And all of this has exactly what relevance to the universe being absurd and meaningless? — Vera Mont

In terms of pure reason, the very existence of the universe is irrational and meaningless.

Hence, I underwrite the main idea in the absurdist philosophy, which is that the pure rationalist will first fail to struggle with the absurd and then end up contemplating suicide. The only escape hatch left is spirituality. This is, however, not available to the atheist. Therefore, a death of despair is the natural destiny for atheist populations.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-04-15/study-deaths-of-despair-move-higher-among-blacks-than-whites

The term “deaths of despair” emerged in the public consciousness following a seminal study showing a reversal and yearslong rise in all-cause mortality among middle-aged whites in the U.S that was driven heavily by deaths from suicide, alcohol and drug overdoses.

Now, new findings published in the journal JAMA Psychiatry reflect a significant shift in deaths of despair among middle-aged adults. The study tracked rates of mortality from suicide, alcoholic liver disease and drug overdose from 1999 to 2022 among people 45 to 54 years old. Researchers found that in 2013, the rate of these deaths among whites was approximately double that of Blacks, at 72.15 per 100,000 population compared with 36.24 per 100,000.

But by 2022, the rate of deaths of despair among middle-aged Blacks had nearly tripled to 103.81 per 100,000, topping that of whites at 102.63 per 100,000.

So, what happened? Well, that is obvious:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/february/black-american-nones-faith-unaffiliation-nothing.html

Black Americans See the Biggest Shift Away from Faith

But black “nones” are growing. With 3 in 10 adults in the US claiming no religious affiliation on surveys, the rise of the nones has touched every corner of American society.

Over more than a decade, the share of Black Americans who say that they have no religious affiliation has risen more dramatically than whites, Hispanics, or Asians.

It is possible to probabilistically predict increasing mortality fueled by despair by tracking two input variables: (1) growing atheism (2) a sudden surge in economic problems. There are quite a few industries such as insurance and finance which would pay quite a bit of money to get advanced warning for the incidence of despair. They would be able to use the model to save a lot of money and ultimately also to make more profit.

Modeling and extracting profits from despair and hopelessness is potentially big business, all thanks to the fundamental meaninglessness of the universe in terms of pure reason.

Yet, is rationality truth-apt, as you've defined it? At least if it's epistemologically denoted, then these observational sentences are truth-apt, no? — Shawn

Yes, it is limited to logic sentences expressed in natural language.

-- It is raining now. -> part of the universe of sentences under consideration for rational incompleteness.

-- Eat with fork and knife! -> not part of this universe.

Hence, it is only about sentences that can have a truth value.

Most true sentences will turn out to be irrational, if only, for model-theoretical reasons. They will be true in one model/interpretation but not in one or more other ones. Rationality has the same problem as provability.

Helping those who can be helped with life by spiritual teaching is fine if it helps. — creativesoul

At that point, it is very, very late in the game already. For the effort to succeed, it must be started much earlier, preferably, long before it is too late, and long before the user has gone past the point of no return.

This is what religious congregations used to do. They have become unpopular now. So, we can no longer count on that approach either.

The family and the extended family are gone too.

In my opinion, all erstwhile functioning infrastructure has been mostly dismantled. That is why nothing can be done to address the snowballing crisis.

Hopeless, to you, evidently means not worthy of help. — creativesoul

By hopeless, I mean, not capable of hope. If someone is capable of hope, he will by definition never be hopeless.

Can you give hope to someone who staunchly believes that hope does not even exist? That person would not want to believe you anyway. Furthermore, there is no compulsion in religion. It is not permissible to pressure this person to believe that there is hope, when this is so clearly against his fundamental beliefs.

According to what observable reality? — Vera Mont

The volunteer manning the suicide prevention hotline will try to give his user hope by means of some adhoc crash course in informal spirituality.

Apparently, the Biden administration has approved a yearly budget increase of $100 million (or $200 million) for this approach.

In my opinion, it may already be too late in the game for such last-ditch effort. You cannot give hope to someone who does not even believe in the fundamentally irrational notion of hope. That is why everybody knows that there is simply no hope for the hopeless.

In that sense, this approach is largely an expensive waste of time and resources. They cannot make a visible dent in the problem just by throwing money at it.

If it were possible to extend the import of Gödel's incompleteness theorems on non-formal languages, then what would they be? — Shawn

We could possibly relax the definition of the predicate isProvable(n) to isRational(n). Say that if the majority of the observers believe that a natural-language sentence is rational, then it is.

In that case, by using the diagonal lemma, we can assert that:

In natural language, there exists a false sentence that is rational or a true sentence that is not rational, or both.

Next, for the same reasons as for Godel's theorem, we can safely assert that the overwhelming majority of true sentences in natural language are not rational.

Rationality is a feature/quality we attribute to a plurality of individual thoughts, beliefs, and/or statements thereof. How well are they strung together. — creativesoul

Wars are won by soldiers who are willing to risk their lives and die for their (1) nation or their (2) religion, neither of which is a product of rationality. Therefore, the borders that exist and the very structure of various governments around the globe are the result of often extreme sacrifices for non-rational goals. In a sense, it is not rational to ignore the importance and the impact of the irrational.

"The universe is irrational and meaningless" is false on its face. We are elements within the universe. We make rational meaningful claims. The universe is not irrational and meaningless. — creativesoul

There is no rationale for why the universe exists.

There are at best non-rational explanations, in absence of which the very existence of the universe is indeed meaningless.

Rationality is necessarily foundationalist offering no rationale in any shape or form for the foundations themselves.

If your only tool is a hammer, then you will in vain keep looking for a nail to hit. This search represents the losing fight of the rational non-spiritual individual against the absurd.

To the unspiritual rationalist, the foundations of our universe are irrational and meaningless. There is simply nothing that allows him to conclude differently. From what premises would be be able to do that?

Hence, atheism comes at an important long-term probabilistic cost. The absurdist philosophy predicts that at some point the atheist may very well have to pay the piper by means of a complete abdication. Such lifestyle is therefore a Faustian gamble which he is more likely to lose than not. All that is needed, are extremely unpleasant circumstances that will successfully trigger the then inevitable.

Citations? — Harry Hindu

This is what I personally believe about it. It is original.

if God is eternal then there was never nothing to begin with — Harry Hindu

There was no universe. That state is what I mean by "nothing".

If nothing can speak — Harry Hindu

Time did not exist at that point. Hence, it wasn't a sequence of sounds.

You make a claim without incorporating the other characteristics associated with God, like being eternal. — Harry Hindu

Time did not exist at that point. All of this took place outside time. Time is just some byproduct of the expansion of the universe. Time is not even universal within the universe itself. It depends on the position and even the speed of the observer. God was there when time did not even exist. God created time as part of the universe.

God exists outside time. Therefore, the term "eternal" confuses the matter, because it implies an arbitrarily long time. How I see it, is that God existed before time and will exist after time, when the universe will be gone. What is even the meaning of "time" at a point in which it does not even exist or no longer exists? Furthermore, time will never become arbitrarily long or "infinite". Time will cease existing when it is still finite.

If God exists, then who created the circumstances of your hopelessness in the first place to then look to it for hope? God created childhood cancer, schizophrenia, our bodies that have the capacity to be tortured, etc. I can imagine a more moral universe than the one we live in today — Harry Hindu

The incessant attacks on every living being are inevitable.

In the beginning, when God created the universe, he decreed that everything in existence has the right to seek to perpetuate its own existence. What about me? Said the original nothing. Now that the universe exists, I have disappeared. Can I also seek to exist? The universal Lord responded: Yes. There are no exceptions to the law. You have the right to attack and destroy everything that exists in the universe in order to reappear, including every living creature.

The reason why the original nothing has the God-given right to attack and destroy us, is not an injustice. On the contrary, it is the consequence of divine justice. The original nothing is not doing anything illegal. On the contrary, he may be our enemy but he is also a faithful and obedient servant of the universal Lord. God could have chosen to be unjust to the universal nothing but he didn't.

Hence, creating a more moral universe than the one we live in today was not possible. Such universe would have been based on a glaring fundamental injustice.

Such people cling to hope — Jack Cummins

Not all the ones who have hope, will be saved. However, the ones who do not believe that there is hope, will probably not be saved. A good way to understand the true power of hope, is to talk to people who have no capacity for hope. The suicide prevention helpline talks with the worst cases every day. Both hope and the lack thereof are probabilistic self-fulfilling prophecies. That is why I'd rather put my money on people who cling to hope than on people who are not capable of hope.

I, on the other hand, only accept any claim when there is sufficient evidence to support it. — Harry Hindu

That can be a problem in difficult times when what you need is hope while the situation looks utterly hopeless. There simply is no evidence that things will get better. It does not exist. Still, the only way to sit out a bad patch, is to believe it anyway in spite of having no evidence.

The rational person will reasonably give up, while the spiritual one keeps going. This phenomenon seems to be enough to explain why atheist societies do not last long enough to actually make it into the history books.

One particular term comes to mind: regulatory capture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

In politics, regulatory capture (also called agency capture) is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group.
...
Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all. A captured regulator is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government.

There is no problem in the world that the government won't make worse.

suicide is not always irrational — creativesoul

Suicide is deemed a perfectly rational response to deal with an environment that inspires absurdism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless. It states that trying to find meaning leads people into a conflict with the world. Absurdism claims that existence as a whole is absurd.

Various possible responses to deal with absurdism and its impact have been suggested. The three responses discussed in the traditional absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd.

All you need, is a situation that is exceptionally difficult and/or hopeless at first glance, for any a-spiritual individual to seriously consider such final solution. It is an absolutely rational conclusion. That is why it is so predictable.

In that case, it is often too late in the game to teach this individual any "religious belief in a higher purpose" while this person will already have tried and failed a "rebellion against the absurd".

Stop bullshitting and go solve the equation, insane crank. — Lionino

I thought that you wanted me to help you find a new job?

I am quite good at networking but not that good. So, give me some more time to pull off the impossible.

By the way, does anybody want to hire him?

He's been looking for a new job for ages now but he keeps failing at the first interview.

Laughably pathetic attempt at a character attack. — Lionino

Come on. I've seen people getting kicked out of the meeting for less than that.

I'm still trying to think of an environment in which a character like you would manage to survive. I can't think of any. It is against human nature.

In the real world I do not have to deal with schizoid incompetents with delusions of grandeur like you babbling about things they are two degrees away from studying, no such issues follow. — Lionino

You really don't know the real world, do you?

Of course the customer is incompetent. Otherwise, he wouldn't need you. But then again, it is obvious that he will ask the company for someone else to deal with the case, while you can pack your bags and go.

How many times do you think that you can do that before your company pulls the plug on you? That is why I am so sure that they have done it already!

I cannot because the article is from 11 years ago. — Lionino

If the university believed that their press release was expired, they would retract it or publish a rectification.

It is obviously still valid. If you don't believe that, ask them the question using the contact details that I have provided you with.

a crazy individual ... whatever insanity — Lionino

I am pretty much immune to ad hominem attacks. They say much more about you than about me.

Do you lack self-control? Are you so frustrated with your own inability that you find yourself completely lost in a fit of rage?

How many times have you been kicked out of a meeting for exactly this reason?

So, tell us, when did you lose your job?

It wasn't the economy. We can all see what it really was.

It is actually pointless for you to look for a new job because history is simply going to repeat itself.

You'd better look for a job in which you don't have to interact with anyone, if a thing like that even exists.

Ignore the schizophrenic above. — Lionino

You do not understand enough mathematics to interpret the semantics of Godel's theorem. I have merely pointed out that you are clearly not even aware of that.

And so forth. I cannot tell if the form of the argument is valid: if I convert it to truth tables, it is not. And what is meant here by "exist." — tim wood

Say that the following is provable from theory T:

xx and yy and zz --> rr

With xx, yy, zz the axioms of T.

What does that mean about rr?

In and of itself, such rr means nothing at all. It's just string manipulation.

The semantics, i.e.the truth about rr, lies elsewhere than in any of the syntactic consequences provable from T. Furthermore, it requires a specific mathematical process to unveil such semantics.

First of all, you must have some model-existence (or even soundness) theorem in T that guarantees that any provable theorem rr is indeed true in such models of T.

What is a model of T or even just a universe of T? How does it harness the truth of T?

From any (even arbitrarily) chosen metatheory, you need to construct a structure M, which is a set along with one or more operators. Every such structure M represents an alternative truth of T, i.e. a legitimate interpretation of T.

In other words, unveiling the truth cannot be done on the fly, between lunch and dinner. You also had better avoid non-mathematical methods of interpretation. They simply don't work.

It would cost an inordinate amount of work to correctly harness the truth of Godel's theorem.

This work has not yet been done at this point. The researchers have currently only spent time on investigating the consistency of his axioms and the issue of a possible modal collapse.

With this groundwork out of the way, it will still take quite a bit of time and work to develop a legitimate interpretation for Godel's theorem.

So, don't hold your breath!

I can personally certainly not do the work, because I am familiar only with PA's truth in its ZFC models. I actively avoid trying to interpret anything else, because these interpretations tend to be extremely confusing. When I accidentally get to see some advanced model theory, I run away.

You are wrong and a news piece is not a reliable source. — Lionino

Can you send a message to the "Office of Communication and Marketing" of the "Freie Universität Berlin" to confirm with you that they are publishing what according to you are errors?

You can contact them using the following information:

Press inquiries
Press and Communication Team
Tel.: +49 (0)30 838 731 80
Email: presseatfu-berlindotde

Expert database
Tel.: +49 (0)30 838 731 91
Email: expertiseatfu-berlindotde

Marketing inquiries
Email: marketingatkumdotfu-berlindotde

Let us know how it went!

In the meanwhile, we can obviously give them the benefit of the doubt. They have spent a lot of time and effort preparing their press release while your being obstructive and negative about the achievements of their university, is at best cheap and easy.

More nonsense. — Lionino

My argument was not categorical. So, your proposition is not receivable.

I suggest you seek basic education so you don't have to abuse random internet links to appear smart. — Lionino

I know what the problem is with my academic education. I largely spent my time learning how to manually carry out the steps that the following software can do automatically:

https://www.gurobi.com/resources/open-source-mixed-integer-and-linear-programming-solvers/

Open-Source Performance: Mixed-Integer and Linear Programming Comparisons

Performance is typically a crucial consideration when choosing a solver. To give a sense of the relative performance of the various solver options listed above, we’ve summarized the results of independent benchmark tests maintained by Hans Mittelmann at Arizona State.

If we look at performance on Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) models across a broad set of test models, the table below shows results along two key dimensions: a) was the solver able to solve the model, and b) how quickly was the model solved? As you can see from the results, performance varies widely across solvers.

Furthermore, in the decades since, I never got the opportunity to use any of that. So, I am the first one to admit that academic training is not necessarily very useful. It was fun, though. And since the education was for free in the United Socialist Countries of Europe -- I even got a scholarship to pay for living expenses -- it could all have been much worse.

The true value of Gödel's work is not that it manages to reduce the belief in God to a belief in 5 complex axiomatic expressions in higher-order modal logic. The true value of Gödel's work is that it manages to prove that atheists will reject a mathematically unobjectionable proof if it proves something that they disagree with. Gödel was truly a genius.

Which has been the trajectory of moral development over time. But obviously not everywhere. — Tom Storm

I believe that the trajectory of moral development is increasing corruption, for the exactly same deep underlying reason why the trajectory of a wind turbine is increasing corruption. There is no process that does not have a secondary process of corruption attached to it.

You see, an "improvement" to morality will never get enough political support unless there is a powerful constituency that will benefit from it, usually, to the detriment of everyone else. Therefore, I believe that morality never gets better. It always gets worse.

Therefore, the older the morality, the more likely that it is sustainable on the long run. This is also what the Lindy effect predicts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

The Lindy effect (also known as Lindy's Law[1]) is a theorized phenomenon by which the future life expectancy of some non-perishable things, like a technology or an idea, is proportional to their current age. Thus, the Lindy effect proposes the longer a period something has survived to exist or be used in the present, the longer its remaining life expectancy. Longevity implies a resistance to change, obsolescence, or competition, and greater odds of continued existence into the future.[2] Where the Lindy effect applies, mortality rate decreases with time. Mathematically, the Lindy effect corresponds to lifetimes following a Pareto probability distribution.

If morality is corrupt, it has the capacity to destroy society. If it has been around for long enough, it won't. Otherwise, it would have done that already. That is one reason why something that may look like a new morality tends to be the repackaging of an existing morality. For example, the morality that you can find in the books of Moses, at the beginning of the Bible, is the repackaging of something that was around long before Moses. That is the only safe way to do it.

His proof is not successful — Lionino

Gödel's proof is typically reported as "successful":

https://www.fu-berlin.de/en/presse/informationen/fup/2013/fup_13_308/index.html

Independent Confirmation for Gödel's "Proof" of Existence of God

Scientists at Freie Universität and TU Vienna Use Computers to Check Reasoning of Austrian Mathematician

№ 308/2013 from Oct 17, 2013

Scientists at Freie Universität Berlin and the Vienna University of Technology have succeeded in checking and confirming a so-called “proof of God” by the Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel (1906-1978). Christoph Benzmüller from the Dahlem Center for Intelligent Systems and his Viennese colleague Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo succeeded, using computer programs, so-called “theorem provers,” in verifying with the highest mathematical precision the logical correctness of Godel’s proof of God. A short preliminary version of this work is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4526 . The formalization and verification of the proof are online at <a href="https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod</a>.

The consistency of the basic assumptions made by Gödel was confirmed by the computer. Furthermore, the scientists were able to demonstrate that the nontrivial proof was, for the most part, able to be generated automatically by the computer. They had not expected that to be the case.

So, according to you, what's wrong with this German report?

The criticism mentioned in the report is the same as for every other math proof in existence:

The age-old question of God's existence of course remains unanswered and depends on the meaningfulness and reference to reality of the chosen axioms. Gödel's reasoning, however, in the opinion of the computer scientists has been proven to be correct, as demonstrated by the computer.

A proof only demonstrates the equiconsistency between a theorem and its axioms. Nothing more. Nothing less. Hence, Gödel's proof is as succesful or unsuccessful as any other proof in mathematics.

I don't think the societal conversation has been increasingly poor or corrupt. But this might be down to the values one holds or how unhappy one is. — Tom Storm

With wind turbines, the secondary process of corruption is very visible.



With societal morality, it is not necessarily visible. A corrupt morality is still a morality. How do you even see the difference? If a morality is corrupt, how can we detect it?

It is probably enough to argue that this is the new morality and that is necessarily excellent because it is new and therefore constitutes progress.

All I am saying is people will have views and talk about 'oughts' and 'ought nots' as a by-product of human community life. The kind of processes or dynamic which might follow are not in scope - I'm simply describing the original impulse. — Tom Storm

I just wanted to point out why the results of that societal conversation will tend to be poor and increasingly corrupt.

Nonsense — Lionino

Nonsense is a categorical technique:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_nonsense

In mathematics, abstract nonsense, general abstract nonsense, generalized abstract nonsense, and general nonsense are nonderogatory terms used by mathematicians to describe long, theoretical parts of a proof they skip over when readers are expected to be familiar with them.[1] These terms are mainly used for abstract methods related to category theory and homological algebra. More generally, "abstract nonsense" may refer to a proof that relies on category-theoretic methods, or even to the study of category theory itself.

There is an interesting discussion on hacker news on whether category theory lends itself to analyzing Russell's paradox:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24355739

The answer seems to be "no".

I don't follow. Sorry. — Tom Storm

You describe a process that tries to achieve a result without describing the inevitable process that will seek to undo its results.

It's like when people describe the process of how a wind turbine generates electricity. That is only half the story. The other half is more interesting. It is about the process that will inevitably seek to let the wind turbine go up in flames.

There is always a second process that seeks to undo the first, main process.

IMO, "a non-dualistic viewpoint" doesn't "solve" these logical negations (i.e. "the split"), only denies-ignores them. — 180 Proof

Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, contain itself? True or false?

Both answers turn out to be false (Russell's paradox).

Decidable propositions are (either true or false). One of both. Undecidable propositions can be (false and false) or (true and true).

Therefore, the first question is not: Is it true or false? Instead, the first question is: Is it decidable or undecidable?

Religion versus atheism is rationally undecidable of the type: (true and true). This translates into: There is hope for the believers and no hope for the unbelievers.

We live together as community and this means holding values. It's impossible not to. Ethics emerges from the resulting conversation just as surely as poo comes from eating. — Tom Storm

Yes, but there is a secondary process ("entropy") that sabotages the main process ("preservation of energy").

The ruling mafia can successfully increase its power by lifting the constraints imposed by the main process that seeks to define justice. Therefore, there will always be a continuous process in the direction of degeneracy and depravity ("entropy"). This second process will increasingly seek to justify injustices.

This phenomenon is truly universal.

When the creating power decreed that everything in existence has the right to seek to perpetuate its own existence, the original nothing started pleading for justice.

What about me?

I was here before the universe started expanding. Can I also seek to keep existing?

The answer is "yes". There shall be no exception to the law. In order for you to reappear, the entire universe must disappear again. Hence, I hereby confirm your right to attack and destroy the entire universe and everything that it contains, including all its living creatures.

both atheism and theism are partial truths — Jack Cummins

Religion gives you hope, i.e. the belief that things will get better, if not in this life, then at least in the next one. This is the spiritual position. That is why the believer has hope. Since the believer has hope, his belief that there is hope, is completely true.

Atheism does not instill hope because there is no reason for an atheist to have any. This is the purely rational position. The atheist view is completely true. There simply is no hope for someone who is not capable of it.

Both positions are self-fulfilling prophecies. They are both completely true because in this matter, the truth is what you believe it to be.

Some people choose to be hopeful. Others prefer to be hopeless. Everyone chooses what suits him best because there is no compulsion in matters of religion.

There are no partial truths in this matter. Both views are entirely true

So I'm puzzled by those who want to give a proof of God, because they usually are religious people. Why not simply follow the given manuals and act righteously? — ssu

Godel wrote his proof of God for the same reason as why he wrote all his other proofs: because he could.

I would not do it for a rather similar reason: because I can't.

The OP introduces the idea that ethics is, in its foundational analytic, impossible. It is a transcendental term, and Wittgenstein knew this. — Constance

Part of common sense is knowing when there is no rational answer.

Gödel's proof does not prove the moral God, nor the creator God — JuanZu

Indeed, he didn't. But then again, he doesn't have to. Gödel did not seek to give a complete description of God. He merely defined an object to be Godlike if it has all positive properties. A proof of God does not seek to be a complete description of God.

Math is confusing. It's far more closer to philosophy than mathematicians and logicians want to admit. — ssu

In this thread I got exposed to a part of model theory that I have always avoided (models of ZFC) because I have always found it highly confusing. (I had always restricted myself to dealing with models of PA.) After having a few exchanges on the subject, the subject has actually become slightly less confusing. That's actually some progress. I hope that I no longer confuse a model with its metatheory (that problem does not really have the opportunity to occur with dealing with models of PA). Maybe I will less actively avoid the subject in the future. I also think that mathematics has its deep philosophical aspects. As far as I am concerned, model theory has never been a goal in itself. I mostly get confronted with it when I read about something else which happens to be connected. I will probably still never read about model theory just for its own sake.

Translation does not mean you did not need to understand logic first to discover math. I don't mean formal annotated logic, I mean 'logical thinking'. — Philosophim

I also believe that a good measure of logical thinking is built into our biological firmware, but so is quite a bit of arithmetic:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/animals-can-count-and-use-zero-how-far-does-their-number-sense-go-20210809/

Now, researchers are uncovering increasingly more complex numerical abilities in their animal subjects. Many species have displayed a capacity for abstraction that extends to performing simple arithmetic, while a select few have even demonstrated a grasp of the quantitative concept of “zero” — an idea so paradoxical that very young children sometimes struggle with it. In fact, experiments have shown that both monkeys and honeybees know how to treat zero as a numerosity, placing it on a mental number line much as they would numerosity one or two. And in a paper published in the Journal of Neuroscience in June, researchers reported that crows can do it, too.

I think that we were born with it and that we can do quite a bit of it out of the box.

The sense in which I am using 'religiosity' has nothing much to do with theism. My perspective is anthropological/psychological in the sense I use that term. — I like sushi

In my opinion, the power of religiosity, theistic or not, is almost surely not being measured in a correct manner. The following is a much better context to measure it:

Help is available
Speak with someone today
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline
For emotional and substance use support 24/7
Call 988
Text 988
...
Learn how you can help move people from crisis to hope. We provide extensive training to qualified volunteers interested in staffing our Resource & Crisis Helpline or Youth Residential Programs.

The power of religiosity will become apparent when the $600 million allocated to this program will fail to yield results in the absence of its users having developed any prior capacity to have hope, which is invariably acquired through religiosity.

Allocating $6 billion instead of $600 million won't make any difference either.

It is just not realistic to attempt to teach these users a crash course on how to harness the power of hope when they completely lack prior exposure. That is simply too late in the game.

In these circumstances, it is in my opinion preferable to just scrap the program, go back to the drawing board, and design something more realistic. Just throwing money at the problem won't help.

For heaven's sake, who even cares that some past draft version of the proof, that had not even gone through peer review, contained an inconsistency? The people who actually worked on the proof are very different from you. When there is a problem, they fix it. You, on the other hand, you are incessantly looking for reasons to dismiss Gödel's work on futile details instead of doing constructive work. You excel in obstructive negativity!

Hilarious coming from the individual quoting Wikipedia to falsely claim "Godel proved God's existence" and realising only 5 posts in that I am not talking about modal collapse when saying "inconsistency". — Lionino

There is no inconsistency in the version tested by Christoph Benzmüller and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/141495131.pdf

Science and Spiritual Quest 2015

Experiments in Computational Metaphysics:
Gödel’s Proof of God’s Existence

The findings from these experiments on Scott’s variant were manifold (they were
obtained on a standard MacBook):

i. The axioms (and definitions) are consistent. This was confirmed by
Nitpick, which presented a simple model within a few seconds.
ii. Theorem T1 follows from Axioms A1 and A2 in modal logic K (and hence
also in stronger modal logics such as KB, S4 and S5). 3 This was proved
by LEO-II and Satallax in a few milliseconds. In fact, the left to right
direction of the equivalence in A1 is sufficient to prove T1.
iii. Corollary C follows from T1, D1 and A3, again already in modal logic K.
This was proved by LEO-II and Satallax in a few milliseconds.
iv. Theorem T2 follows from A1, D1, A4 and D2 in modal logic K. Again, the
provers got this result quickly, Satallax within milliseconds and LEO-II
within 20s.
v. Theorem T3, necessary existence of a God-like entity, follows from D1, C,
T2, D3 and A5. Again, this was proved by LEO-II and Satallax in a few
milliseconds. However, this time modal logic KB was required to obtain
the result. KB strengthens modal logic K by postulating the B axiom
scheme. In modal logic K, theorem T2 does not follow from the axioms
and definitions. This was confirmed by Nitpick, which reported a counter
model.

You keep nonsensicalizing about inconsistencies that are not there.

In a meta-theory we define 'is a model' and we talk about models for languages for a theory, and we talk about models of theories. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Indeed, it looks indeed like it doesn't matter that ZFC is its own model metatheory. For example, with ZFC being PA's model metatheory, Löwenheim–Skolem theorem does not seem to be particularly PA-specific:

It implies that if a countable first-order theory has an infinite model, then for every infinite cardinal number κ it has a model of size κ, and that no first-order theory with an infinite model can have a unique model up to isomorphism.

It does not seem to matter for which object theory the cardinals κ are being considered.

The following math exchange answer suggests that explicitly mentioning the model's metatheory is not even a requirement:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/531516/meta-theory-when-studying-set-theory

Meta Theory when studying Set Theory

There are generally two accepted approaches:

(1) You can use some arithmetical theory, e.g. PA, or even a fragment which is sufficient to develop first-order logic and syntactic manipulation of proofs. Then one can define the language of set theory, write the axioms and proofs and so on. In fact Con(ZFC) is in fact a statement about natural numbers rather than a statement about sets and models.

This is even true if one wants to introduce forcing. And I ran into a recent masters thesis in which this (usually folklore, I believe?) result is given in details.

(2) You can use ZFC itself. Then you have some universe of set theory (usually ZFC+Con(ZFC) and even more), but you are in fact working inside a set model of set theory within that universe. In that case you are free to use all sort of fun model theoretical tools, and forcing is done directly and so on.

(3) However in many many instances we in fact omit the meta theory, and we just care about it sufficient to develop first-order logic. We often work within the universe. So there is no real model of set theory, there is a universe and we work with that. We can do forcing using the universe because we can define Boolean-valued models and prove independence results using that, and so on.

I think today the power of religiosity has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. — I like sushi

It is the atheists who will prove the power of religiosity with their suicide rates during the next financial crisis, which is imminent now.

It is the issue of why it seems that the idea of God is problematic in itself as it relates to the ineffable and that which is unconditioned. Ironically, according to the above, it can be said that if God exists, He cannot be proven. — JuanZu

God cannot be proven from the theory of the physical universe (ToE), simply because we do not even have a copy of that theory.

But then again, we can certainly replace the logic sentence denoting God by five axiomatic expressions in higher-order modal logic. That is what Gödel did. Hence, God is not ineffable. Where is the proof that God would be ineffable? Furthermore, God can be proven from carefully chosen axioms because that is exactly what Gödel did.

The rhetoric about "there is no proof for God" basically keeps ignoring Gödel's mathematically unobjectionable work. So, even when the greatest mathematician of all times gives a proof, an atheist will still reject it.

In fact, there is nothing -- no argument whatsoever -- that could ever convince an atheist that God exist. You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep. That is the real value of Gödel's proof. In the end, he was not even trying to prove something about God. He was trying to prove something about atheists.