Quote from: CoinCube on November 16, 2017, 02:53:11 PM

Quote from: Astargath on November 16, 2017, 12:44:17 PM

If the universe is incomplete it means that logic and science cannot tell us what lies outside of the system aka outside of the universe. We can only extrapolate general proprieties. For example we know it's not more universe meaning it is not time, space, energy, or matter.
You said yourself what GIT shows, it doesn't show that there must be something outside the universe, you just said it? We don't know if there is something outside the universe to begin with.

Correct GIT does not tell us that there is something outside the universe. Instead it tells us that the existence of something outside the universe is logical and possible. It also suggests that if there is something outside the universe we not only cannot but will likely never be able to confirm or deny its existence with logic and science alone.

It tells us that this question will forever be beyond science. It will always be a question of metaphysical axioms or faith.

Quote from: Astargath on November 16, 2017, 12:44:17 PM

We can deduce as Perry Marshall does that whatever is outside of the universe is boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause. These basic properties match very well with the religious concept of God but this is not the only possibility. Nihilist believe that there is nothing outside the universe. Infinite nothingness could perhaps be argued to also fulfill these criteria.

Why? How are we deducing this?

We can deduce some basic properties of what may lie outside of the universe by what it is not. It is not more universe. I will repeat Perry Marshal's circle analogy here because although this is an oversimplification it is probably the simplist way of conceptualizing this point.

Gödels Incompleteness Theorem: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century
https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

Quote from: Perry Marshall

Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle something you have to assume but cannot prove.

You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But theyre all built on Euclids 5 postulates which are clearly true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.

You can draw a circle around a bicycle but the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.
...
Heres what it means:

Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
...
Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, were drawing a circle around all of them too):

There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove

The universe as we know it is finite finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time

The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You dont need to know math to do addition you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)

The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.

If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödels theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. Its immaterial.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause,because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

Note the circle here is not a literal circle but a metaphor for the part of the system in this case the universe that is defined and proven.

Also note that there are two assumptions in the argument 1) that the universe is finite and 2) that the universe is mathematical aka rational. Both of these assumptions are reasonable ones given our current understanding but neither has been proven to apply across the entire universe.

''Instead it tells us that the existence of something outside the universe is logical and possible.'' Where does it tell us that? You already said ''What GIT shows is that any coherent and logical system can ask questions about itself that it cannot answer.'' That doesn't imply that the existence of something outside the universe is logical or possible, does it?

So many IF's in your argument.

And IF there is something outside the universe, why does it have to be something different from our universe? ''Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.

Well, let's play along for now, then - let's assume that GIT does imply that something exists outside of the universal system. Then:

GIT doesn't imply that that's "indivisible" or unencirclable at all. Godel's 2nd theorem again.''

''Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

There's no reason why you should be unable to draw a circle around an "uncaused cause" (I suppose you might call that a source term, mathematically). If you can characterise it, you can put it in a system. This is the same point as the previous one again - so it also falls against Godel's 2nd theorem.''

You keep quoting perry, obviously since no one else said anything about what he says because no one cares since he is wrong, why don't you just admit that he is wrong? He used the same typical theist argument and added the incompleteness theorems, nothing really special, the same ''logic'' bullshit arguments.