GOD IS I am an atheist. And firmly convinced that life in the universe never interfered outside forces that can change or violate the laws of its existence and development, without being influenced by the second leg. Gaps in our knowledge, allowing to ascribe a role supernatural, sooner or later disappear. Let us recall some definitions. The system of axioms is complete if any statement formulated for the system of axioms is provable (ie is either true or false). Unauthorized assumption - such a statement as to which can not be proved nor its truth or falsity, that is, the statement is not logically provable. Axiom system is inconsistent, if in relation to one and the same proposition can be proved as its truth and its falsity. Of Gödels theorem implies that if the concept of God is part of an axiomatic system, this system is not complete, that is, there are consequences (effects), which are not provable, that is, they can exist and can not exist, it is not provable. But this contradicts the following two conditions (choose any more convincing): nature does not contain events that can be considered and the existing and not existing, or any natural phenomenon exists or does not exist. The second provision says that, by definition, God is the origin of all, hence God or leads to the existence of certain things (allegations), or their non-existence, referring to God, you can either prove or disprove any statement. This is contrary to the incompleteness of the system. Anyway. If you turn on the concept of God in the axiomatic system and assume its full (any statement in full sesteme axioms is provable), then by the theorem of Gödel, such a system of axioms is inconsistent, that is, there will be the phenomenon about which we can prove that they exist and do not exist. Include God in contradictory axiom system does not make sense, since it is inconsistent, that is, it is the phenomenon about which we can prove that they exist, do not exist, which, as mentioned, is contrary to nature and the concept of God. Finally, if the concept of God is not in an axiomatic system, it can not be regarded as the fundamental basis of the universe, from which it follows all things that in fact contradicts the definition of God. For the validity of this evidence must be recognition of the validity of the laws of mathematical logic (propositional logic + predicate calculus) in order to establish the laws of the investigation of truth, falsity, contradiction, consistency statements and other properties and relations between statements. If we assume that mathematical logic can not be applied to the study of the question of Gods existence, then the result will not be possible to study this question by arguments with reason. In other words, sequential mind always comes to a negative answer to the question of Gods existence. What happens in the end ... anyone in any way a rational person, of course, recognizes the validity of the laws of logic, and therefore always comes to the conclusion that the god in the definition of cause of everything does not exist. Man is not a rational, who claims that God can be known only through the senses (and not the mind), of course, can say so, but do not have any way to convince the other, the feelings can not be transferred. Moreover the concept of God is a concept formulated by the mind. How the proposed broadcast concept of reason in feeling, and even so that it can be passed to another person - is not clear. Again, anything like a rational person would say that it is not possible: the abstract concept of mind translate into a sense and feel it. Finally, there is another option: God - not the root cause of everything. Then such contradictions do not arise, but it is a significant weakening of the religion, as it is the fact that God created all that God - the beginning of all beginnings, the foundation for numerous allegations of religion and justification in disputes. P.S. It is worth noting another interesting thing interesting even for physicists. In this definition, God says nothing about his intelligence. That is, you could add God - an intelligent cause of all things, but it is narrowing the definition, which was originally and is not required for the proof. Without rationality concept of god can easily be replaced by the singularity and the Big Bang - the cause of everything. And the answer is the same: the singularity and the Big Bang - is not the root cause of all things. After spending an even greater abstraction can be said that no one event or reason can not be the root cause of all things, that is the root cause does not exist in principle. Arguing within any axiomatic can be concluded that the root cause of all there is. Speaking quite simply, to whatever we may know the basics of the universe will always be questions in the spirit of where there was a big explosion, where did the singularity, where did the throbbing universe, where did the multiverse, why the universe is always there? etc. The root cause of all is not possible to find, in principle, it is not contained in a single object, phenomenon or concept. Hence, this is equivalent to a person of her absence. Theoretically, we can assume the existence of an outside observer outside of our universe, which will answer the question, where all came from (the same one more axiom expansion in Godels theorem), but then the question arises, where did the outside observer, his universe, and the root cause of all this. Quantum mechanics has proven that motion is sufficiently small particles are fundamentally unpredictable, and this unpredictability is not associated with the effects of other particles, as is the inner nature. Therefore, even a complete omniscience of the current state of the entire universe does not allow to anticipate any significant future. And to predict the consequences of any event - including their own actions - we can only with considerable uncertainty. But the answer Laplace Bonaparte and to this day is relevant. Talk gunner with the astronomer, however, this was not the end. Attending with her mathematician Joseph Louis Lagrange said: Oh, its a great hypothesis; it explains a lot. And this was not original. Comprehensive will of God is conveniently motivate any events, processes and patterns. Lomonosov decades before Lagrange sarcastically remarked: easy to become a scientist, having learned the three words God created these things and putting them in place of all causes. But precisely because of the convenience of the god hypothesis is counterproductive. And Laplace replied: This hypothesis, Your Majesty, and really explains everything, but you can not predict anything; as a scientist I have to provide you with work, we can predict. Practical power of science is determined by its ability to predict - based on previously established patterns. Younger contemporary University, one of the sponsors of the first - French - Claude Adrien Helvetius Encyclopedias expressed this wonderful formula: The knowledge of some principles easily compensates ignorance of some facts. Of course, the prediction - not only what we expect from science. For example, the description of the geocentric solar system proposed by Ptolemy, with the proper number of epicycles - interconnected moving circles - predicts the motion of the planets is almost exactly the same way as the heliocentric technique, which existed long before Ptolemy, and the efforts of Newton and Einstein reduced to a manifestation of some general laws. Geocentrism heliocentrism reliable, as it requires a smaller number of arbitrary assumptions - like characteristics of epicycles. Therefore, the geocentrism eventually refused even such conservative structure as the official church. Science and predicts specific phenomena and explains the laws of these phenomena generate. Moreover, prediction must be fully follow explanation. The fewer laws than they are generalizations, the simpler each of them, the better the science. Among the key scientific principles as follows: explicable by nothing less should be expressed through more (not to be coming up with additional concepts to explain what can be explained by the simplest way). This - the so-called Occams razor. But in any case, the correct predictions - the inalienable (for practice) the demands made by science. On the basis of a reliable prediction of faith are just as often wrong. Razor religion reckons among its undoubted achievements: Occam was a medieval theologian. But for every step of such a successful mind, inspired by faith, there are thousands of reasoning like counting the number of angels can fit on the tip of the needle. And indeed the Occams razor - a double-edged. While the world can be explained without the aid of religion, it cuts off from the world of religion.
Posted on: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 08:12:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015