian when he wrote the book. So he was understandably timid to share his ideas in fears that it would upset his Christian contemporaries. He was therefore naturally upset when his work was used to start debates on this matter, as his theories were taken out of context – especially by atheists. What makes matters worse is that most atheists assumed (even to this day) that Darwin was likewise an atheist because of this work.
While Darwin did eventually loose his faith, it was not because of his theories of evolution. It was actually because of the death of a beloved 10 year old daughter, to what is now speculated to have been cholera, in 1851. By this time, the Origin of Species had not yet existed as a contiguous work, but as various papers which had undergone many revisions. It’s official publication in 1859 (8 years after his daughter’s death) was long after Darwin had lost his faith, but not before the theories were first conceived, some 20 years earlier while still a theist.
The Fallacies of Ultra-Darwinism
Famous atheists like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins attempt to use Darwin’s concept of evolution to explain everything with a view to rule out the necessity for the existence of a god. They hope to do this using three key theories:
1. The “Selfish Gene”
Basically, this is the idea that our genes have been in competition with each other for survival since the dawn of life. Thus, this theory’s proponents assert, proves that nature is nothing more than a natural, mechanical unraveling of cause and effect. This of course is based on the concept of natural selection.
Unfortunately, the proponents of this idea have grossly oversimplified the function of a gene. Michael Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, has determined from the work of that organisation that our understanding of genes is becoming as increasingly outdated as our perception that atoms are the smallest particles.
Genes do not function in isolation. There are a plethora of factors which contribute to their effect on life. Thus, to presume that a selfish gene generates the behaviour found in natural selection is as presumptuous as saying that a spoiler adds horse power to a sports car. The idea is lofty, but it is grossly fallacious.
2. The “Meme”
Susan Blackmore's book expands on the idea of Memetics
A meme is any bit of cultural information that lives in the consciousness of a host. It can be anything from music to science to religion. A meme “competes” for survival by “infecting” an entity. This, says the theory, is how information survives, and lives from generation to generation, much in the same way genes propagate through natural selection. Its survival is thus highly contingent on its competition.
This would explain why some religions are more dominant than others, and why some languages have all but gone extinct. As the survival of a meme is only contingent on competition, this its proponents assert, proves that religion is effectively a delusion, in as much as the idea of God is a delusion – a meme that has infected believing hosts and that nothing else is true.
The problem with this idea is that a Meme describes any bit of information – not just religion, but science and philosophy as well. The assumption that the survival of a meme is solely contingent on competition automatically asserts that the truth of the meme is irrelevant to its survival. This uncannily would explain why lies are more common than truth.
Concordantly, this gaping flaw in the theory automatically undermines it, because by its definition, the very concept of natural selection upon which memes are based, may itself be false. This by extension destroys the theory of memes as being any form of intrinsically truthful argument. The theory offers no way to validate one meme over another. Thus a person who believes both in God and the theory of evolution is equally deluded about both memes.
3. Darwinism automatically presumes Atheism
Daniel Dennett - American Philosopher and Prolific Atheist Thinker
Based on the first two theories, Ultra Darwinists like Daniel Dennett assert that Darwinism automatically validates Atheism. However, most major scientists (including some atheistic scientists like Michael Ruse) disagree with this premise altogether. They disagree for reasons I have already stipulated in this and previous posts.
Science was designed with a view to discover the truth about nature – something which it is very useful for. However, scientists don’t go into the field or a lab for that matter with a view to prove or disprove the existence of God. Neither did Darwin. Science was never intended for that purpose. The two domains of knowledge are not logically related in any way.
Thus it stands to reason that the people who are using these completely unrelated ideas to push forward their personal views are merely extrapolating from a position that has already been taken for other reasons, prior to becoming engaged in the debate as atheists.
Another glaring flaw with this presupposition, is that it assumes Darwinian evolution to be somewhat complete. Nothing in science ever is. That’s why most of what we know in science exists as theories.
Sooner or later, new discoveries like fill in these holes, just as how quantum gravity and relativity fill in holes in Newtonian physics. In addition to genetics, One can be sure that many more discoveries are yet to come, exposing other incomplete areas in evolution.
Finally, if one were to cognitively link atheism with evolution, wouldn’t that invariably validate the contention of Creationists who have brought a legal case against evolution being taught in schools? If evolution and atheism are inextricably linked, then teaching evolution in schools would amount to the same kind of indoctrination that teaching Creationism would. This invariably exposes the atheist-evolutionist contention as nothing more than hypocrisy by another name.
The Loss of Objectivity
I believe that the rise of atheism is an indication that we are on the cusp of the age of reason. We are slowly but surely becoming a mature race of animals that are slowly putting away the child like thoughts that created religious extremism while embracing and integrating the more intellectually precise ideas behind science. This trend can even be seen in some religious circles which try to reconcile their beliefs in natural science.
With that said, I believe that atheism is more of an extremist by product from the fringe of cognitive evolution. My observation has led me to believe that it is a manifestation of “teething pains” as it were, of this evolutionary process. It is the result of humanity desperately attempting to make sense of a seemingly senseless universe by almost contemptuously wrangling itself away from religious mythology.
However, the trouble with this effort is that it usually inhibits the inculcation of objectivity in the minds of its most stalwart proponents. I am the first to posit that religion is rife with problems. My contentions with religion are well documented on this site. So I am in no way proposing that religion is inherently better than atheism. Rather, my contention is that the hypocritical fallacies inherent in religious extremism are strangely mirrored in atheism.
I don’t believe that we can certify the existence or non-existence of god using anything in either religion or atheism. That is impossible. Thus an inclination to either side of the fence is highly contingent on other innocuous factors which influence what we believe. Thus irrespective of whether or not one is an atheist, there is a distinct likelihood for objectivity to often be tossed out the window – and that’s where the problem begins.
In Review
In review, this series of posts has demonstrated that the key proponents of atheism have sought to:
- Assert that we can’t know something exists if we lack the capacity to determine that it does. (Agnosticism)
- Discredit the objectivity of morality and by proxy, theism in general. (Pragmatists)
- Assert that doubt can be more or less considered as validation for non-belief. (Skeptics)
- Discredit the existence of supernatural phenomena by certifying the existence of natural ones. (Naturalists)
However, none of these arguments are convincing enough in their own right. In response to each of the above positions, respectively:
- Saying that we don’t or can’t know something doesn’t mean that it can’t or doesn’t exist.
- Theism and morality are mutually exclusive. Obfuscating morality does not invalidate theism.
- While it is easier to believe what we can prove, it does not invalidate the necessity of faith for the unprovable.
- The domain of natural science is natural science, not metaphysics. The fields are logically incompatible.
This is why I believe that any position for atheism appears to be more a position of personal conviction and not one that is necessarily driven by an impartial, objective subscription to critical thinking or empiricism. Most of the arguments seem to be driven by as much of a need to validate an atheist’s personal beliefs as much as a theist would seek to use mythological contrivances to validate their religion.
This is also why I started this series by making the statement about preference and belief. When we defend what we believe, we are doing nothing more than exercising our right to a preference. Nothing is wrong with that. Saying that it is anything else is dishonest. So as much as strong atheism makes some very good criticisms of theism, I remain unconvinced that many of such criticisms are any different from rooting for your favourite football team.
Conclusion
Don’t get me wrong. I can relate to the position of people who are atheist because of the loons who surreptitiously use religion for evil. What I cannot relate to however, is the other percentage of the atheist population who unscrupulously attempts use science for something it wasn’t intended. The resulting arguments suspiciously appear to be cognitive posturing in a bid to obscure intellectual dishonesty.
Irrespective of which side of the fence one is naturally inclined to sit, we should all be prepared to accept the responsibility of thinking about it critically and objectively. I have done so with Christianity, the faith in which I was raised. I didn’t expose the fallacies in Christianity because of any favourable position towards atheism. I did it because there are some obvious problems with the very faith I was unsuccessfully brought up to believe as a child.
As I’ve said many times before, people don’t necessarily believe because something makes sense. They believe because they want to. It’s no different with atheists. Thus where as religion dubiously asserts itself as being the “infallible word of God”, atheism asserts itself as the “infallible word of man”. Neither is more functionally useful than the other, because both are opposing sides of the same coin. It’s nothing more than belief for the sake of it.
If we’re not willing to be objective about our beliefs, then we run the risk of being hypocrites. Without objectivity, we loose the opportunity of credibly defending whatever we believe, no matter how much sense it seems to make to us. Concordantly, just as how atheists like to tell theists that “It’s ok to say you don’t know“, I would respond in kind that “It’s ok to say that it’s just your opinion“. The cognitive gymnastics were probably never necessary in the first place.
29 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 7, 2009 at 7:35 am
Alamanach
“The domain of natural science is natural science, not metaphysics. The fields are logically incompatible.”
Incompatible? Good grief, I hope not.
May 16, 2009 at 12:19 am
dave
Great post as per usual…I strongly believe that you should write a book on these stuff… Something relating to “The problems with Religion and Atheism”
A)
I was raised as a Christian, however, unlike you, I chose to remain a Christian…That was my choice…As you said, all of these stuff have everything to do with choice…
I am however aware of the many many stupidity that so many Christians do in the name of religion…. And I am also fully cognisant of the fact that, I may not have been a Christian if I was born in another country and in a different family setting…. Many Christians fail to accept that fact……
I still to date, wonder what in the world is going to happen to the many millions of people who has never even heard about the bible… much less to believe that a God exist or not. I remember asking this same question to a guy about “what is going to happen to people who dont know about the bible” at a conference sometime ago and his response was something to the effect of “Well the bible did say that everyone will hear” …. hiss teet
I am not one to claim that the bible have all the answers to many difficult questions… Because they are so many things that we cannot prove….
Anyway,
B)
In #5 – (The Free Will Paradox) under Arguments and Rebuttals… you said that “The Bible does clearly say that God predestines all things (which automatically implies that choice does not exist)”
But in 1 Kings 9:1-9 in the bible, God was speaking to King Solomon and it said in vs 4 ” IF, you walk before me in integrity and uprightness…… I will establish your Royal throne over Israel forever” ….. Then in vs 6 it said “BUT IF, you or your sons turn away from me…….”
To me this passage supports free will because God gave him a choice……So do we have free will??? I think the answer is we do not know if we do or don’t, its as simple as that…
In #6 The Transcendent Argument – Your link that says “Problem of evil” under the counter to the “Argument re – Morality” is an erroneous link.
C)
This is not an argument for or against anything but I want to know what SOLID proof does science have to say that life actually existed beyond 6000 years ago…… I know that fossils and stuff were found and dinosaur bones and what not…. But how can they accurately prove for sure that these things were around 2,000,000 years ago and not say 3000 years ago??? how do they know that their time measuring instruments are correct to the T???? Is it absolutely impossible for them to be wrong??? As we cant actually go back in time….. I seriously don’t think there is SOLID proof to justify that life was in existence even10,000 years ago and beyond because nothing from that time is still alive….They are all just theories that seem to make sense….. I can understand with documents that has dates etc but not with fossils and those things…
D)
I think Atheism is getting more popular because:
1) people are trying to understand life, which is impossible
2) people just don’t want to accept that a God possibly exist
3) atheism seems to be the more intellectual way to go
May 19, 2009 at 11:40 pm
xenlogic
Why is that?
After studying the Bible through and through for over 23 years, I am now convinced, more than ever before, that such a concern is completely irrelevant. If God exists, then all outcomes in the universe are already predestined. That, by extension includes all those who will be redeemed in the end. The rest of it is pure and needless speculation.
The Bible is not as complicated as people would like to think it is. Consider the following:
1. Who wrote the Bible? Ancient Men.
2. Did ancient man understand the God they served? In very limited terms.
3. How did they write about a God they barely understood? Through allegories.
4. How are these allegories manifested? As anthropomorphications.
5. What is an “anthropomorphication”? Ascribing human like qualities to things which are either inanimate or otherwise non-human.
6. Why use allegories? Because they didn’t know of any other practical means of which to describe what they experienced.
This is the reason why it appears that God is giving men a choice. However, there’s a lot less going on here. If we decide to subscribe to the theory that God exists, then;
1. We must define God as being all-powerful (otherwise “god” doesn’t exist)
2. If God is all-powerful, he must possess all knowledge (knowledge->power).
3. If God is all knowing, then all outcomes have been predestined.
4. If all outcomes have been predestined, there is no choice.
5. If there is no choice, then all human behaviour is programmed.
If God really gave humans choice, it implies that he doesn’t know the outcome of their decisions. If God didn’t know the outcome of every human action, he wouldn’t be a god. So in this matter, we either have to accept that:
1. God exists and humans have no choice
2. God doesn’t exist, and humans have choice.
Atheists have chosen the latter, because they like the idea of being in control of their destiny. Christians have chosen the former, because they prefer to feel comforted that some super being is in control of their lives.
The conflict occurs though, when Christians want to have both choice and an all powerful God. That doesn’t make any sense. Continuing any such argument validates all atheistic presupposition that God is nothing more than an imaginary friend. If you believe you have control over your destiny, then your “god” really doesn’t exist.
[Cont'd]
May 19, 2009 at 11:43 pm
xenlogic
Fixed. Thanks!
You mean aside from Carbon dating?
Because according to the continued dating mechanisms of all civilizations, both ancient and modern, we had relatively advanced civilizations 3,000 years ago and none of them recorded anything about giant lizards.
Well, they never assert that the carbon dating is perfect, but they do assert that it is within +/- 10% degree of accuracy. Carbon dating loses its effectiveness over a few scores of millennia. But there are other forms of dating which have filled this gap and proven to be more precise.
Actually, that’s not true. Just recently, a Spruce Tree in Sweden was discovered to be nearly that age. There are giant redwood trees in California which are easily 5,000 years old. The rings in the cross section of these trees have verified that they are much, much older than a couple of millennia.
I disagree for two reasons:
1. Atheism is becoming more popular because mankind is collectively entering the age of reason, shedding its mythological entrapments.
2. Life is not impossible to understand. All we need is time. We’re figuring it out bit by bit. However, if God exists, then I doubt very much that such a being would allow humanity to live long enough to figure it all out.
I guess that’s why the Bible tells us that in the last days when knowledge increases, there is a great war in which the earth is eventually destroyed, after which a few humans are retained to a blissful realm and the cycle of life starts all over again – which is how it probably happened, many, many times before.
There are those types of atheists and they tend to be the most annoying ones. However, the original premise behind atheism was not to refute religion just for the fun of it. Atheism came out of the recognition that religion didn’t answer all the tough questions. It’s that simple.
Not necessarily. People who are intellectually inclined have no real justification for becoming atheist based on intellectual deliberation. People who are religious or atheist already have an opinion and a preference. They just create arguments to justify their position after the fact.
It’s like buying a bicycle because you can’t afford a BMW, then proceeding to say that a Bicycle is better than a BMW, because it can fit into areas BMWs can’t. It’s all cognitive dissonance. Both sides of the fence are just trying to prove empirically something that has no empirical meaning.
May 20, 2009 at 7:01 am
Alamanach
“Incompatible? Good grief, I hope not.“
“Why is that?”
When you say that natural science and metaphysics have two different domains, you are putting forward the Non-Overlapping MAgisteria (NOMA) argument that Stephen Jay Gould was fond of. Personally, I have no argument with such a position, as far as it goes. But two say things are of distinct domains and to say that they are incompatible are different statements. The natural sciences and metaphysics may be in different domains, but they at least border each other. Their boundaries must be compatible.
Let’s look at mathematics for a clearer example. We can construct all kinds of mathematical statements: 2 + 2 = 4, Sx^2dx = (x^3)/3 + c, z^2 + 5z -288 = 0; z=7, and so on. These are true statements about the way quantities relate to each other. An equation, when properly formed, allows us to move from one true statement to another.
Now, mathematicians noticed a while ago that the process of solving an equation is nothing more than the process of manipulating symbols according to certain rules. Watch how this progression works, for example:
z^2 + 5z -288 =0
z^2 + 5z + 6 = 294
z^2 + 3z + 2z + 6 = 294
(z+2)(z+3) = 294
therefore
z = 7
This is not the conventional method for solving a quadratic equation, but since I already knew the answer, I was able to take this unusual route. Unusual– there was nothing invalid about my movement from one equation to the next, just unusual. I stayed within the rules. The following would have been invalid:
z^2 + 5z -288 =0
z^2 + 5z + 288 = 0
z^2 + 5z + 21 = 0
z + 5z + 21 = 0
6z + 456 = 0
7z = 0
therefore
7 = z
That “solution” is invalid; I went outside the rules of mathematics every time I moved from one equation to the next. I did not manipulate the symbols in a legitimate way.
So there are mathematical statements, and then there are rules about mathematical statements. 2+2 = 2*2 is a mathematical statement. “Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other” is a rule applicable to mathematical statements. But it is not a mathematical statement itself. What do we call it? We call it an axiom. We can also call it a metamathematical statement.
Bertrand Russell wrote a book titled “Principia Mathematica” in which he attempted to write all the axioms of mathematics, and show how all true mathematical statement can be derived from them, but no false mathematical statements could be so derived. This second half was very important: for any logical system, if you can “prove” a false statement, meaning you can prove a theorem and its antithesis, then you can “prove” literally anything. So a set of axioms that allows one contradictory conclusion will eventually allow all contradictory conclusions.
In 1931 the German logician Kurt Godel published a paper titled “On Formally Undecideable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems.” Godel demonstarted that for any finite system of axioms that was powerful enough to be useful, there would always be true theorems which the given axioms could not prove. This is known as Godel’s Theorem, and the way he went about proving his theorem has serious consequences for artificial intelligence and the nature of human consciousness. But I won’t get into all that.
What should be clear is that axioms, metamathematical statements, must be compatible with mathematical statements. The whole system would be useless if it were otherwise.
Natural science and metaphysics are no different. Metaphysics does not deal with some escapist fantasy land, it concerns itself with the basic truths and conditions that result in our physical, natural world. [G] = 8 pi [T] is a statement of natural science. That God loves us and made the world and gave us dominion over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the air is a metaphysical statement that helps explain– among many other things– where General Relativity comes from.
May 24, 2009 at 11:32 am
xenlogic
Master Al,
Sorry for taking so long to respond. Wedding plans and all that. So without further adieu:
Oh Good Heavens, no! I find NOMA to be an intrinsically hypocritical postulate as it conveniently ignores the possibility that science could resonate in religion or vice versa. NOMA subscribers wouldn’t dismiss a scientific claim (such as string theory) which seems to resonate nicely with the religious concept of a extra-temporal universe spawning singularity. Yet, NOMA believers hypocritically ignore any other scientific claim which they are yet unable to reconcile with religion. See the problem there?
Let’s not get my position confused here. My contention is that the two fields are logically incompatible, not necessarily of separate domains. Science and religion represent two very different logical approaches to looking at the same thing. The Greek philosopher Aristotle didn’t formulate the first fields of science as a means of proving that God didn’t exist. Science was created as a means of better understanding our natural, physical world. So the act of using science to prove that God does or doesn’t exist will never follow logically – not yet anyway. Similarly, when the Bible says the universe was made in 6 days, it does not prove science to be wrong about a 6 billion year old earth.
Science is science is science. Religion is religion is religion. The logical process employed by both are governed by wholly separate rules. Hence, they are logically incompatible. HOWEVER, because both science and religion explore the ultimate questions of our universe, occasionally, they do resonate, or rather, come to two conclusions which aren’t grossly dissimilar from each other. The logical process by which both domains of knowledge come to that conclusion are wholly different however. So one must not make the mistake of deliberately trying to use one to prove another.
Have you ever read about Non-Determinate Finite Automata? It is loosely based on Gödel’s theorem. In grossly simplified terms, it says that any computer system (including artificial intelligence) is inescapably open to flaws because there is no way to possibly determine all of the possible inputs to that system that would allow it to continue functioning normally.
In layman’s terms, it means that there’s no such thing as a perfect program. It means that every computer program, by virtue of being human created, is hackable. However, even though Godel’s theorem implies that computers may never be as intelligent as humans, NDFA automatically implies that if a computer program were to be written simply to replicate itself by correcting the flaws of its previous iteration, then given Moore’s law and what we understand about evolution, computers will ultimately outsmart humans (thus simultaneously proving and disproving Gödel’s principle as applied to the domain of AI).
And that’s where the similarities between natural science and metaphysics end. How it comes to its conclusions however, are the issue at hand.
But metaphysics does not explain why an omnibenevolent God who loves us would allow evil to exist. It does not explain why evil people thrive a little more so than the people who are good. Do you also realise that Gödel’s Theorem also insinuates that the logically sound concepts in atheism are inherently true?
May 24, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Alamanach
Okay, we could chase each other around in circles, but I think it would come down to the definitions you and I are using for “incompatible”- and once we got that ironed out we’d probably end up agreeing with each other. So let’s skip that and jump to the interesting thing you said:
“Do you also realise that Gödel’s Theorem also insinuates that the logically sound concepts in atheism are inherently true?”
No, I don’t realize it. How do you figure?
Tend to your other affairs before answering me; she’s more important than I am.
May 25, 2009 at 2:42 am
xenlogic
She’s fast asleep, so I can enjoy this for a bit.
(What I am doing online at 2:42 am? Well, God and I had a falling out. LOL!)
Anyway, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem suggests that in any branch of mathematics, there will always be some propositions which cannot be proven to be true or untrue by the axioms of that branch of mathematics. Now as you know, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is not only applicable to mathematics, but invariably any other system that is based on axiomatic rules or principles. This includes everything from mathematics to computer science to metaphysics.
Let’s apply that to metaphysics for a second:
We can say that God by definition loves us. However, if God by definition loves us, can we prove that God doesn’t exist by asserting that there are some of us who God does not appear to love? We can certainly prove the latter part of the statement to be true. We can even prove the original postulate (that God by definition loves us) to be false. But we cannot prove one way or another, that God exists (or doesn’t exist) by the fact that this “love” is missing.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem proves that any statement that we make about God is inherently incomplete, because it is based on a set of rules that we have defined. These set of rules in their own contained space make some amount of sense, until you throw in the cosmic monkey wrench that shows how you can get to the illusion of “God’s love” without including God in the picture at all.
This is known as Occam’s Razor.
Occam’s Razor is an Atheistic Argument against the existence of God. Simply put, this states that the simplest answer is usually the best one. If we were to assert Gödel’s incompleteness theorem on the universe, then just like how you went outside the rules of the quadratic equation to solve it anyway, there are two possible answers to this cosmological quandary. Either:
1. God exists as a creator/designer, even though God’s existence makes too many unprovable assumptions (like his “love”, for example)
OR
2. The universe just exists as a series of causes and effects; which is a much simpler, albeit less satisfying way of saying exactly the same thing.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem presents any system of logic as nothing more than a box that will always have a number of propositions that its rules cannot validate. Invariably, an attempt to validate such propositions involves going outside of that box to do so – which will create an even bigger box, with all new axioms. Even so, the principle will still reapply itself to this bigger box and thus effectively constitute an infinitely recursive problem.
That is the problem with Occam’s Razor.
Ergo, if you consider the God problem, by Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, we must also accept that it is but a scientific theory which is only an alternative to the propositions made by atheists, which follow whole new rules in a much bigger box with even more (or less) axioms. At the end of the day, one must ask them self: “Is there any other way that we could come to the same conclusion about the origin of the universe?”
I’ll give you a practical example:
When the concept that nature was brought about by design was first proposed, Darwin met that challenge by proposing an alternative in the form of Evolution. Both ideas work even though both ideas are subject to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. This is why I’ve said many times that the side of the fence one sits on is invariably down to personal choice.
But most importantly, the fact that the problem could also be solved when the rules of any given system of logic (in this case, metaphysics) could be effectively circumvented by going outside that system, this shows that there is no logical compliance between Metaphysics and Natural Science. You can use both systems to prove a limited number of things as well as using them to postulate the same thing using different methods.
However, you can never use them against each other since the rules in both systems are invariably different. We should use science to prove science and religion to prove religion. Crossing swords between them always introduces logical inconsistencies and straw man arguments.
May 25, 2009 at 11:07 am
Alamanach
“Anyway, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem suggests that in any branch of mathematics, there will always be some propositions which cannot be proven to be true or untrue by the axioms of that branch of mathematics. Now as you know, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is not only applicable to mathematics, but invariably any other system that is based on axiomatic rules or principles. This includes everything from mathematics to computer science to metaphysics.”
You misunderstand one of the finer points of Gödel’s theorem. First, it is not limited to branches of mathematics, that is too specific; it applies to finite axiomatic systems of a sufficient level of sophistication. As it happens, our mathematics and its different branches fit that description, but Gödel wasn’t talking about branches, or any mathematics in particular. If his theorem had been limited to just our mathematics that we know about, with its particular branches, then we could have gotten around his theorem by introducing a new set of axioms. Gödel’s theorem is much more general.
Second, it does not apply to ~any~ system based on axiomatic rules or principles. In fact, we can even come up with systems of mathematics for which Gödel’s theorem does not apply. He left us two loopholes; we could escape through a system with an infinite number of axioms, or through a system that was not sufficiently powerful. This second loophole is the interesting one. For Gödel’s theorem to be true, the axiomatic system has to be capable of carrying out addition and multiplication. If we develop a mathematics that omits one of those operations, we won’t run into any trouble.
Metaphysics cannot carry out addition or multiplication. Gödel’s theorem is not applicable to it.
Another misunderstanding appears here:
“Gödel’s incompleteness theorem proves that any statement that we make about God is inherently incomplete, because it is based on a set of rules that we have defined. ”
Even if Gödel’s theorem applied to metaphysics, it would not be the statements that would be incomplete, but rather the original system of axioms. Any particular statement might be provable and trustworthy even within that incomplete set of axioms. The fact that we have defined the rules is not relevant, as far as the incompleteness theorem is concerned.
I don’t think Gödel’s theorem provides much support to atheism. If anything, I think it hints at the existince of God.
May 27, 2009 at 10:29 am
xenlogic
You do realise that this is all subject to interpretation, right?
May 28, 2009 at 9:23 am
Alamanach
Sure, if you’re okay with interpreting twice two as equaling five.
June 2, 2009 at 7:55 pm
xenlogic
Well awlrighty then. I’m glad we agree on that. Therefore, we continue:
Actually, I’m fully aware of that. That’s why I said:
I am concerned about this though:
For wouldn’t that refute what we just established earlier about the scope of it’s application?
If so, then why did you say this:
Can you see my contention here? Also:
This is a logical duality. Gödel’s theorem automatically insinuates that both concepts in Atheism and Theism are inherently incomplete. So based on what you said:
That implies that Gödel’s theorem validates the question I asked earlier:
I’m interested in reading your point of view.
June 3, 2009 at 3:51 am
Alamanach
“Gödel’s theorem…” is not limited to branches of mathematics, that is too specific”
“For Gödel’s theorem to be true, the axiomatic system has to be capable of carrying out addition and multiplication.”
“wouldn’t that refute what we just established earlier about the scope of it’s application?”
This is one of the interesting bits. A system can be capable of carrying out addition and multiplication without being, as you and I would normally use the term, a branch of matematics. For example, we can perform either of those calculations using a lever.
We can build a lever that has a one-foot arm on one side of the fulcrum, and a very, very long arm on the other side. You get to push down at the end of the one-foot length, we are going to load weights onto the other side. We can’t build a weightless balance arm, but we can equip it with a counterweight so that in the unloaded condition, it is balanced without you pushing on it.
I load three pounds onto the long arm, three feet from the fulcrum. Assuming no friction (a reasonably accurate assumption), you report feeling a force of 9 pounds. I take that off and put 4 pounds of weight at the 5-foot position. You experience 20 pounds. I swap that out with 20 pounds at the one-foot position, and you experience the same 20 pounds. This system can perform multiplication.
For this particular system, addition is just a special case of multiplication. Leaving the weights where they are, I load another pound to the 1-foot position. 21 pounds. I add 10 pounds– now you are pushing down with 31 pounds. And so on.
Some things to notice about this system is that, while childishly simple, it is still something rigorous and precise. Engineered properly, it can add and multiply in a powerful and accurate way. Would we call it mathematics? No, mathematics involves rules of symbol manipulation. But it is isomorphic with certain mathematical operations. Isomorphisms are the reason why Gödel’s Theorem applies to more than just mathematics; it applies to all finite axiomatic systems that reach a certain minimal threshold of sophistication (namely, the ability to perform addition and multiplication).
Metaphysics lacks the rigor and precision of our carefully engineered lever. If metaphysics really could count the number of angels on the head of a pin, then maybe Gödel’s Theorem. But it can’t and it doesn’t. Its propositions are to vague, its conclusions too fuzzy.
This is not a weakness of metaphysics, in fact it is a strength. There are limits to what axiomatic systems can prove, limits to which metaphysics is not bound. Human consciousness is not bound to it either. Consider this: all of physics as we know it is describeable by mathematics. Every physical process, every phenomenon, ever action by every piece of matter can be explained mathematically. The proof to Gödel’s theorem cannot be so modeled, because it depends on informal reasoning. No computer will ever be able to prove Gödel’s theorem because it would have to overcome its own mathematical limitations first. How, then, did Gödel’s physical brain ever dream it up?
It is for this reason that I say that, if anything, Gödel’s Theorem hints at the existence of God. It is not so much that the theorem itself has anything to say on the matter, but rather the proof of the theorem requires that we step outside what is mathematically knowable. What is that supermathematical place that we step into?
“What should be clear is that axioms, metamathematical statements, must be compatible with mathematical statements. The whole system would be useless if it were otherwise.
Natural science and metaphysics are no different.”
I was trying to draw a parallel here. If mathematics is to metamathematics as natural science is to metaphysics, then natural science and metaphysics must be compatible. However, metaphysics must also be compatible with human consciousness, which does not seem to be compatible with natural science, so far as we know. So I concede that there are some contradictions in the system that I still haven’t figured out. I have been puzzling over it for– wow, 15 years now, so I might never find an answer. If I could figure out why the universe bothers to obey physical laws, maybe I would get somewhere.
June 5, 2009 at 3:23 pm
xenlogic
Sir Al,
In that case, the parallels that you sought to draw between Gödel’s theorem and metaphysics are inherently incongruous to the point that I think you want to make. Never-the-less, one has to be careful of how we draw parallels using isomorphic relativity. It is one of the many things atheists quote as being a reliable argument against the existence of God, specifically asking the question: “Why can’t an all natural theory be right?”
Think about it this way: Atheists have long proposed that theists see what they want to see, creating an anthropomorphic interpretation of a natural universe to facilitate the socially engineered desire to believe that God is a real being. Whether or not God exists, that statement is functionally true.
Isomorphism is useful in mathematics. Mathematics is mathematics is mathematics. And while we often find ourselves with the irresistible temptation to make these types of comparisons between naturalism and mathematics, a parallel between naturalism and metaphysics looses some credibility because isomorphisms create philosophical dualities.
Philosophical dualities as you already know are two competing, diametrically opposed theories which arrive at the same conclusion (i.e. We exist) without using any of the logical steps of either competing theory. I mentioned this earlier with Occam’s razor.
If I were to propose that it is possible for the universe to have come from God because …well… just because God exists, then this proposition creates an assumption that is empirically unprovable. To say that we exist because God exists, does not prove that God exists. It introduces the element “God” that we have to validate – but can’t, since natural science has no way of validating the existence of such a being.
Therefore, to solve this problem, atheists have argued that we can come to the same conclusion (i.e. We exist) by combining the first law of thermodynamics, the singularity principle, evolution and string theory and eventually get the same result. Why can’t this theory be correct? That’s the question that exposes the logical incompatibility between natural science and metaphysics.
To attempt the use of natural science to certify the existence of God, is almost like saying if 1 + 1 = 2, then God exists. There’s nothing in natural science that logically follows into anything metaphysical. We can use isomorphic relativity all we want, but that still does not constitute a logical transition from something empirical to something that is anything but.
And now we come to it. Natural Science and Metaphysics are trying to answer the same question – but it does not mean that they are logically compatible. This is why you said yourself:
But you can’t, because you’re trying to force two systems to coalesce which are logically incompatible with each other. That’s the point that I’ve been trying to make.
Being a software engineer, I had to comment on this:
This has been done – a long time ago too. In fact, the software developer who built the AI had to create an environment that the self evolving program could not circumvent so as to limit the scope of its evolution. Like I said before, AI can be written to overcome its own mathematical limitations.
Remember, DNA is a natural binary computer system that does just that. Modeling Artificial Intelligence on the same precepts is not hard. It has been done before and the computer scientists that built the Big Blue supercomputer that beat Gary Kasparov at Chess will tell you that this is exactly what they have done.
Those movies about computers taking over the world are not entirely science fiction. Watch a documentary series called “Technocalyps”. It’ll show you the almost demonic extent to which Artificial Intelligence has advanced and is in steady competition with advancements in Genetic science.
June 5, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Alamanach
Alamanach: “No computer will ever be able to prove Gödel’s theorem because it would have to overcome its own mathematical limitations first.“
Xenlogic: “This has been done – a long time ago too. In fact, the software developer who built the AI had to create an environment that the self evolving program could not circumvent so as to limit the scope of its evolution. Like I said before, AI can be written to overcome its own mathematical limitations.”
That would be very interesting, but this is the first I ever heard of such a thing. Please provide details.
June 6, 2009 at 12:40 am
xenlogic
Here’s the link. The actual software is here.
June 7, 2009 at 12:07 am
Alamanach
I see how that would have some very interesting things to say about evolution, but I fail to see what that has to do with Gödel’s Theorem. Please connect the dots for me.
June 7, 2009 at 10:55 am
xenlogic
It proves that the assumptions Gödel’s Theorem makes about AI are wrong.
June 8, 2009 at 9:58 am
Alamanach
How? I don’t see at all how you are reaching that conclusion.
June 10, 2009 at 9:41 pm
xenlogic
Oh, right. I didn’t tell you the part about the program doing something that it wasn’t programmed to do.
Gödel’s Theorem insinuates that AI will never be more intelligent than the mathematical principles used to design it. However, what the theorem fails to account for is two things:
1. Non Determinate Finite Automata (NDFA, it’s a theoretical computing term)
2. Moore’s Law
The first basically asserts that no computer program is fool proof since there’s no way to possibly determine all of the possible inputs to that program. This implies two things:
1. That all security software is hackable
2. Conversely, that AI is potentially limitless
All computers were designed based on Von Neuman’s stored program design, which was articulated based on observations on how the human brain works. This is why computers have processors (brain) a cache (short term memory) main RAM (conscious memory) and permanent storage (subconscious/permanent/skill memory) and input devices (our 5 senses).
Now all AI is by extension based on the Von Neuman design.
A new trend has developed in AI where computer programs are now being designed to mimic DNA – to literally evolve in the truest sense of the word. Basically, the program is designed to constantly better itself in order to survive in a given virtual environment.
The software that I just pointed you to was designed to do just that. The program simulates life forms changing and evolving in a virtual environment, while competing for scare resources to survive. The general idea is that the AI avatar that got to the resource first would survive and thus dominate the virtual environment.
When it was first designed in 1996, it was demoed to a group of people to show how evolution works. However, in one demonstration, the program did something that it was not designed to do. In this particular demonstration, one AI avatar attacked another avatar, eventually killing it, just so that it could get to the resource first.
The AI had literally taught itself a new skill, without the programmer explicitly designing it to do that.
Now given Moore’s law about the exponentially escalating complexity of computer hardware and software by our own hands versus a commensurate reduction in cost, if we were to build AI using existing hardware and design it to self replicate (which is not hard to do, since that’s how microchips are built – by AI controlled bacteria), then we face a very real probability of AI learning and adapting at a rate exponentially faster than humans do through natural biological processes.
Once AI is designed to make itself better than a previous version of itself (quite literally evolving), because it operates at a monstrously faster rate than existing human cognitive capacity, we can in a very real sense become the architects of our own doom.
The only way to prevent such AI from becoming dangerous, is to hard code specific limitations in the evolutionary capacity of the AI and it’s environment, thus making it (in a sense) subject to Gödel’s Theorem – although technically that’s not really the case.
For example, an AI designed to play chess can never take over the world. It’s limitation is hard coded to be playing chess and nothing more. It can evolve to become smarter than a human being in playing chess, but it would never become smart enough to kill a human or to hash a nefarious plot to take over the world.
On the other hand, an AI with an open ended design that is written with the capacity to adapt to any environment, to recognize, catalog, evaluate and utilize anything (which is exactly how humans think), would in every sense of the word have the capacity to become sentient: Meaning that it could become self aware – in very much the same way a child’s brain evolves cognitively to the point where it becomes self aware. Design that AI with a capacity to replicate through self correction, and we would have built AI that would literally out evolve humans in several hundred thousandths of the time.
Concordantly, Gödel’s Theorem doesn’t account for AI that has the capacity to evolve. Gödel’s Theorem only accounts for limitations built into AI that was designed as a direct one-to-one simulation of a specific function of humanity (like playing chess). It does not account for AI that was designed with the capacity for open-ended evolution.
June 12, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Richard
Skipping all the physics theorems talk that is just flying over my head….
Xeno, you made a statement that is not correct in 2 ways:
1 – Applying human concepts,ideals,etc to a god
2 – Logically
“2. If God is all-powerful, he must possess all knowledge (knowledge->power).”
Knowledge equals Power is a human concept – by applying that to a god then that’s problem #1.
Also, the statement Knowledge equals Power isn’t inversely true.
Power doesn’t equal knowledge. Therefore, even if God is all-powerful, he doesn’t have to possess all knowledge.
Best case scenario – power has to be defined. I’ve been in several arguments with persons about whether the President of the US is the most powerful person in the world. It boils down to how power is defined. I’ve given up on those discussions, it’s just as bad as a believer vs non-believer.
Anyway, There are 2 things that are always said however I see a 3rd is required.
“1. God exists and humans have no choice
2. God doesn’t exist, and humans have choice.”
However, God doesn’t have to be a god. He can simply be a creator. That would create a 3rd concept which Men in Black showed:
3. God exists as a creator (not god), and humans have choice.
To follow Occams Razor, the simpliest answer to me is Concept 3.
To use some Jamaican terms:
“A bredda just make up this thing called life, and left it fi run”
June 14, 2009 at 5:12 am
xenlogic
Eeem…
I see where you’re going – but all concepts are ultimately human in origin. The context of the discussion is based on the anecdotal principle of “let’s test this theory”.
If God knows everything that there is to know, that automatically translates as having the power to do whatever, which is equivalent to being all powerful. You’re placing a human limitation on God, as though he were a rocket scientist stuck on a sand bar with a coconut tree in the middle of the Pacific, with no tools.
If God is all knowing, then he also logically possesses the know how to materialise whatever power he needs to create this or that, to create something else, and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Knowledge does logically insinuate power.
You cannot be all powerful unless you’re all knowing. The two are inextricably linked as cause (knowledge) and effect (power). The knowledge of how to do a thing gives you the ability, which in this context, is the equivalent to the power to do it.
I would be interested in reading what definitions you have under consideration. I would love to show you why the two are inextricably linked.
The US President is the most powerful person in the world because he commands the world’s greatest super power. However, I agree that to some extent power has to be defined. But it would be egregious of us to make some kind of obscure connection where the obvious contextual definitions do not apply. That would be the equivalent of a straw man argument.
For example, when we say that the US President is the most powerful man in the world, are we saying that the US President is Superman? No. Obviously not. That is incongruous with the discussion and it does not apply because the definition of power is understood in the context in which it was used. The only conceptual being that such an argument would make sense with is to God.
If God exists as a creator and by that we mean the creator created all things, then God is a god. If all things were created, then it naturally follows that all things were predestined (from cause and effect) because a creator in so doing, would have set things in motion by an act of creation. If all things were set in motion, then all outcomes were predestined from the moment of creation. If all outcomes were predestined, then there’s no such thing as choice.
You can’t separate creator from god. It’s the same thing. Similarly, a creator predestines all outcomes by virtue of his design. Think of the universe as a giant, cosmic clock. If there exists a watchmaker, then the very design of this clock means that there is 100% predictability involved, because every component can be traced to a set of causes and effects.
My point still stands: If God exists, there is no choice. Choice can only exist where there is no creator to foreshadow every possible outcome.
June 14, 2009 at 7:59 am
Alamanach
OK, I took a few days to think over what you said about that computer program. It reminds me of a program some mathematicians wrote to try to have the computer generate new theorems and proofs in geometry. I apologize, I don’t remember any detail of who or when. The program worked. Most of the theorems were trivial, but the proofs were valid. It came up with one or two theorems that were interesting; things that were new and significant. This is much like your evolution program, which discovered predation.
Do either of these disprove Gödel? Not at all. The geometry program mechanically applied the axioms it was given and correctly determined whether certain theorems were valid within that system of axioms. That’s what’s supposed to happen. The evolution program did the same; the possibility for predation was always there, it just had not been explicitly stated before. We have no reason to think either program jumped the bounds of formal logic to develop something “new.”
What Gödel says is that there are some theorems which are true within the system, but cannot be proven through formal means. If we can show the steps the program took to get to wherever it is, regardless of how clever that new place is, then the machine has not violated Gödel’s Theorem.
June 14, 2009 at 12:54 pm
xenlogic
No, I didn’t say that it would disprove Gödel’s theorem. I said it proves that the assumptions Gödel’s theorem makes about AI are wrong. The theorem shows that machines will always be bound to the principles of mathematics that we humans have designed it with. To my knowledge, Gödel was never the one to insinuate that AI could never become smarter than humans – because it can (and has – on many, many occasions).
Here’s a paper on the subject of which I speak: Godel’s Theorem is not an obstacle to AI.
In summation, Gödel’s theorem only shows that we humans can design a mathematical system that has a far greater capacity (because of undiscovered axioms) than we originally explicitly declared. One of the most fascinating algorithms that shows this is called OSPF (Open Shortest Path First). You probably know this algorithm from qualitative mathematics. Computers use this algorithm everyday to bring us the internet.
Can you imagine an AI that can simulate billions of cognitive instructions per second that is designed to run our city taking action that wasn’t explicitly designed in it that may not have our best interest at heart? That is not exactly the stuff of science fiction as was the case in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Those pesky undiscovered axioms that don’t follow formal lines of reason may either make or break the system. When computers become truly Turing ready (as they already have with Chess and a number of other functions like weather prediction), we may have to decide to pull the plug on it for the good of mankind, to the detriment of mankind.
Hmm… I need to make a whole post on this subject.
June 15, 2009 at 7:37 am
Alamanach
“The theorem shows that machines will always be bound to the principles of mathematics that we humans have designed it with.”
No, the theorem shows that finite formal systems of sufficient complexity will necessarily possess undecideable theorems. The theorem itself says nothing about machines or AI, those are inferences that the rest of us came up with later. The difference might seem hair-splitting, but for some reason you keep ending up on the wrong side of the split. For example:
“To my knowledge, Gödel was never the one to insinuate that AI could never become smarter than humans – because it can (and has – on many, many occasions).”
Not because it can, but rather because AI was not Gödel’s area of interest. He went on to discover a unique solution to Einstein’s field equations and stuff like that. His eponymous theorem was not concerned with AI per se. (Keep in mind, this was in 1931, and the theorem was written in reponse to stuff Bertrand Russel wrote in 1913.) Anyway…
“Here’s a paper on the subject of which I speak:”
Clever paper, I see why he got an A-. Unfortunately, he does not describe what an inconsistent computer would look like. If we could build a machine that was consistent except when it was inconsistent, then would we be able to build human-like intelligence? Yeah, sure, I guess. But work through that first– how would an inconsistent computer be built? Computers are material machines made of metal and plastic, full of tiny electric currents going this way and that. Computers obey the laws of physics. The data that a computer processes and displays are all exactly isomorphic with the physical state of the computer. Where does the author propose to introduce inconsistency? I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had much luck in cheating the laws of physics. (Unless, of course, you count what my mind seems to be doing all the time.)
June 15, 2009 at 6:55 pm
xenlogic
LOL! That was worth the price of admission alone.
June 16, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Richard
@US Presidency
The argument about the power of the US president states that the US President IS NOT the most powerful person in the world. The President is still bond by “The Constitution” and whatever laws come with being the President. Even the power to veto items brought to the house is limited and as such, he should be considered to be the most powerful person.
Instead, he holds the most powerful Office in the world. This is the argument that is put forward.
In either case – without a definition of power, your in for the long wrong in that type of argument. Is power knowledge? Is power wielding the most powerful arsenal? Is power being able to do what you want, when you want, no questions asked, no answers need to be given?
@Knowledge equals Power
I see what your saying.
@Creator vs god
I still see both as being separate as it’s the same in our everyday lives. A programmer creates a program however he doesn’t know all possible outcomes to all possible inputs. Therefore, he isn’t all knowing – he’s a creator, not a god.
The only way to be certain of all possible outcomes is to know all possible inputs. So yes, if your all knowing, your a god….but if i’m a creator, I simply make this “being”, give it some rules, place it in an environment and see how it works.
I don’t have to know everything that’s going to happen in order to create something – it’s the same with most inventions with most being simply accidents.
It’s a very human thing to be imperfect and i haven’t seen where anybody has discussed God as an imperfect creator. Somebody who is simply messing around with his toolset in his imperfect universe and voila…life as we know it.
He’s satisfied with the outcome, walks away to go play elsewhere.
June 16, 2009 at 6:53 pm
xenlogic
I LOL’d at that last line. I keeled over laughing. That’s a good one.
To be fair, you have a very good point. I think I understand where you’re coming from now. It is very possible that God may have just “accidentally” created the universe and went elsewhere to play with another Chemistry set.
If I’m being honest with myself, the all consuming God idea really is just an assumption. The Large Hadron Collider in Europe was designed to create mini big bangs. We did that. Who knows if it created a whole new parallel universe that will eventually produce humans like us asking the very same questions, with both universes completely oblivious to each other’s existence?
Anything is possible. The mind boggles at this point.
I can’t think of a reason why your theory couldn’t be right – yet. If I do, I’ll let you know. Again, that was a good one.
June 23, 2009 at 9:16 am
Richard
I never actually thought of a “Creator only” figure until I watched Men In Black (yes…I know, sad but i was young). At the end, you say 2 Aliens playing marble with our universe – that showed me that we really don’t know anything and we are all making assumptions at best.
You had made a similar statement in a previous to say that not because we don’t know, doesn’t me it doesn’t exist. Additionally, it’s only considered correct/right now because it hasn’t been disproved…yet.
Hey…that Collider thing – what actually happened with that? Need to Google it and see if Anti-Matter was created
….Like in Angels and Demon