There is No Rational Reason to Believe in God

Thank you jayShay3R1 Gödel's Ontological Argument: Use of AxiomsPro contends there is no reason to accept the Axioms as true because "there is no possible way to demonstrate its validity". An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. [1]I spoke a bit in my first round that there are 2 ways an axiom is accepted as true in logical systems. There are Logical Axioms that are inferred to be true because to be falsified requires accepting the axiom as true. I gave the example of "Non-Contradiction" an axiom of classical logic. I also touched on pragmatic axioms, these axioms are also known as postulates.[2] Postulates are accepted as true for the system to remain constant. there are 5 postulates in Geometry, such as "Two parallel lines never touch", they are present in Science such as "the speed of light is universal", in Law: "Innocent until proven guilty". Establishing and accepting postulates does not infer that an argument is irrational.If the axioms were verifiable by demonstration or empirical means then the Axioms of the Godel Argument would not be Axioms but statements reliant on some other postulations or axioms.3R2 Gödel's Ontological Argument: Acceptance of AxiomsFurther I touched on what was a rational way of accepting an axiom as true: Deontological Justification. Also pragmatically if it is consistent with our world and instills consistency in the system. Axiom 4: Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is positive in all possible worlds."World" is trivially defined. It is a part of modal logic. A possible world is any internally consistent world. We may say a world ruled by logic but not necessarily our world. "Positive" has been defined by Gödel in his notes as a property that is aesthetically appealing. Pro contends "We cannot possibly know that because a certain property is positive in our world, it must be positive in all possible worlds because we have never experienced another world. How can we possess enough certainty to assume that necessary existence is always a positive property? If there was a universe that only consisted of pain and misery, would existence still necessarily be a positive property?"Here he admits that there are positive properties in our world. He contends if a world were filled with harm would existence be positive? He is using the same Aesthetic postulates that Gödel uses. Pro is implying that avoiding harm is "positive" and enduring harm is "negative". As we See Pro is accepting the Axiomatic "positive" property to argue that there are no "positive" properties. 3R3. Mac book tool for Gödel's Ontological ArgumentPro asserts "We currently have no way of creating equations that incorporate anything that exceeds the dimensions of reality which we are able to comprehend. Thus using computers to prove the existence of such a being is implausible."This is not accurate. As I said the computers take in inputs and apply a system of rules, that then result in an output. What can be said is the output given the input is consistent to these rules. As such we use computers to actually tell us about things we can not directly observe. We use computers to tell us about 4 and more dimensional shapes. While we have no experience with hypercubes, we know a cube has edges perpendicular to planes of movement, that the edges meet at 90 degree right angles. And the a cube has an edge for each dimension of movement. We can take this description of a cube into other dimensions and the computer can perform alterations on the hypercube following the same rule set that allows us to perform transitions on a square in 2 dimensions, or a cube in 3 dimensions, and we yes dear I say it assume that the primary rules will remain consistent into more dimensions.These extrapolations are not "irrational" because we have no direct experience with the environment or world. they are not "irrational" because they are outputs from a computer.They are consistent with a rule set inferred from primary postulates, aka axioms, assumed by studying simpler models. This is the inductive method of logical investigation and a key component of how science works.As such, The result of the computer in regards to Gödel's Ontological Argument is: Given accepting the axioms, Given the rule set of modal Logic, given the input of the Gödel Argument, the outcome is the argument has valid inferences.3R4. Kalam Cosmological ArgumentI think Pro misunderstands the argument being made by the Kalam argument. The conclusion that the universe needs a cause is not contingent on how complex or simple the universe is. It is contingent on the temporal nature of the Universe. As far as asking if God had a beginning, to use the same logic of the Kalam would be to assert that God has a temporally regressive timeline just like the universe. While there is evidence for the universe regressing back to a singularity of null time, Pro has to my knowledge none that God has such a timeline.3R5. Moral ArgumentPro is relying back on an Aesthetic appeal, the same used by Gödel in asserting there were "positive properties", to argue that "Pain is bad for you" is not an appeal to emotion but a rational conclusion. He sums up with " I believe that the Moral Argument as sole proof of God"s existence is irrational because there are other methods through which morality can arise, such as through evolution."Again pertinent to the resolution is Pro is arguing that because he has a different argument based on other axioms, based on the same evidence, and gives a conclusion not mutually exclusive with God, then the Theist arguments are "Irrational".I have spent the last few rounds elaborating on how we reason and what constitutes rational justification that having a counter argument does not mean the original argument was "irrational" or even wrong.Ideas and concepts ion Science are often over turned. It is not as if Science was irrational one day and rational the next. The contentions arise when new evidence arises that specifically falsifies a premise of the previous theory. Which is in line with having logical justification. Scientist have evidence that incurs an obligation to reject the previous hypothesis.Pro making an alternative hypothesis to God is fine, but to show there is an obligation to reject accepting the premises of a Theist argument as true, Pro must demonstrate a premise is more likely to be false than true. An actual demonstration not just a contention of doubt. Because the demonstration will allow us to identify how large the doubt should be.Take for instance the puzzle of asserting "every crow is black". For centuries we could observe only black crows. We would be justified in asserting so. But what if we were in an area of black crows (say 100 of them) and the rest of the world had white crows. With no demonstration of any other white crows there is no obligation to reject the original assertion. Even though the contention establishes doubt it doesn't necessitate an obligation.3R6 DoubtPro proclaims, "The reason they are irrational is because they make assertions with no possible way to test them." This is not what makes something irrational. Pro defines "Rational a "based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings." If I have shown that there are theist arguments for God reliant on reasoning and facts then they are not irrational. Not if they can be empirically proven."Irrational is what can not be tested" I would like to see Pro conduct a test to demonstrate this very statement is rational. He may be able to reason the statement out without testing, while his definition and I would contend that to be "rational" his own statement asserts it would be "irrational".He attempts to show that Big Bang theory is not certain but preferable because there is evidence for it. The evidence for Big Bang are the facts that constitute the premises of the argument. And is reliant on some postulates or axioms as well. Such as that the speed of light is constant through out the universe. Such that Cephieds periodic pulsating is truly consistent, that the speed of the Cepheid moving in reference to earth is relatively stagnant. That intermediate space between earth and the Cepheid have negligible effect on the luminosity.[3]This is a poor generalization as well. The Kalam Argument that the universe has a temporal beginning is based on the same evidence as the Big Bang. In fact the Kalam Argument encapsulates the Big Bang. The Big bang theory does not assert what started the spatial expansion nor even what was before the singularity that expanded.The Kalam has observational evidence to support it. Observations that imply drastic change between transient states of matter require a sufficient cause for the change.[4]Round 4 ConclusionTheist have rational, reasonable arguments to affirm God exists. Arguments based on observational facts, valid inferences, and rational justifications to accept primary postulates.[1] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...[2] Define Postulate http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...