That proves a guy who goes around saying, "God is real! He exists! You gotta believe me! I'm not crazy, it's true, I'm telling you!" exists, but it doesn't prove God himself exists.
"God is as real as Maths"
- Thread starter Davey Gaga
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Thanks for that completely incomprehensible post. My evidence of God is the number of healings that have occurred directly connected to prayer- if my body could not do in YEARS of healing what one day of focused prayer did to heal my badly damaged hand, then it's pretty obvious that these so-called "maths" weren't responsible.
I'd love to see you try. Smash your hand and pray and prove to us that it works. Someone else has already tried the praying thing, and it does not work.
Taylor Swift
A.K.A----> LuLu
When you pray for forgivness you fell that god has forgave you. It hard to explain but you fell like you have been forgive by god
Taylor Swift
A.K.A----> LuLu
That was complete retarted. Sorry to say it and what do u mean the inferior memver here cannot understand it, however they must be black or jewish
Loosecheeks, that was completely unnecessary. You will be warned on the grounds of posting a racist remark and your post will be deleted.
EDIT:
And again under flaming. Neither of your posts were neessary.
EDIT:
And again under flaming. Neither of your posts were neessary.
Comparing science and religion. Sigh. Such idiocy can only be attributed to higher education. You have to go to college to be able to say something as stupid as God is as real as Math.
You can't juxtapose the existence of God with independent axioms without which the whole system would collapse, general laws that are necessarily true. For example, is the statement "a unicorn is a horse with a single horn growing out of its forehead" a true statement?
If two parallel lines ever intersected in euclidean geometry, the whole system would fall apart. I then give religious whackjobs an out by saying there is no way to derive such necessarily true axioms analytically. This does not mean I'm talking about the TRUTH </reverb>, or what Kant would call the thing-in-itself, as that's an entirely different debate. I'm simply saying that there are general laws in the realm of abstract entities which are necessarily true, and are not analytic. where do they come from? how do we know about them? Is it god? Is it THE FORCE?
The problem with reducing the language of logic to mundane language is that all human languages are architectures designed to suit an agenda (JEAH FOUCALT). Every word has hidden connotations, so mundane definitions are always slippery.
For instance: what do you mean by "real"? Do you mean, materially observable in the phenomenal world by human senses? What are the necessary prerequisites for "existence"? Because i could technically say a unicorn exists as soon as i imagine it.
Basically, the argument goes as follows:
God is as real as math
Math is real
God is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_Tollens
All i know is that necessarily true statements have an "existence" outside of abstraction. Is ALL truth outside abstraction? Dunno. If i knew that, you really think I'd be sitting here posting on a ff message board?
Math is an abstract concept. It's material manifestations are 1) theoretically infinite and 2) imperfect avatars of the abstract concept itself.
The ability of the human mind to grasp and manipulate abstract concepts does not prove the existence of god. It's proof the human mind exists, or at least evidence in that direction. Nothing more.
If you are going to make the case that god is as real as the abstract concept of a triangle you've torpedoed yourself again. Assuming the "math god" argument is correct, god is reduced to a figment of your imagination, existing only as much as an hallucination, and just as powerless.
No religions nor churches are warranted by this shadow of a god. He's totally useless as well: maths have myriad uses to architects, the global economy, well basically everything around us, for instance. Math is such a wide concept it's incredible. Compared to the uses one might have for an imaginary friend. Not many. It may even belie burgeoning mental unwellness.
I don't tolerate the idea that there is still room for "personal belief." As the decades have come and gone science has made many advances, constantly taking ground from religion. Old questions that religion has satisfied for thousands of years are constantly being taken over by science, and the new, scientific answers have always made the old religious answers seem so primitive, so embarassing, we stand back and ask ourselves if it was possible that such things were ever believed.
It is true that science has not yet answered every single question with the utmost certainty. However this reduces theists to frightened children cowering in foxholes, terrified of the inevitable revelations of the (Ides of) march of science. What religious beliefs they had yesterday they cannot have today. What religious beliefs they stubbornly cling to today they will be unable to bear with a straight face tomorrow. This is the dynamic between religion and science. This is the theme of the debate, like the rock music that plays when an enormous wrestler enters the arena.
I must admire the valor of the die hard theists against an unstoppable, overwhelming enemy. However their stubbornness is self-destructive. The longer they cling to faith long proven demonstrably false the more irrelevant and evolutionarily unfit to survive they become.
No gods, just us. People weren't told to do anything by god, they're just deluded fanatics. Crazy people don't make something false magically true by sheer force of belief.
You can't juxtapose the existence of God with independent axioms without which the whole system would collapse, general laws that are necessarily true. For example, is the statement "a unicorn is a horse with a single horn growing out of its forehead" a true statement?
If two parallel lines ever intersected in euclidean geometry, the whole system would fall apart. I then give religious whackjobs an out by saying there is no way to derive such necessarily true axioms analytically. This does not mean I'm talking about the TRUTH </reverb>, or what Kant would call the thing-in-itself, as that's an entirely different debate. I'm simply saying that there are general laws in the realm of abstract entities which are necessarily true, and are not analytic. where do they come from? how do we know about them? Is it god? Is it THE FORCE?
The problem with reducing the language of logic to mundane language is that all human languages are architectures designed to suit an agenda (JEAH FOUCALT). Every word has hidden connotations, so mundane definitions are always slippery.
For instance: what do you mean by "real"? Do you mean, materially observable in the phenomenal world by human senses? What are the necessary prerequisites for "existence"? Because i could technically say a unicorn exists as soon as i imagine it.
Basically, the argument goes as follows:
God is as real as math
Math is real
God is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_Tollens
All i know is that necessarily true statements have an "existence" outside of abstraction. Is ALL truth outside abstraction? Dunno. If i knew that, you really think I'd be sitting here posting on a ff message board?
Math is an abstract concept. It's material manifestations are 1) theoretically infinite and 2) imperfect avatars of the abstract concept itself.
The ability of the human mind to grasp and manipulate abstract concepts does not prove the existence of god. It's proof the human mind exists, or at least evidence in that direction. Nothing more.
If you are going to make the case that god is as real as the abstract concept of a triangle you've torpedoed yourself again. Assuming the "math god" argument is correct, god is reduced to a figment of your imagination, existing only as much as an hallucination, and just as powerless.
No religions nor churches are warranted by this shadow of a god. He's totally useless as well: maths have myriad uses to architects, the global economy, well basically everything around us, for instance. Math is such a wide concept it's incredible. Compared to the uses one might have for an imaginary friend. Not many. It may even belie burgeoning mental unwellness.
I don't tolerate the idea that there is still room for "personal belief." As the decades have come and gone science has made many advances, constantly taking ground from religion. Old questions that religion has satisfied for thousands of years are constantly being taken over by science, and the new, scientific answers have always made the old religious answers seem so primitive, so embarassing, we stand back and ask ourselves if it was possible that such things were ever believed.
It is true that science has not yet answered every single question with the utmost certainty. However this reduces theists to frightened children cowering in foxholes, terrified of the inevitable revelations of the (Ides of) march of science. What religious beliefs they had yesterday they cannot have today. What religious beliefs they stubbornly cling to today they will be unable to bear with a straight face tomorrow. This is the dynamic between religion and science. This is the theme of the debate, like the rock music that plays when an enormous wrestler enters the arena.
I must admire the valor of the die hard theists against an unstoppable, overwhelming enemy. However their stubbornness is self-destructive. The longer they cling to faith long proven demonstrably false the more irrelevant and evolutionarily unfit to survive they become.
No gods, just us. People weren't told to do anything by god, they're just deluded fanatics. Crazy people don't make something false magically true by sheer force of belief.
I approve of this message.
Lucifer Morningstar
The Prince of the East
Science really has not taken any ground from religion. Take a look around at the world you live in, the complete world, not your own little pocket of it.
I only see that the world around me is being confirmed by science and religion is being pushed further away from reality. At least some of the stuff written in the bible is.
ORLY?
I beg to differ, and I am looking at the past 400 years. I haven't seen anyone being excommunicated or burned to the stake recently. I haven't seen jesuits runing around killing people for being unbelievers today.
There is still much work to be done though.
Lucifer Morningstar
The Prince of the East
You beg to differ? Take a look at Pakistan. Or Rwanda. Or anywhere, really. It may not be Jesuits anymore, but it's the same old schtick.
And only for your reality then, and for the reality that you choose to believe in. Reality for the individual is subjective, which is something that science, for the most part fails to take into account.
Last edited:
Observation is not based on belief. Neither is evidence. These are both things that science works with, and requires no believing on my part. You don't need to believe in the things that you can see everyday in reality.
Lucifer Morningstar
The Prince of the East
However, many of the things you believe in are not your direct observation. Unless of course you've personally re-performed every experiment in the bulk of scientific knowledge that you claim as your own. You are choosing to believe what you have been taught, or what you have read of others.
And of course, there's your senses, which are required for observation. They can be fooled by various things, and therefore you must belief in them as well.
Not when the experiment has been done over and over by many different people, and they have all arrived at the same conclusion. If they hadn't, maybe there would be a good reason for me to do the experiment itself, but the probability that the experiments were wrong significantly decreases, since every experiment that is attempted by every other scientist increases the probability that it did indeed happen. Now I'm also not advocating I believe in that result 100%. I only "believe" in it as much as the probability for it being true is. If the result were disproven in favor of a better explanation, I could accept that. Could you change your beliefs if you believed them out of faith rather than evidence? I may have said this before, but I'd rather believe something in a textbook that has proper credentials and has shown that they honestly meant to discover what is real through observations and what actually exists rather than a book that tries to delude people into believing something that has no basis and most likely doesn't exist.
That's mostly if you have a wild enough imagination to believe in it, but I don't think there's anything wrong with my logic. In comparison, I'm a lot more logical and less likely to believe in things that I imagine are true than most people.
Lucifer Morningstar
The Prince of the East
So you still have not arrived at these conclusions based on direct observation, and are choosing to believe in the observations of others.
There's nothing truly wrong with your logic, but it by no means perfect.
There's nothing truly wrong with your logic, but it by no means perfect.
the fact that a good chunk of the world isn't proves my point.
because , after alll, for you water freezes at 15 C
Well, I've had the opportunity to observe a few of them on a smaller scale, and I'd just be wasting my time confirming something that's already been confirmed. Again, I'm not basing my "beliefs" on faith; I'm basing it off of the probability that those who have observed these things have observed exactly the same thing, so they are most likely not lying.
Lucifer Morningstar
The Prince of the East
I'm not saying that they are lying, I'm saying that they did not come from your observations whatsoever, and therefore they come from your beliefs. Observing a few of them on a smaller scale means nothing compared to the bulk of scientific thought that you have chosen to believe.
Oh, and should we ignore Mega Girl and the other "raider" from Shinra Online, or are we supposed to take them seriously? If they're going to drop links at the bottom of the page leading back to a SO thread about a raid here, do you want to ignore them or respond to their kindergaarden brand of philosophy?
Last edited:
Well, I'd prefer not to call them "beliefs" because beliefs are based on faith, and what I accept is based off of probability, not faith.
Well, why not? If they make valid arguments that they've explained and you can respond to them and make rebuttals adequately, I can't see why not. They may be from SO, but I don't think they're here for the raids.
And please try not to prejudice their knowledge, otherwise you would be committing the ad hominem fallacy.