Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: trippymonkey on December 19, 2016, 08:51:41 PM
-
Does it exist?
Can certain types of Christian idea be construed as mythological in essence & maybe didn't actually happen 'on earth' or is it all to be taken as literally true ?!!!??
I'm pretty well up on Hindu mythology & its use to help understand many idea IN that religion but do ALL Christians just blindly accept & not try to look deeper?
Bit of a rhetorical question but....
What do we all feel about this?
Nick
-
Does it exist?
Can certain types of Christian idea be construed as mythological in essence & maybe didn't actually happen 'on earth' or is it all to be taken as literally true ?!!!??
I'm pretty well up on Hindu mythology & its use to help understand many idea IN that religion but do ALL Christians just blindly accept & not try to look deeper?
Bit of a rhetorical question but....
What do we all feel about this?
Nick
I love the hidden agenda here - Nick ('just blindly accept ... look deeper')
I suspect that when we look deeper we find far more amazing truths within the Bible than many here would care to admit or accept. That is partly why I and others here seek to challenge people's pre-conceived ideas about the Biblical record and the Christian faith. Sadly, your 'hidden agenda' could apply equally to some of this board's greatest faith detractors.
-
Firstly NO hidden agendas at all. ;)
It's perfectly clear what I'm on about so you've just proven my point - THANKS. 8) ::)
N
-
Does it exist?
Can certain types of Christian idea be construed as mythological in essence & maybe didn't actually happen 'on earth' or is it all to be taken as literally true ?!!!??
....... do ALL Christians just blindly accept & not try to look deeper?
Bit of a rhetorical question but....
What do we all feel about this?
Nick
Hi Nick,
Thank you for the above post.
A strength of the New Testament is that we have four gospels written by different authors, each with an independent mind set. This enables us to make comparrisions between gospels and judge what is factual and what is not.
Matthew is not always factual, eg the Star of Bethlehem, thirty pieces of silver, Pilate washing his hands etc. which are extrapolations from OT passages, do not appear in other gospels, but supply a mystical lesson underlying the relevant event.
These are more like Aesop's fables, tales with a moral message, rather than myths. So the answer to your question is that Christians do not just "blindly accept" and do "try to look deeper".
God bless
-
Does it exist?
Can certain types of Christian idea be construed as mythological in essence & maybe didn't actually happen 'on earth' or is it all to be taken as literally true ?!!!??
I'm pretty well up on Hindu mythology & its use to help understand many idea IN that religion but do ALL Christians just blindly accept & not try to look deeper?
Bit of a rhetorical question but....
What do we all feel about this?
Nick
Give us the Christian Mythology.
-
Direct from the board's literalist !!!!!
This is precisely the question I'm asking !!! ::)
-
Mythology, no. Allegory, yes, and that is because allegory does not necessarily deny the literal, for something can be both literal and an allegory of something else.
-
a o
Thanks for that. Mythology basically IS allegory anyway, isn't it?
-
a o
Thanks for that. Mythology basically IS allegory anyway, isn't it?
Because you do not know the reason something exists does not deny the fact it does exist.
Unicorns are mythology because we have never seen them but the fact is that the knowledge of them, are a reason to believe they once existed even though we cannot prove it. Why you want to use the term mythology when it is a fact Christ existed I am unaware. So as I asked before give us the Christian mythology?
-
S
You just answered your own question & very deftly I might add. !!!
-
Because you do not know the reason something exists does not deny the fact it does exist.
Unicorns are mythology because we have never seen them but the fact is that the knowledge of them, are a reason to believe they once existed even though we cannot prove it. Why you want to use the term mythology when it is a fact Christ existed I am unaware. So as I asked before give us the Christian mythology?
Does that go for fairies, elves, goblins, leprechauns, and the like?
-
Because you do not know the reason something exists does not deny the fact it does exist.
Unicorns are mythology because we have never seen them but the fact is that the knowledge of them, are a reason to believe they once existed even though we cannot prove it. Why you want to use the term mythology when it is a fact Christ existed I am unaware. So as I asked before give us the Christian mythology?
That is a keeper.
-
Sass
MMM Christian mythology - we could start with your very own Jesus etc. ;)
-
Does it exist?
Can certain types of Christian idea be construed as mythological in essence & maybe didn't actually happen 'on earth' or is it all to be taken as literally true ?!!!??
I'm pretty well up on Hindu mythology & its use to help understand many idea IN that religion but do ALL Christians just blindly accept & not try to look deeper?
Bit of a rhetorical question but....
What do we all feel about this?
Nick
Unfortunately Christianity has been played round with and distorted by many different people and with many different motives but the 'word' remains intact...it just needs exploring accurately...as Jesus himself taught it...all other aspects of it are mythology.
Every organised group of people adopt some mythology because it appeals to a hidden nature of existence and tyrants and false teachers have been only too willing to take control of this vital inner urge and now there is another philosophy called atheism which needs to destroy all other myths for their own. But it is here accurate faith takes the lead. It incorporates this inner desire to find answers to the unknown by supplying those answers even though it is way above our understanding...but not to worry...it will all come out in the wash when accurate teaching is divorced from the myths by virtue of what could be described as another 'big-bang'.
-
Unfortunately Christianity has been played round with and distorted by many different people and with many different motives
including yourself...... ::)
-
Every organised group of people adopt some mythology because it appeals to a hidden nature of existence and tyrants and false teachers have been only too willing to take control of this vital inner urge and now there is another philosophy called atheism which needs to destroy all other myths for their own.
Wrong on all counts.
Atheism is not a philosophy, it is merely a rejection of theism. Atheism has no myths, no scriptures, no teachers, no rituals, no agendas, no dogmas. Atheism is merely a rejection of theism.
Read and learn.
-
Wrong on all counts.
Atheism is not a philosophy, it is merely a rejection of theism. Atheism has no myths, no scriptures, no teachers, no rituals, no agendas, no dogmas. Atheism is merely a rejection of theism.
Read and learn.
Atheism is in the eye of the beholder torridon and its high priest makes it clear Christianity is taboo whilst experts in the field find millions deprived of that emotional/spiritual welfare that the human body needs and demands one way or another...often by bullying it from others.
So ok...accurate Christian teaching delivers the goods but even iniquity flourishes because atheism is lame on emotional integrity. All tyrants have found it is better to pacify followers of Jesus Christ rather than hit them head-on and the reason is plain...they are, even, if, in only a very small way, following the way, the truth and the life of Jesus Christ.
-
There is nothing 'accurate' about Christianity, it has given rise to so many different doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, each claiming they have the elusive 'truth'.
-
Atheism is in the eye of the beholder torridon and its high priest makes it clear Christianity is taboo whilst experts in the field find millions deprived of that emotional/spiritual welfare that the human body needs and demands one way or another...often by bullying it from others.
So ok...accurate Christian teaching delivers the goods but even iniquity flourishes because atheism is lame on emotional integrity. All tyrants have found it is better to pacify followers of Jesus Christ rather than hit them head-on and the reason is plain...they are, even, if, in only a very small way, following the way, the truth and the life of Jesus Christ.
Still wrong on all counts.
Atheism is not a philosophy, it is merely a rejection of theism. Atheism has no myths, no scriptures, no teachers, no priests, no rituals, no agendas, no dogmas. Atheism is merely a rejection of theism.
Read and try harder to learn.
-
Still wrong on all counts.
Atheism is not a philosophy, it is merely a rejection of theism. Atheism has no myths, no scriptures, no teachers, no priests, no rituals, no agendas, no dogmas. Atheism is merely a rejection of theism.
Read and try harder to learn.
If your rejection of theism involves attacking that theism then you are a counter theism...which is a theism in itself. To try and detach yourself from it is little dishonest.
You are saying I don't believe in God so no one else must...you have made yourselves gods...and worse than that...you are trawling through every avenue open to you to get your patronage from...building your own converts to the adherence of the thinking of your high priest...hmmm I can't see much difference whatever you call it...except that I,like millions before me find an awful lot of truth in the pain, suffering and teaching of Jesus Christ...not forgetting that he showed how you and I can achieve resurrection if we abandon false gods...like yours.
-
If your rejection of theism involves attacking that theism then you are a counter theism...which is a theism in itself. To try and detach yourself from it is little dishonest.
You are saying I don't believe in God so no one else must...you have made yourselves gods...and worse than that...you are trawling through every avenue open to you to get your patronage from...building your own converts to the adherence of the thinking of your high priest...hmmm I can't see much difference whatever you call it...except that I,like millions before me find an awful lot of truth in the pain, suffering and teaching of Jesus Christ...not forgetting that he showed how you and I can achieve resurrection if we abandon false gods...like yours.
Who the fuck is this 'high priest' that you keep wittering on about?
-
If your rejection of theism involves attacking that theism then you are a counter theism...which is a theism in itself. To try and detach yourself from it is little dishonest.
You are saying I don't believe in God so no one else must...you have made yourselves gods...and worse than that...you are trawling through every avenue open to you to get your patronage from...building your own converts to the adherence of the thinking of your high priest...hmmm I can't see much difference whatever you call it...except that I,like millions before me find an awful lot of truth in the pain, suffering and teaching of Jesus Christ...not forgetting that he showed how you and I can achieve resurrection if we abandon false gods...like yours.
Still mostly nonsense. Saying atheism is a form of theism is akin to claiming that not playing scrabble is a sort of board game. try again.
-
Still mostly nonsense. Saying atheism is a form of theism is akin to claiming that not playing scrabble is a sort of board game. try again.
I suppose the point you are missing and I'm not expressing very clearly is that atheism is a belief system. The same as all myths are built around belief systems. You have no absolute proof for yours whereas I have a teacher who explained it all...a book that explains it all....a congregation that is held together by it all...a science that supports it all...a knowledge that advanced people have been visiting this planet and interacting with people since the year dot...some friendly and some, it seems, hostile.
Thankfully, Almighty God has total authority over the lot but he has a requirement that we don't besmirch things we don't understand especially when an insight into his righteous teaching is only a book away.
-
I suppose the point you are missing and I'm not expressing very clearly is that atheism is a belief system. The same as all myths are built around belief systems. You have no absolute proof for yours whereas I have a teacher who explained it all...a book that explains it all....a congregation that is held together by it all...a science that supports it all...a knowledge that advanced people have been visiting this planet and interacting with people since the year dot...some friendly and some, it seems, hostile.
Thankfully, Almighty God has total authority over the lot but he has a requirement that we don't besmirch things we don't understand especially when an insight into his righteous teaching is only a book away.
Oh dear, Nick, you're really not making much progress today. Atheism is not a belief system; it is merely a position on a belief system, namely theism. Atheism does not itself consist of any beliefs. Atheists do have beliefs of course, being human, but atheism per se is not a belief.
-
Oh dear, Nick, you're really not making much progress today. Atheism is not a belief system; it is merely a position on a belief system, namely theism. Atheism does not itself consist of any beliefs. Atheists do have beliefs of course, being human, but atheism per se is not a belief.
It doesn't matter how you duck and dive torridon, atheism...is a belief system and is so important to its adherents that they right books...put slogans on buses and are determined to add even more nails to the resurrected body of our savior. Now you might wrap that up into a casual disbelief in a Deity but it is something else entirely. It is bordering on a religion to damn and condemn all other religions...because it suspects there is no God. But you are wrong and if you are wrong your entire religion is wrong.
God exists because his word is the only way this universe could have been programmed. It is coded by a simple, gentle, wonderful energy, that has always been and always will be and every scientific law has its first principle etched in its many behavior patterns. So you will all have to think again...but do it soon...because that Holy Book you condemn indicates that there is trouble brewing...not just by the forces that want to snatch this planet from Almighty God but from rogue planetary bodies that will leave a terrible dent in your religion.
-
I suppose the point you are missing and I'm not expressing very clearly is that atheism is a belief system.
A lack of belief in God or gods is not a belief system. If someone asserted that there definetly is no God then that is a belief system requiring evidence and proof. If you are defining atheism as the latter then you are right but mostly these days the former definition applies and you are therefore wrong.
The same as all myths are built around belief systems. You have no absolute proof for yours
What do you think these beliefs are exactly?
whereas I have a teacher who explained it all...a book that explains it all....a congregation that is held together by it all...a science that supports it all...a knowledge that advanced people have been visiting this planet and interacting with people since the year dot...some friendly and some, it seems, hostile.
Thankfully, Almighty God has total authority over the lot but he has a requirement that we don't besmirch things we don't understand especially when an insight into his righteous teaching is only a book away.
Delete science, delete knowledge and then its an expression ofyour beliefs - which is fine, so long as you don't claim any of it as fact.
-
It doesn't matter how you duck and dive torridon, atheism...is a belief system and is so important to its adherents that they right books...put slogans on buses and are determined to add even more nails to the resurrected body of our savior. Now you might wrap that up into a casual disbelief in a Deity but it is something else entirely. It is bordering on a religion to damn and condemn all other religions...because it suspects there is no God. But you are wrong and if you are wrong your entire religion is wrong.
Nah, still wrong Nick. Just because people get passionate about it does not define it as a belief system. Scientists argue heatedly about string theory, but that doesn't make it a belief system. A belief system would normally contain a set of tenets of positive belief; there are nonesuch in atheism, which is just a position on atheism, usually that there is no evidence for it and it doesn't stack up logically.
-
including yourself...... ::)
Yep!!
-
A lack of belief in God or gods is not a belief system. If someone asserted that there definetly is no God then that is a belief system requiring evidence and proof. If you are defining atheism as the latter then you are right but mostly these days the former definition applies and you are therefore wrong.
What do you think these beliefs are exactly?
Delete science, delete knowledge and then its an expression ofyour beliefs - which is fine, so long as you don't claim any of it as fact.
You do juggle with the English language Maeght. No one can deny the Holy Bible exists and the Gospels the driving force behind much good. That goodness only turns to badness when iniquity gets involved and I shouldn't have to point out the many ways that iniquity tries to influence the word of Jesus and Almighty God.
I can't delete science or my beliefs because they are all tied in with the Holy Bible. It amazes me that you torridon or anyone else for that matter cant see that beneath and within every atom is a powerful force that requires special laws to understand it fully and that the Holy Bible is an introduction into those laws from the perspective of the human being first...but you all seem quite happy to embrace war, distress, starvation and countless other problems as an essential part of life...still...not for much longer....not for the righteous adherents anyway.
-
You do juggle with the English language Maeght.
Pot, kettle, black!
No one can deny the Holy Bible exists ..
Who has denied that?
and the Gospels the driving force behind much good.T hat goodness only turns to badness when iniquity gets involved and I shouldn't have to point out the many ways that iniquity tries to influence the word of Jesus and Almighty God.
Some would question that - but I re no relvance to this thread.
I can't delete science or my beliefs because they are all tied in with the Holy Bible.
Which has nothing to do with science.
It amazes me that you torridon or anyone else for that matter cant see that beneath and within every atom is a powerful force that requires special laws to understand it fully and that the Holy Bible is an introduction into those laws from the perspective of the human being first...
Clearly.
but you all seem quite happy to embrace war, distress, starvation and countless other problems as an essential part of life...still...not for much longer....not for the righteous adherents anyway.
Insulting nonsense. Why on earth do you think people who don't share you unusal beliefs embrace war, distress, starvation etc? They are part of life but are things which we should all strive to erradicate - and to think that does not require a belief in aliens visiting thsi planet in the guise of Jesus or God or whatever it is you believe.
-
Pot, kettle, black!
Who has denied that?
Some would question that - but I re no relvance to this thread.
Which has nothing to do with science.
Clearly.
Insulting nonsense. Why on earth do you think people who don't share you unusal beliefs embrace war, distress, starvation etc? They are part of life but are things which we should all strive to erradicate - and to think that does not require a belief in aliens visiting thsi planet in the guise of Jesus or God or whatever it is you believe.
Well. Maeght, the Holy Bible contradicts you. Almighty God makes it clear that in the first instance this planet was void...insignificant...it had born life previously but it had ceased to function and darkness was on the face of the watery deep.
After many acts of nation building...which incidentally...he built a nation that still exists today...he introduced righteousness via Jesus Christ...a stepping stone towards word peace and harmony for those who value righteousness. A package over 10,000 years in the making, so far, all the product of a people...not of this world. The evidence of people not of this world is all around us today...but you can dismiss it if you want and there advanced technology which is also apparent, with your worldly governments trying to imitate their skills.
Now...these people have warned us of an impending danger...a Judgement...because these universal people know how to withstand the impact that is looming and I'm sorry to have to tell you, it all hinges upon the teaching of one of their number...their God's son...who, incidentally is our savior and co-owner of the entire universe under the direct authority of his father...take it or leave it.
-
I think NM would be really disappointed if his end times prophecies don't materialise in his life time. ;D
-
If someone can be disappointed when they're dead ;D!
What a thought, I would hope all negative emotions are gone when we die. What matters now will no longer matter.
Peace.
-
It doesn't matter how you duck and dive torridon, atheism...is a belief system and is so important to its adherents that they right books...put slogans on buses and are determined to add even more nails to the resurrected body of our savior. Now you might wrap that up into a casual disbelief in a Deity but it is something else entirely. It is bordering on a religion to damn and condemn all other religions...because it suspects there is no God. But you are wrong and if you are wrong your entire religion is wrong.
It doesn't matter if you twist and turn and dodge and slide Nick. It isn't a belief system.
If it was then your abuddism and your ajaneism and your ascientism etc are all belief systems. Are they?
-
If someone can be disappointed when they're dead ;D!
What a thought, I would hope all negative emotions are gone when we die. What matters now will no longer matter.
Peace.
Ah but according to NM he is going skywards, and will be looking down on those awful people who don't see it his way! ;D
-
Atheism is in the eye of the beholder torridon and its high priest makes it clear Christianity is taboo
Seb Toe asked you this question earlier: who the devil is the 'high priest' of atheism? Have you answered this yet? You need to know that people arrive at atheism from innumerable different routes, and few just kow-tow to the thoughts of one single individual - whoever this mysterious entity is supposed to be. Personal philosophies also result from general life-experience, not just reading.
-
You do juggle with the English language Maeght.
Irony of all fucking ironies ;D
-
Well. Maeght, the Holy Bible contradicts you. Almighty God makes it clear that in the first instance this planet was void...insignificant...it had born life previously but it had ceased to function and darkness was on the face of the watery deep.
And that is not in any Bible on the face of the planet! You seem totally ignorant of the book you keep paying lip-service to. Either that, or you are the liar of all liars.
Who was the "Father of the Lie"? Remind me.....
-
Seb Toe asked you this question earlier: who the devil is the 'high priest' of atheism? Have you answered this yet? You need to know that people arrive at atheism from innumerable different routes, and few just kow-tow to the thoughts of one single individual - whoever this mysterious entity is supposed to be. Personal philosophies also result from general life-experience, not just reading.
You are all antiChrist so that should give you a clue and you know who he works for don't you...or at least you should.
-
Nah, still wrong Nick. Just because people get passionate about it does not define it as a belief system. Scientists argue heatedly about string theory, but that doesn't make it a belief system. A belief system would normally contain a set of tenets of positive belief; there are nonesuch in atheism, which is just a position on atheism, usually that there is no evidence for it and it doesn't stack up logically.
Your right on string theory anyway, torridon. The universe is the result of an invisible, superabundant, electric/spiritual energy that has always been and always will be. It is the fore runner of every science because every science stems from the fact that when huge, galaxy size clouds of of this material are travelling at the speed of the expanding universe and someone makes a hole in the centre, whether tiny or huge, an imploding force sucks all surrounding energy into that hole which acts as a magnetic portal into the static state that lies beneath and which isn't moving at all. Now the Holy Bible taught me this because I picked up on all the clues...There is no need for you to concern yourself about this though if you aren't going to repent...
...your choice.
-
And that is not in any Bible on the face of the planet! You seem totally ignorant of the book you keep paying lip-service to. Either that, or you are the liar of all liars.
Who was the "Father of the Lie"? Remind me.....
Sadly Dicky...you are wrong on all points. Try Genesis, there you will find exactly what is written above, 'The Earth was void and darkness was on the face of the watery deep'....and including the bit which says seed, already in the earth, gave forth its life.
Now...does that make me the liar or the one calling me a liar the liar...It doesn't bother me too much I get a lot of satisfaction just by supporting and applauding my God and my savior.
-
NM plays, 'haven't a clue DOH!', with the Bible!
-
Well. Maeght, the Holy Bible contradicts you. Almighty God makes it clear that in the first instance this planet was void...insignificant...it had born life previously but it had ceased to function and darkness was on the face of the watery deep.
No it doesn't . You have interpretted it to fit what you see as modern science. People have done the same with Nostradamus - if you look hard enough you can find anything you want in it.
After many acts of nation building...which incidentally...he built a nation that still exists today...he introduced righteousness via Jesus Christ...a stepping stone towards word peace and harmony for those who value righteousness. A package over 10,000 years in the making, so far, all the product of a people...not of this world.
What has that got to do with anything I wrote?
The evidence of people not of this world is all around us today...but you can dismiss it if you want and there advanced technology which is also apparent, with your worldly governments trying to imitate their skills.
As I say, if you are looking hard enough for something you will always find it - I see no evidence of aliens living amongst us nor any alien technology. You clearly do, but this is because of your unusual beliefs in my view.
Now...these people have warned us of an impending danger...a Judgement...because these universal people know how to withstand the impact that is looming and I'm sorry to have to tell you, it all hinges upon the teaching of one of their number...their God's son...who, incidentally is our savior and co-owner of the entire universe under the direct authority of his father...take it or leave it.
I'm sure you belive that but I don't. Now, how about addressing your insulting nonsense about people embracing war etc?
-
The universe is the result of an invisible, superabundant, electric/spiritual energy that has always been and always will be. It is the fore runner of every science because every science stems from the fact that when huge, galaxy size clouds of of this material are travelling at the speed of the expanding universe and someone makes a hole in the centre, whether tiny or huge, an imploding force sucks all surrounding energy into that hole which acts as a magnetic portal into the static state that lies beneath and which isn't moving at all. Now the Holy Bible taught me this because I picked up on all the clues...
Classic Sparkler ;). You ought to patent this stuff.
-
Unfortunately Christianity has been played round with and distorted by many different people and with many different motives but the 'word' remains intact...it just needs exploring accurately...as Jesus himself taught it...all other aspects of it are mythology.
Every organised group of people adopt some mythology because it appeals to a hidden nature of existence and tyrants and false teachers have been only too willing to take control of this vital inner urge and now there is another philosophy called atheism which needs to destroy all other myths for their own. But it is here accurate faith takes the lead. It incorporates this inner desire to find answers to the unknown by supplying those answers even though it is way above our understanding...but not to worry...it will all come out in the wash when accurate teaching is divorced from the myths by virtue of what could be described as another 'big-bang'.
Distorted by people like your superabundent electrical self Nick.
I note you don't understand what atheism is, surly you're not that thick Nick?
ippy
-
Sadly Dicky...you are wrong on all points. Try Genesis, there you will find exactly what is written above, 'The Earth was void and darkness was on the face of the watery deep'....and including the bit which says seed, already in the earth, gave forth its life.
Now...does that make me the liar or the one calling me a liar the liar...It doesn't bother me too much I get a lot of satisfaction just by supporting and applauding my God and my savior.
So you're a YEC, then?
-
'The Earth was void and darkness was on the face of the watery deep'....and including the bit which says seed, already in the earth, gave forth its life.
Where does it say the seed was already in the earth?
-
So you're a YEC, then?
The closest anyone can get to what Sparky believes is that his god was living on another planet when he discovered some universal secret-y thing and the rest of the inhabitants of said planet kicked him off, because science.
Said god wandered around the universe until he found planet Earth. At this point, the Earth had evolved its own life but it had all died out completely, because dinosaurs.
God decided to bring life back to this dead Earth and used the dead animals and plants and that and made living things, because electricity.
At that point his god thought some of the monkeys he'd created/ recreated could be made to worship him, so he co-opted an itinerant jewish preacher to spread the word, and the word was, no wanking.
Because the monkeys did keep wanking, this god decided he'd throw the planet out of its orbit which will kill the monkeys and stop the wanking, and this will definitely happen soon.
-
Well. Maeght, the Holy Bible contradicts you. Almighty God makes it clear that in the first instance this planet was void...insignificant...it had born life previously but it had ceased to function and darkness was on the face of the watery deep.
After many acts of nation building...which incidentally...he built a nation that still exists today...he introduced righteousness via Jesus Christ...a stepping stone towards word peace and harmony for those who value righteousness. A package over 10,000 years in the making, so far, all the product of a people...not of this world. The evidence of people not of this world is all around us today...but you can dismiss it if you want and there advanced technology which is also apparent, with your worldly governments trying to imitate their skills.
Now...these people have warned us of an impending danger...a Judgement...because these universal people know how to withstand the impact that is looming and I'm sorry to have to tell you, it all hinges upon the teaching of one of their number...their God's son...who, incidentally is our savior and co-owner of the entire universe under the direct authority of his father...take it or leave it.
Anyone got a paracetamol?
-
Anyone got a paracetamol?
Oh you poor love I will send you some, the above is enough to give anyone a bad headache! ;D
-
Where does it say the seed was already in the earth?
Genesis 1:11 Maeght. It becomes clearer when you read the progression of the planet's restoration.
Water was already on the planet from the beginning but had congregated on the side facing away from the sun...the dark side...so all the resources for life were already on the planet...it just needed a little spin on its own axis to set it all back in motion as a life supporting planet again. That spin created the first day and the first night. We then see that the water is flooding the Earth whilst evaporating into the atmosphere...then receding bringing a planet of land, sea, atmosphere, and climate comparative with how things are today...and then seed already in the earth gave forth its life...with me so far...because we've only got six days to do it all in.
This indicates that the planet had previously supported life but had gone into a tidal lock...and all previous life had been lost.
-
Genesis 1:11 Maeght. It becomes clearer when you read the progression of the planet's restoration.
Water was already on the planet from the beginning but had congregated on the side facing away from the sun...the dark side...so all the resources for life were already on the planet...it just needed a little spin on its own axis to set it all back in motion as a life supporting planet again. That spin created the first day and the first night. We then see that the water is flooding the Earth whilst evaporating into the atmosphere...then receding bringing a planet of land, sea, atmosphere, and climate comparative with how things are today...and then seed already in the earth gave forth its life...with me so far...because we've only got six days to do it all in.
This indicates that the planet had previously supported life but had gone into a tidal lock...and all previous life had been lost.
Tidal lock refers to the orbital dynamics of the Earth Moon system; it means that a lunar day is the same length as the Moon's rotational orbit around the Earth. It doesn't mean that the Earth stopped spinning; the tidal locking of the Moon would not be a probable cause for a mass extinction event, the majority of life on Earth would continue on as before. The main impact of this is for the Moon rather than the Earth. As far as Earth is concerned, it means we always see the same face of the Moon whenever we look up at the night sky. On the Moon however, you would either see Earth as a constant presence in the sky, or you would never ever see Earth, depending which side of the Moon you are on. I think I have explained for you this before, please try to keep up.
If this planet had previously supported life, what can you tell us about it - where it originated from etc
-
Tidal lock refers to the orbital dynamics of the Earth Moon system; it means that a lunar day is the same length as the Moon's rotational orbit around the Earth. It doesn't mean that the Earth stopped spinning; the tidal locking of the Moon would not be a probable cause for a mass extinction event, the majority of life on Earth would continue on as before. The main impact of this is for the Moon rather than the Earth. As far as Earth is concerned, it means we always see the same face of the Moon whenever we look up at the night sky. On the Moon however, you would either see Earth as a constant presence in the sky, or you would never ever see Earth, depending which side of the Moon you are on. I think I have explained for you this before, please try to keep up.
If this planet had previously supported life, what can you tell us about it - where it originated from etc
You must learn to read between the lines torridon. Going into tidal lock means a huge cataclysmic event...possibly the one that wiped out the dinosaurs...and possibly the same event fast approaching us now. It is likely that Almighty God already knew it would happen and like the many reports of alien activity around us today, was already on the case, watching from a safe distance when it happened...with his agents reporting straight back to him as soon as it was safe to do so.
A tidal lock isn't just talking about the state of the moon in its relationship with the Earth. Some planets are tidally locked to the sun. It's one of those strange things that happen sometimes...and fits in perfectly with the opening verses in Genesis. I could be wrong...but my explanation brings God's version back into the picture because if I can make Genesis work then Almighty God certainly can.
It seems that outside the specific 'special creation' that God used here on planet Earth there is an evolution process which the fossils give evidence to...and it is clear to me that we were designed meeting the arts and crafts of evolution because we are universal beings that have to be best suited to our environment...which...as I have explained elsewhere...is electrical/spiritual in nature.
Jesus Christ knew what he was talking about and salvation can only be achieved via his father's laws of righteousness.
-
'arts and crafts of evolution' that is a new one! ;D
-
Genesis 1:11 Maeght. It becomes clearer when you read the progression of the planet's restoration.
Water was already on the planet from the beginning but had congregated on the side facing away from the sun...the dark side...so all the resources for life were already on the planet...it just needed a little spin on its own axis to set it all back in motion as a life supporting planet again. That spin created the first day and the first night. We then see that the water is flooding the Earth whilst evaporating into the atmosphere...then receding bringing a planet of land, sea, atmosphere, and climate comparative with how things are today...and then seed already in the earth gave forth its life...with me so far...because we've only got six days to do it all in.
This indicates that the planet had previously supported life but had gone into a tidal lock...and all previous life had been lost.
That is your interpretation - not shared by others, which is why I asked where it says the seed was already in the earth. You haven't shown where it actually says that, only your interpretation.
-
I wonder if NM ever questions what he believes to be true, when not even other Christians support his views?
-
'arts and crafts of evolution' that is a new one! ;D
Oh come now, Floo. Even you can't seriously believe that knitting happened by chance...?
-
Oh come now, Floo. Even you can't seriously believe that knitting happened by chance...?
Of course not, humans the real gods, invented it! ;D
-
You must learn to read between the lines torridon. Going into tidal lock means a huge cataclysmic event...possibly the one that wiped out the dinosaurs...and possibly the same event fast approaching us now. It is likely that Almighty God already knew it would happen and like the many reports of alien activity around us today, was already on the case, watching from a safe distance when it happened...with his agents reporting straight back to him as soon as it was safe to do so.
A tidal lock isn't just talking about the state of the moon in its relationship with the Earth. Some planets are tidally locked to the sun. It's one of those strange things that happen sometimes...and fits in perfectly with the opening verses in Genesis. I could be wrong...but my explanation brings God's version back into the picture because if I can make Genesis work then Almighty God certainly a
It seems that outside the specific 'special creation' that God used here on planet Earth there is an evolution process which the fossils give evidence to...and it is clear to me that we were designed meeting the arts and crafts of evolution because we are universal beings that have to be best suited to our environment...which...as I have explained elsewhere...is electrical/spiritual in nature.
Jesus Christ knew what he was talking about and salvation can only be achieved via his father's laws of righteousness.
The more of your posts I have the misfortune to read, convinces me you need to go and see somebody.
I note you still can't understand exactly what atheism is even after it has been described to you by so many that post here on the forum.
It'd be a start if you actually answered the questions people ask of you, all of your answers amout to nothing more than worthless unintelligble ravings, you obviously haven't got a clue how to give anyone a straight answer no matter what the subject.
ippy
-
Sadly Dicky...you are wrong on all points. Try Genesis, there you will find exactly what is written above, 'The Earth was void and darkness was on the face of the watery deep'....and including the bit which says seed, already in the earth, gave forth its life.
Now...does that make me the liar or the one calling me a liar the liar...It doesn't bother me too much I get a lot of satisfaction just by supporting and applauding my God and my savior.
I think I see where your confusion lies: you're confusing the account of creation of Genesis 1 with the account of Genesis 2, which are two different accounts, from different sources. I'm going to try a bit of scholarship on you here (it will certainly fall on deaf ears :) ) These two accounts are known as the Priestly Narrative and the Yahwist Narrative. Genesis 1:11 clearly says that God directly created plant-life on earth. There is no mention of the planet having sustained life before.
Whereas Genesis 2:5 says that no plants were sprouting "because God had not made it rain upon the earth". This is clearly a more primitive narrative than the account in the first chapter. Even so, there is still no mention of the earth having sustained life before it was "without form and void" - that's all your invention. And as for "tidal lock" - the real significance of this has been explained to you by Torridon. I doubt whether anyone is going to accept your explanation.
Anyway - are you a liar or not? Well, you clearly proclaim things about the Bible which aren't there in the text, and then go on to say "it's all in the Bible". I think most people would preface their speculations with something like "I think this might mean that..." rather than saying it's all there in the text. But if it keeps you happy...
-
I think I see where your confusion lies: you're confusing the account of creation of Genesis 1 with the account of Genesis 2, which are two different accounts, from different sources. I'm going to try a bit of scholarship on you here (it will certainly fall on deaf ears :) ) These two accounts are known as the Priestly Narrative and the Yahwist Narrative. Genesis 1:11 clearly says that God directly created plant-life on earth. There is no mention of the planet having sustained life before.
Whereas Genesis 2:5 says that no plants were sprouting "because God had not made it rain upon the earth". This is clearly a more primitive narrative than the account in the first chapter. Even so, there is still no mention of the earth having sustained life before it was "without form and void" - that's all your invention. And as for "tidal lock" - the real significance of this has been explained to you by Torridon. I doubt whether anyone is going to accept your explanation.
Anyway - are you a liar or not? Well, you clearly proclaim things about the Bible which aren't there in the text, and then go on to say "it's all in the Bible". I think most people would preface their speculations with something like "I think this might mean that..." rather than saying it's all there in the text. But if it keeps you happy...
Thank you Dicky for your well thought response...beats your previous response hands down.
When we read the Holy Bible we must start on the premise that it is absolutely true and if there is conflict between God and science there has to be a compromise whereby science must bend a little.
You are confusing your perception of what is written with the reading that makes sense both scientifically and Biblically...This is where I am coming from.
The first principle of God's teaching is that everything is made from God's spiritual waters. Every science, every atom, every ounce of righteous truth every one of those, One True Gods..of which there is only one. Now if God is a spirit and we are the product of the same spiritual laws, because all things are...then Jesus is someone very special because he, and only he, as the highest righteous agent under God, knows what he is talking about, and if a world of peace, harmony, health, resurrection, and everlasting life appeals...you know what to do.
Now...I still claim that the passage of events as is written in Genesis and as science dictates it must have, is the only way it could have happened within the confines of electric/spiritual laws...then its a good chance that is how it did happen...and the Holy Bible does indicate this quite strongly...but forgive me if I don't make it too clear.
Almighty God is the electric/spiritual figurehead of all that material that created the universe for which he speaks and over which he has all authority...and we've just got to get used to the idea else use to the idea of sunbathing on Wormwood for the rest of eternity.
-
You must learn to read between the lines torridon. Going into tidal lock means a huge cataclysmic event...possibly the one that wiped out the dinosaurs...and possibly the same event fast approaching us now. It is likely that Almighty God already knew it would happen and like the many reports of alien activity around us today, was already on the case, watching from a safe distance when it happened...with his agents reporting straight back to him as soon as it was safe to do so.
I see you fail to differentiate between 'reading between the lines' and just being plain wrong. You are just plain wrong, as usual, and you are only compounding your evident misunderstanding with 'Going into tidal lock means a huge cataclysmic event' which is also clearly just plain wrong. Going into tidal lock is not a sudden cataclysmic event, it is something that happens gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years.
-
'arts and crafts of evolution' that is a new one! ;D
William Morris-type Christmas cards feature, floo.
-
When we read the Holy Bible we must start on the premise that it is absolutely true and if there is conflict between God and science there has to be a compromise whereby science must bend a little.
Clearly this is not the policy of anyone interested in getting to the truth of any matter. A far superior policy would be to not take anything as truth but to investigate through testing and gain confidence slowly. Science starts out from the assumption that pretty much everything we think is correct, probably is not actually correct. This is a position of humility from which base we can grow and learn. Certainties are the enemy of anyone who would seek real knowledge, as is faith.
-
This indicates that the planet had previously supported life but had gone into a tidal lock...and all previous life had been lost.
How did that life get there?
-
I see you fail to differentiate between 'reading between the lines' and just being plain wrong. You are just plain wrong, as usual, and you are only compounding your evident misunderstanding with 'Going into tidal lock means a huge cataclysmic event' which is also clearly just plain wrong. Going into tidal lock is not a sudden cataclysmic event, it is something that happens gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years.
When reading points of evidence we have to interpret how a planet that is supporting life and presumably working very similar to how it does today came to be tidally locked. It implies a cataclysmic event. This is supported by what is now approaching and is already causing great concern for many people because its passing could have a similar impact.
But if you don't believe in Jesus there is no need to get concerned because nothing can prevent it. Following Jesus and his righteousness will then become our only hope...but poor preparation wont help.
-
How did that life get there?
Its such a long and difficult story that I'm not sure it's worth the aggro Seb. Just accept that a few trillion, trillion part atoms were spewed out of our sun in the early stages of its existence and came to Earth piggy backed upon hydrogen atoms which they themselves would have become if they hadn't been prematurely ripped from their anchorage within the sun. They developed a peculiar electrical method of coming together in pairs dragging atoms from their own environments with them and reaching out for electrical needs did the rest...but, of course, its much more involved than this.
-
Its such a long and difficult story that I'm not sure it's worth the aggro Seb. Just accept that a few trillion, trillion part atoms were spewed out of our sun in the early stages of its existence and came to Earth piggy backed upon hydrogen atoms which they themselves would have become if they hadn't been prematurely ripped from their anchorage within the sun. They developed a peculiar electrical method of coming together in pairs dragging atoms from their own environments with them and reaching out for electrical needs did the rest...but, of course, its much more involved than this.
Carry on. I'm listening.
-
When reading points of evidence we have to interpret how a planet that is supporting life and presumably working very similar to how it does today came to be tidally locked. It implies a cataclysmic event.
No it doesn't. If you accurately knew how tidal locking actually occurs then you would know that it implies the opposite. But then Nick, accuracy has never been your area of expertise has it?
-
The closest anyone can get to what Sparky believes is that his god was living on another planet when he discovered some universal secret-y thing and the rest of the inhabitants of said planet kicked him off, because science.
Said god wandered around the universe until he found planet Earth. At this point, the Earth had evolved its own life but it had all died out completely, because dinosaurs.
God decided to bring life back to this dead Earth and used the dead animals and plants and that and made living things, because electricity.
At that point his god thought some of the monkeys he'd created/ recreated could be made to worship him, so he co-opted an itinerant jewish preacher to spread the word, and the word was, no wanking.
Because the monkeys did keep wanking, this god decided he'd throw the planet out of its orbit which will kill the monkeys and stop the wanking, and this will definitely happen soon.
Quite concise, Squeaky, thank you. I couldn't have put it better myself.
Just been reading about the Nephilim, who were immigrants. Nephilim were clever and big and came from another planet to mine for gold on earth to replenish the minerals on their native planet.
Not a lot of people know that.
Nibiru also known as Planet X will collide with earth either this month or next year. All the signs are there for everyone to see. As they were just prior to 2012 when the cataclysm was expected but didn't happen.
Not much we can do about it though posh rich people have drilled holes into mountains to make bunkers in order to survive. They will form a world underground government.
We who are not posh and rich may survive if we are ready, if not we will perish. Either way we cannot expect help from the P&R who are really shape changing lizards.
I will read another instalment in the morning.
(Oh it is morning, I mean later on in the morning.)
-
I like your post, Brownie! :) Well, I've been asleep already, but as I'm awake now, I thought I'd see what's been happening here in the last few hours!
-
I am still awake. I'm ready and waiting for whatever happens. Had some mulled wine.
Will go to bed shortly.
-
Have I fallen down Alice's rabbit hole...?
-
When we read the Holy Bible we must start on the premise that it is absolutely true and if there is conflict between God and science there has to be a compromise whereby science must bend a little.
YE GODS, there is nonsense then there is NM's brand of nonsense, this one really takes the biscuit! ::) One should NEVER believe anything to be absolutely true unless there is evidence to support it, especially where the Bible is concerned.
-
When we read the Holy Bible we must start on the premise that it is absolutely true and if there is conflict between God and science there has to be a compromise whereby science must bend a little.
YE GODS, there is nonsense then there is NM's brand of nonsense, this one really takes the biscuit! ::)
But Floo, if God created the laws of nature it is in his purview to tweak them every now and then.
One should NEVER believe anything to be absolutely true unless there is evidence to support it, especially where the Bible is concerned.
Is there any reason why we should believe science to be any truer, Floo. After all, the evidence to prove science is scientific research - a less than satisfactory combination of factors - even for the staunchest scientist.
-
Dunno about YOU lot but after having read many of these last posts, it seems to ME, at least, that ALIENS DID IT !!?!?!? MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Nick
-
But Floo, if God created the laws of nature it is in his purview to tweak them every now and then.
Is there any reason why we should believe science to be any truer, Floo. After all, the evidence to prove science is scientific research - a less than satisfactory combination of factors - even for the staunchest scientist.
It is highly unlikely the god of the Bible, who reads like a bad fairy tale, had anything to do with creating the universe!
-
It is highly unlikely the god of the Bible, who reads like a bad fairy tale, had anything to do with creating the universe!
Floo I'm reading a book by A C Grayling he mentions to try substituting Fred for god when reading theogy stuff, I'll just say try it and I'll leave the rest to you.
ippy
-
But Floo, if God created the laws of nature it is in his purview to tweak them every now and then.
Self contradiction. Humans might tweak their creations in order to get them right. A god however would not need to do this, because he is god, he would get things right in the first place.
-
Self contradiction. Humans might tweak their creations in order to get them right. A god however would not need to do this, because he is god, he would get things right in the first place.
Not unless it is as good at screw ups as the Biblical god appears to be!
-
But Floo, if God created the laws of nature it is in his purview to tweak them every now and then.
.......has he done any of that tweaking that you know of?
-
But Floo, if God created the laws of nature it is in his purview to tweak them every now and then.
Is there any reason why we should believe science to be any truer, Floo.
Yes.
Science has been tested to see if it fits the real World.
End of story.
After all, the evidence to prove science is scientific research - a less than satisfactory combination of factors - even for the staunchest scientist.
Why is checking if things match the real world less than satisfactory? Is it because the Bible not being true would make you cry?
-
Yes.
Science has been tested to see if it fits the real World.
End of story.
Why is checking if things match the real world less than satisfactory? Is it because the Bible not being true would make you cry?
It really puzzles me why some people cannot understand this.
why do you think this is ,jeremyp?
-
All...
Science doesn't take into account the raw material that created all mass and all science controlling that mass...yet it is the essence behind all Biblical teaching. Obviously special teaching is required to bring that science alive and I know that it's all contained within the Gospels. With the worst possible Biblical scenario breathing down our necks it might be wise to refresh ourselves on our Biblical knowledge because it seems it is our only salvation...but that is up to each individual.
-
All...
Science doesn't take into account the raw material that created all mass and all science controlling that mass...yet it is the essence behind all Biblical teaching. Obviously special teaching is required to bring that science alive and I know that it's all contained within the Gospels. With the worst possible Biblical scenario breathing down our necks it might be wise to refresh ourselves on our Biblical knowledge because it seems it is our only salvation...but that is up to each individual.
where can I find this 'special teaching' ,Nick?
-
where can I find this 'special teaching' ,Nick?
It doesn't matter where you start reading your copy of the Holy Bible reference to it is on virtually every page...Walter.
From the start of Genesis to Revelation we find our God is fully conversant with it...all miracles stem from it...resurrection is the fruits of it and the making of stars is created from it. These, in their own right lead to deeper truths such as stars are made from atoms so these are made from it as well.
But...to be honest...it might be better to leave you all to your own fate...and I would if it wasn't so horrific.
-
All...
Science doesn't take into account the raw material that created all mass and all science controlling that mass...yet it is the essence behind all Biblical teaching. Obviously special teaching is required to bring that science alive and I know that it's all contained within the Gospels. With the worst possible Biblical scenario breathing down our necks it might be wise to refresh ourselves on our Biblical knowledge because it seems it is our only salvation...but that is up to each individual.
Nice words.
Rubbish, but nice words anyway.
-
It really puzzles me why some people cannot understand this.
why do you think this is ,jeremyp?
It's actually pretty straight forward. Hope doesn't have enough faith. He is constantly trying to justify his beliefs to others and probably himself. In order to do this, he has constructed a pseudo scientific system of ersatz evidence and to legitimise it, he has to pretend it is as good as real science. It's easier to drag science down to his level than to bring his system up to the level of science.
If Hope had the courage to say "ok I admit the evidence is not there, but I have faith", that would be the end of the discussion.
-
NM, where in Genesis does it say that the seed was already in the earth please?
-
NM, where in Genesis does it say that the seed was already in the earth please?
I refer you to reply #50 Maeght which is a reply to the last time you asked the same question.
-
It doesn't matter where you start reading your copy of the Holy Bible reference to it is on virtually every page...Walter.
From the start of Genesis to Revelation we find our God is fully conversant with it...all miracles stem from it...resurrection is the fruits of it and the making of stars is created from it. These, in their own right lead to deeper truths such as stars are made from atoms so these are made from it as well.
But...to be honest...it might be better to leave you all to your own fate...and I would if it wasn't so horrific.
Your nonsense is eye watering! I am familiar with the Bible but obviously do not have the unique imagination you have when interpreting what is written. ::)
-
It's actually pretty straight forward. Hope doesn't have enough faith. He is constantly trying to justify his beliefs to others and probably himself. In order to do this, he has constructed a pseudo scientific system of ersatz evidence and to legitimise it, he has to pretend it is as good as real science. It's easier to drag science down to his level than to bring his system up to the level of science.
If Hope had the courage to say "ok I admit the evidence is not there, but I have faith", that would be the end of the discussion.
It must be as difficult for him to do that as for me to pretend I was gay.
thanks for the reply.
-
I refer you to reply #50 Maeght which is a reply to the last time you asked the same question.
That doesn't answer the question in a sensible manner, as your answer is speculation, not fact.
-
That doesn't answer the question in a sensible manner, as your answer is speculation, not fact.
I think, without a shadow of a doubt, Floo, we have divorced any conception that Jesus' accurate teaching is in anyway connected with mythology...but more to do with science, in a very skilled and meaningful way.
Science is saying much the same...that there is an invisible, superabundant, undetectable form of energy more like water than like particles and it has a voice in every science whether we like it or not...and Jesus Christ foolishly delivered the knowledge of that science so that we cannot be saved because we refuse to believe him...
...except for the millions that will be saved...of course.
-
I think, without a shadow of a doubt, Floo, we have divorced any conception that Jesus' accurate teaching is in anyway connected with mythology...but more to do with science, in a very skilled and meaningful way.
Science is saying much the same...that there is an invisible, superabundant, undetectable form of energy more like water than like particles and it has a voice in every science whether we like it or not...and Jesus Christ foolishly delivered the knowledge of that science so that we cannot be saved because we refuse to believe him...
...except for the millions that will be saved...of course.
OH NM, what Jesus is reported as saying had absolutely NOTHING to do with science. If he was alive today I bet he would be as gobsmacked as the rest of us at the spin you put on it!
-
OH NM, what Jesus is reported as saying had absolutely NOTHING to do with science. If he was alive today I bet he would be as gobsmacked as the rest of us at the spin you put on it!
I think that someone who wasn't from this planet must have known an awful lot about science...especially about how to cross the great void of space successfully...because that principle is also silently loitering in his accurate teaching...but obviously you have your own take on these things...which aren't very constructive in the least.
-
OH NM, what Jesus is reported as saying had absolutely NOTHING to do with science. If he was alive today I bet he would be as gobsmacked as the rest of us at the spin you put on it!
NM arrives in heaven carrying his bible and says to god ' oh thank you lord I've been reading and teaching every day from the bible to anyone who would listen to me '
god replies ' the bible , I'm sick of hearing about that , IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME'
NS asks 'so why am I here then ?'
god says ' to stop you from bloody going on and on about it , you're getting right on my nerves'!
-
I refer you to reply #50 Maeght which is a reply to the last time you asked the same question.
You didn't show where it said that, which is why I asked again. You gave your interpretation. SO where does it actually say that?
-
god replies ' the bible , I'm sick of hearing about that , IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME'
Do you have any evidence to that effect, Walt? ;)
-
Do you have any evidence to that effect, Walt? ;)
exactly the same amount as you asserting the contrary,
-
You didn't show where it said that, which is why I asked again. You gave your interpretation. SO where does it actually say that?
11...And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12...And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13...And the evening and the morning were the third day.
You are right and I am wrong...I can't find the statement in the exact form that I thought it was...but that doesn't mean I am totally wrong because the above verse in Genesis indicates that the seed was recovered because the waters and the atmosphere was conducive to bringing the seed already in the earth back to life and it was all under the authority of Almighty God.
It is all contained within the chronological order of events and explains the fossils that pre-date the Special Creation...and we mustn't forget that the spiritual/electric laws that made it all possible are an expression of our wonderful Creator's mighty power...which is available today if we choose to listen to his son...Jesus Christ...accurately.
-
More assertions, no substance! ::)
-
11...And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12...And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13...And the evening and the morning were the third day.
You are right and I am wrong...I can't find the statement in the exact form that I thought it was...
Good that you admit that.
...but that doesn't mean I am totally wrong because the above verse in Genesis indicates that the seed was recovered because the waters and the atmosphere was conducive to bringing the seed already in the earth back to life and it was all under the authority of Almighty God.
No it doesn't. You interpret it to mean that but others disagree. The most common interpretation is that this refers to fruits with seeds in them as I understand it.
It is all contained within the chronological order of events and explains the fossils that pre-date the Special Creation...
You are interpreting it to fit that though - don't you see that?
...and we mustn't forget that the spiritual/electric laws that made it all possible are an expression of our wonderful Creator's mighty power...which is available today if we choose to listen to his son...Jesus Christ...accurately.
It's really not a question of forgetting it its believing it - it is a belief not a fact. You do understand that don't you?
-
Good that you admit that.
No it doesn't. You interpret it to mean that but others disagree. The most common interpretation is that this refers to fruits with seeds in them as I understand it.
You are interpreting it to fit that though - don't you see that?
It's really not a question of forgetting it its believing it - it is a belief not a fact. You do understand that don't you?
It is indisputable to me, Maeght, because it answers many scientific points. It doesn't matter that few can understand it...Almighty God teaches it so it's important to him and to those who choose to structure their lives around Jesus Christ's accurate word.
It's simple really...everything equates within these electric laws or as Jesus and Almighty God call them, spiritual, righteous laws. Jesus showed us many miracles which are supported by those righteous/spiritual laws whereby restoring health even from death featured strongly...walking on water was an important part and resurrection was also made known to us...all a product of these indestructible electric laws that Jesus taught us about from his very advanced scientific perspective.
Soon we will all get to know why this planet is wobbling and we will then know that unless we have listened to God's righteous word in the accurate way Jesus taught us and responded to it...well...its all in Revelation.
-
You are interpreting it to fit that though - don't you see that?
Are you sure that you and others like you don't do the same, Maeght - be that to do with the Bible, history, scientific findings, ...?
-
Are you sure that you and others like you don't do the same, Maeght - be that to do with the Bible, history, scientific findings, ...?
Of course we all interpret things based on our own way of thinking. NM however has claimed that certain things were clearly written in the Bible and I am just challenging that claim.
-
It is indisputable to me, Maeght, because it answers many scientific points. It doesn't matter that few can understand it...Almighty God teaches it so it's important to him and to those who choose to structure their lives around Jesus Christ's accurate word.
It's simple really...everything equates within these electric laws or as Jesus and Almighty God call them, spiritual, righteous laws. Jesus showed us many miracles which are supported by those righteous/spiritual laws whereby restoring health even from death featured strongly...walking on water was an important part and resurrection was also made known to us...all a product of these indestructible electric laws that Jesus taught us about from his very advanced scientific perspective.
Soon we will all get to know why this planet is wobbling and we will then know that unless we have listened to God's righteous word in the accurate way Jesus taught us and responded to it...well...its all in Revelation.
Yes I know that is what you believe, and that's fine with me. As I said to Hope though you make claims that certain things are obvious or clearly written in th Bible when they aren't and then criticise people who don't see those things. If you just said that you interpret the Bible to be saying XYZ but know that others interpret it differntly then no problem.
Oh, and if you retracted your suggestion that those who don't interpet things as yu do embrace war etc that would be even better.
-
M
Slight diversion BUT....
Would you believe there's STILL some out there that persist in thinking Islam is a peaceful religion that's been wildly misunderstood. And for ALL these centuries too !!!??? ;) :o BOLLOX !!!!!
Groups like IS are only doing EXACTLY what their fake prophet did all those years ago !!! FACT !!!
Nick
-
11...And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12...And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13...And the evening and the morning were the third day.
You are right and I am wrong...I can't find the statement in the exact form that I thought it was...
Well, that must be a first! NM admitting that he's wrong on something! This is quite significant, since the text in question is only the very first chapter of the Bible, on which so much of Nick's later speculations depend.
Nick - I ask you this: if we can't trust you to get the facts right about the very first book of Genesis, why should we trust you on anything else? Do you really think we should go on to trust you as an authority on science?
-
Of course we all interpret things based on our own way of thinking. NM however has claimed that certain things were clearly written in the Bible and I am just challenging that claim.
I appreciate that you are challenging the claim, but I've seen too many instances where the challenge is, in its own right, also based on a false reading/understanding of a passage.
-
Hope, the second twam link you posted above, about finding a collector, is not working.
-
Hope, the second twam link you posted above, about finding a collector, is not working.
Try this - http://www.twam.uk/donate-tools - and scroll to the bottom of the page. I'll amend my signature - thanks
-
Thank you Hope.
-
I appreciate that you are challenging the claim, but I've seen too many instances where the challenge is, in its own right, also based on a false reading/understanding of a passage.
Not by me though I think.
-
Not by me though I think.
Well, in view of your disagreement with the Gospel records, you could be deemed to be doing so, Maeght. However, I'm not one to disallow folk to have their own opinions. I just try to challenge them on their opinions.
-
Well, in view of your disagreement with the Gospel records, you could be deemed to be doing so, Maeght. However, I'm not one to disallow folk to have their own opinions. I just try to challenge them on their opinions.
I haven't put forward my own interpretation - only pointed out that, based on an internet search, most interpretations do not match NM's.
-
Sass
MMM Christian mythology - we could start with your very own Jesus etc. ;)
Jesus was not a myth. So why pretend to ignorant about things which are known to be true?
-
Jesus was not a myth. So why pretend to ignorant about things which are known to be true?
Jesus might have existed, but what was attributed to him is likely to be a myth, and it certainly isn't KNOWN to be true.
-
YES Floo This is what I'm saying.
Apart from Sass, is there ANYONE that believes, notice I said BELIEVES not KNOWS, that all's known of Jesus & that it's ALL literally true?
N
-
Jesus might have existed, but what was attributed to him is likely to be a myth, and it certainly isn't KNOWN to be true.
Unfortunately, Floo, you have never been able to show that the claims of the gospels are untrue: you've cast doubt on them, claimed that they are impossible from a human perspective, etc., but sadly there are a number of things that are impossible from a human perspective yet are still true.
-
Apart from Sass, is there ANYONE that believes, notice I said BELIEVES not KNOWS, that all's known of Jesus & that it's ALL literally true?
Not quite sure what you're asking in the latter half of this sentence - but I'm assuming you're asking whether there is anyone who believes everything that's known about Jesus. OK, what is known about Jesus? Some would say that we know that he lived as a person sometime around 4BC - 30AD - there seems to be a consensus amongst historians to that effect. Some would say that he also died a pretty horrific deasth in about 30AD, crucified on a cross. Again, there seems to be consensus on that.
Its at this point that things become muddied. Did he rise from death? There would seem to have been an understanding, supported by several hundred people's eyewitness accounts, that he did. Some would claim that this was impossible, forgetting that this concept is would have been alien to the authors of the story and therefore not something easily simply created/imagined. There are peple who claim that he traveeled to Kashmir with his wife and children having never actually died.
This very sketchy summary of what is 'known' about him can't be taken as a whole - there are contradictory outcomes.
Nick, could you therefore outline the things that you want people to confirm their belief in/disbelief of? Ta.
-
Unfortunately, Floo, you have never been able to show that the claims of the gospels are untrue ...
That pseudo-argument you're teetering on the brink of right there - I know a term for that ...
sadly there are a number of things that are impossible from a human perspective yet are still true.
Examples?
-
Unfortunately, Floo, you have never been able to show that the claims of the gospels are untrue: you've cast doubt on them, claimed that they are impossible from a human perspective, etc., but sadly there are a number of things that are impossible from a human perspective yet are still true.
Unfortunately Hope you have never been able to show the claims of the gospels are true!
-
Unfortunately Hope you have never been able to show the claims of the gospels are true!
... and since he's the one who claims that they are ...
But let's not be so foolish as to think that Hope is capable of grasping concepts such as the logical fallacy and the burden of proof and so forth.
-
... and since he's the one who claims that they are ...
But let's not be so foolish as to think that Hope is capable of grasping concepts such as the logical fallacy and the burden of proof and so forth.
Of course we mustn't assume that evidence that has been presented by several Christians here as to the validity of the Gospel records can ever be accepted, since that would require us to stop regarding natural law as the sole arbiter of reality.
-
Of course we mustn't assume that evidence that has been presented by several Christians here as to the validity of the Gospel records can ever be accepted, since that would require us to stop regarding natural law as the sole arbiter of reality.
You should be banned from making this repeated claim, despite many requests for this 'evidence'.
Show the evidence and stop saying it has been produced somewhere years ago!
-
Of course we mustn't assume that evidence that has been presented by several Christians here as to the validity of the Gospel records can ever be accepted, since that would require us to stop regarding natural law as the sole arbiter of reality.
If you want to step outside of what you call 'natural law' (I assume by this you mean methodological naturalism) then we're going to need an appropriate methodology from you to be able to regard it as accurate in what it's supposed to do, i.e. we need a means of being able to know that it's something different to just guessing about stuff.
The floor's all yours.
-
If you want to step outside of what you call 'natural law' (I assume by this you mean methodological naturalism) then we're going to need an appropriate methodology from you to be able to regard it as accurate in what it's supposed to do, i.e. we need a means of being able to know that it's something different to just guessing about stuff.
The floor's all yours.
Except that, in order to explain such a methodology, one has to use terminology and ideas that go beyond methodological naturalism, thus going outside the realm of the thinking of those for whom MN is the sole arbiter of truth - so that we come back to the same problem; some of us work on a different level of reality to others.
-
Except that, in order to explain such a methodology, one has to use terminology and ideas that go beyond methodological naturalism, thus going outside the realm of the thinking of those for whom MN is the sole arbiter of truth - so that we come back to the same problem
Indeed we do - what procedure do you have that validates your alleged method and distinguishes it from simply guessing about stuff?
some of us work on a different level of reality to others.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
-
Unfortunately, Floo, you have never been able to show that the claims of the gospels are untrue:
It's not her job to do that. It's your job to show that the fairy stories in the gospels are true.
but sadly there are a number of things that are impossible from a human perspective yet are still true.
What are they?
-
Not quite sure what you're asking in the latter half of this sentence - but I'm assuming you're asking whether there is anyone who believes everything that's known about Jesus. OK, what is known about Jesus? Some would say that we know that he lived as a person sometime around 4BC - 30AD - there seems to be a consensus amongst historians to that effect. Some would say that he also died a pretty horrific deasth in about 30AD, crucified on a cross. Again, there seems to be consensus on that.
But the consensus is only that, given the evidence we have, Jesus is more likely to have existed than not. I doubt if you could find a single serious historian who would claim to know Jesus existed.
Its at this point that things become muddied.
If by "muddied" you mean "not credible" I agree.
Did he rise from death? There would seem to have been an understanding, supported by several hundred people's eyewitness accounts, that he did.
Can you show that several hundred eye witness accounts exist? Can you tell us who the several hundred eye witnesses were and what each of them actually said in their account?
Note that the person who first claimed these several hundred eye witness accounts exist includes his own hallucination amongst them. That's a pretty low bar for an eye witness account.
-
Unfortunately, Floo, you have never been able to show that the claims of the gospels are untrue: you've cast doubt on them, claimed that they are impossible from a human perspective, etc., but sadly there are a number of things that are impossible from a human perspective yet are still true.
In your opinion, but you have no proof of that.
-
Of course we mustn't assume that evidence that has been presented by several Christians here as to the validity of the Gospel records can ever be accepted, since that would require us to stop regarding natural law as the sole arbiter of reality.
We don't have to go down the road of arguing about methodological naturalism - though, as has been pointed out, you have yet to demonstrate any methodology for determining the truth or existence of the supernatural. The Gospels themselves offer many clues about their unreliability as historical records, not least in the huge contradictions they contain. You can of course force yourself to go through any number of verbal contortions to reconcile the irreconcilable, but sometimes the simplest way of getting to grips with certain ancient texts is to accept that some parts of them may contain truth, and other parts are either imaginative fictions or simply downright lies. In the case of the gospels, they may be all downright lies - I certainly don't believe this, but the task is to try and ascertain those bits which may contain nuggets of historical truth.
There is of course the question of moral truth or falsehood that they contain - that is important, but again a matter of debate, not something self-evident for those who claim to have "eyes to see".
-
I believe the fact the arrival of Gods Messiah started up with Christ is a clear proof he existed.
It is also a fact that those without faith are not able to see that which the Christ believer sees.
Instead of denying the truth why not seek the truth.
But therein lies the dilemma. If Christ be the Son of God, you are not interested because you have no love of truth.
-
I believe the fact the arrival of Gods Messiah started up with Christ is a clear proof he existed.
It is also a fact that those without faith are not able to see that which the Christ believer sees.
Instead of denying the truth why not seek the truth.
But therein lies the dilemma. If Christ be the Son of God, you are not interested because you have no love of truth.
NOT A FACT, only a belief for which there is no evidence to support it. The Bible is not evidence
-
But therein lies the dilemma. If Christ be the Son of God, you are not interested because you have no love of truth.
and therein lies yours.
If Christ be not the Son of God, ............... you have no truth.
-
But therein lies the dilemma. If Christ be the Son of God, you are not interested because you have no love of truth.
and therein lies yours.
If Christ be not the Son of God, ............... you have no truth.
Which just goes to show that the Christian faith is falsifiable!!
-
Which just goes to show that the Christian faith is falsifiable!!
No it doesn't, since there is no method that you would use to falsify the statement.
-
Which just goes to show that the Christian faith is falsifiable!!
no, just false!
-
#137
Which just goes to show that the Christian faith is falsifiable!!
No it doesn't, since there is no method that you would use to falsify the statement.
Then you would be wrong.
You, of course are free to come up with whatever method you choose to establish whether or not Jesus is the Son of God.
-
#137
Then you would be wrong.
You, of course are free to come up with whatever method you choose to establish whether or not Jesus is the Son of God.
There are no such methods. If there were, then, then what we call faith would become just another branch of science, subject to objective verification, and all these debates would be history.
-
There are no such methods. If there were, then, then what we call faith would become just another branch of science, subject to objective verification, and all these debates would be history.
And ironically, academic history would not touch such a claim with a barge-pole, as it deals with events, not supernatural stuff, except for stating that some people have those beliefs. But a belief itself is not supernatural.
-
I suppose three methods are available: guessing, the assertatron, and 'I really really feel it'. But they are the same thing.
-
There are no such methods. If there were, then, then what we call faith would become just another branch of science, subject to objective verification, and all these debates would be history.
So every scientific claim is subject to objective verification such that there is no doubt about the conclusion?
-
So every scientific claim is subject to objective verification such that there is no doubt about the conclusion?
ill bet you know of at least one that isn't !
-
#137
Then you would be wrong.
You, of course are free to come up with whatever method you choose to establish whether or not Jesus is the Son of God.
Nope - the claim is yours, so you need to explain the method supporting your claim so that others can critique them (both the claim and the method).
-
So every scientific claim is subject to objective verification such that there is no doubt about the conclusion?
No, and I have not seen any post* here which claims that. As should be well known, scientific Theories are the best information we have at present, they are never 100% proof of anything.
*I might have said as much in my posts, but then I'm so old I shall be mightily surprised if any of the established scientific Theories change before my death. :)
-
So every scientific claim is subject to objective verification such that there is no doubt about the conclusion?
You really don't understand science: any scientific claims are supported by both evidence and the underlying method that provides the content, without at least that then it isn't 'science' and wouldn't get published in peer reviewed journals. Even then, science is always provisional and any claims are subject to review should new evidence, new theories and/or better methods arise.
-
I suppose three methods are available: guessing, the assertatron, and 'I really really feel it'. But they are the same thing.
My next signature, if you don't mind?
-
No, and I have not seen any post* here which claims that. As should be well known, scientific Theories are the best information we have at present, they are never 100% proof of anything.
Which is fair enough SusanDoris, but then there is an inconsistency in that one rule is being applied in science and another for religious belief. Science cannot offer 100% proof, but wants 100% proof from religious belief.
One reason I think the inconsistency exists is because there is an inherent assumption (unintentional or otherwise) that everything can be explained scientifically. Such a hypothesis should be falsifiable. It isn't. It's easy to show from the approaches on this forum how the following applies.
Non-theist position: Burden of proof lies with the theist to demonstrate that a criterion for falsification is valid. Usually followed up with being told why the suggested criterion isn't valid. Result: non-theist position isn't falsifiable.
Theist position: Burden of proof lies with the theist to demonstrate that a criterion for falsification of their faith is valid, and how it can be tested. Usually followed up with being told why the criterion and/or test isn't valid. Result: Claims that the theist position is not falsifiable.
-
Which is fair enough SusanDoris, but then there is an inconsistency in that one rule is being applied in science and another for religious belief. Science cannot offer 100% proof, but wants 100% proof from religious belief.
I haven't that noticed that.
By and large non-theists tend to claim 'where is the evidence', rather than 'I'm not going to believe this without 100% incontrovertible certainty'. Non-theists tend to disavow 100% certainty anyway in principle in all things, recognising that this is a foundational virtue in scientific enquiry. No, rather than certainty, we ask where is the balance of evidence pointing, and the problem with theist beliefs is that there isn't any to go on. All you have is faith supported at best perhaps by a few arcane philosophical arguments like Kalam.
-
Which is fair enough SusanDoris, but then there is an inconsistency in that one rule is being applied in science and another for religious belief. Science cannot offer 100% proof, but wants 100% proof from religious belief.
No they don't, as they know that it would be an incorrect question. They would however like one fact, one observation which, if independently and objectively repeated could form the basis for a hypothesis. Religions cannot come up with even one fact, let alone one fact resulting from an observation so there is no basis for anything further to be done.
-
Science requires more faith than belief in Jesus Christ. :D
-
Science requires more faith than belief in Jesus Christ. :D
Garbage! ::)
-
#137
Then you would be wrong.
You, of course are free to come up with whatever method you choose to establish whether or not Jesus is the Son of God.
You need a method to establish what the bloody phrase 'Son of God' means to start with.
-
#137
Then you would be wrong.
You, of course are free to come up with whatever method you choose to establish whether or not Jesus is the Son of God.
Nope, that would be your job because it it is your claim.
-
Nope, that would be your job because it it is your claim.
If any of this lot understood the concept of the burden of proof we wouldn't have the negative proof fallacy all over the forum like the white on rice, although I like rice (though logical fallacies especially when repeated ad nauseam by the uneducable are a colossal arse-ache in the extreme).
-
If any of this lot understood the concept of the burden of proof we wouldn't have the negative proof fallacy all over the forum like the white on rice, although I like rice (though logical fallacies especially when repeated ad nauseam by the uneducable are a colossal arse-ache in the extreme).
Its a major problem on here and elsewhere , its a simple concept but strangely difficult for many to accommodate.
I think I may have reached a point where continuing to post on here is likely to affect my sanity very soon .
Its the same thing every day!
-
.......... They would however like one fact, one observation which, if independently and objectively repeated could form the basis for a hypothesis. Religions cannot come up with even one fact, let alone one fact resulting from an observation so there is no basis for anything further to be done.
Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for the above post.
Christians believe in God because of the goodness and miracles of Jesus described in four gospels. Of course these are human works which need to be read in accordance with rules of forensic presentations (4th gospel) and historical enquiry (reading the four in conjunction). Not everything is properly attested, but the goodness and miracles are. This is the primary empirical evidence for God - the primary 'one fact' you are seeking
Your requirement for 'objectively repeated' observations cannot be applied to historical empirical evidence. But then, 'objectively repeated' observations are not considered essential for verdicts in murder trials, commercial litigation or historical research. So why change the rules in the case of Jesus alone.
That is the primary empirical evidence, but the existence of Science itself and the viability of your 'objectively repeated' observations also point to an understandable Universe permeated by an intelligent force acting through mathematical equations.
If mathematics is not an objective abstract reality existing independently of the human mind (true at the beginning of time as well as now), then science would have no reliable basis or certainty. The independent existence of maths shows beyond doubt that there is more to the Universe than just the particles and four forces known to science.
God bless
-
Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for the above post.
Christians believe in God because of the goodness and miracles of Jesus described in four gospels.
The world's biggest exercise in question-begging, in other words.
That is the primary empirical evidence, but the existence of Science itself and the viability of your 'objectively repeated' observations also point to an understandable Universe permeated by an intelligent force acting through mathematical equations.
"Understandable universe"?
I can only assume you've never heard of quantum mechanics. I think the same of every person who spouts the slogan that the universe is a comprehensible, knowable place.
It isn't.
Your idea of mathematics as an externally and objectively, eternally true realm of eternal Platonic truth is held by many mathematicians (e.g. Roger Penrose).
Unfortunately for you, "many" does not equal "all" - there are plenty of mathematicians and/or mathematical physicists who take the opposite view that mathematics is a human construct, i.e. something that human brains make and impose upon the cosmos (e.g. Michael Rowan-Robinson).
In short, opinion.
-
I haven't that noticed that.
By and large non-theists tend to claim 'where is the evidence', rather than 'I'm not going to believe this without 100% incontrovertible certainty'. Non-theists tend to disavow 100% certainty anyway in principle in all things, recognising that this is a foundational virtue in scientific enquiry. No, rather than certainty, we ask where is the balance of evidence pointing, and the problem with theist beliefs is that there isn't any to go on. All you have is faith supported at best perhaps by a few arcane philosophical arguments like Kalam.
And yet we have at least three enforcers of dogmatic agnosticism among non theists. Russell and Dawkins who hold very much a don't go there approach to questions on the origin of the universe...although I understand Dawkins bent his objection to advocate someones theory about a Darwinian multiverse and Krauss who IMHO attempts to shut down any investigation on origins or otherwise about the universe with his statements on nothingness.
You are doing it again, Cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments are not arcane or limited to Kalam as you seemingly keep trying to churn up.....but then I suppose it's a short cut to Lane Craig who is apparently in your circles some kind of Panto villain.
I also wondered if you noticed you and others are comparing methodological materialism (science) with cosmological argument. That is a category buggerization of monumental proportions since one is a philosophy and the other is,er, a method.
That in a nutshell is the house of cards on which the antitheist residency on this forum rests on
-
Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for the above post.
Christians believe in God because of the goodness and miracles of Jesus described in four gospels. Of course these are human works which need to be read in accordance with rules of forensic presentations (4th gospel) and historical enquiry (reading the four in conjunction). Not everything is properly attested, but the goodness and miracles are. This is the primary empirical evidence for God - the primary 'one fact' you are seeking
Your requirement for 'objectively repeated' observations cannot be applied to historical empirical evidence. But then, 'objectively repeated' observations are not considered essential for verdicts in murder trials, commercial litigation or historical research. So why change the rules in the case of Jesus alone.
That is the primary empirical evidence, but the existence of Science itself and the viability of your 'objectively repeated' observations also point to an understandable Universe permeated by an intelligent force acting through mathematical equations.
If mathematics is not an objective abstract reality existing independently of the human mind (true at the beginning of time as well as now), then science would have no reliable basis or certainty. The independent existence of maths shows beyond doubt that there is more to the Universe than just the particles and four forces known to science.
God bless
do you also write speeches for Deepak Chopra?
Introducing scientific terms into what is mainly nonsense does not make it more credible. And using the bible as verification of its own evidence is ridiculous.
As for the universe being understandable, please explain quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment findings (but don't look)
-
E T m
ill tell you what I rest on , EVIDENCE.
All you have is wishing, n hoping, n praying. are you not ashamed and embarrassed to keep repeating the same old tut in the vain hope that if you say it often enough I might start to believe you. Its not going to happen.
Produce your evidence and ill change my mind immediately .
happy new year .
-
Shaker and Walter
Thank you for responding to #158! I have just read it, and it all comes from a make-believe world, doesn't it? There must be few humans who do not know what it is to spend moments imagining a fantasy world, a place where the 'what ifs' might be realised, but the only way life can really be lived and experienced is with a clear, unblinkered knowledge of reality. - in my strongly held opinion, anyway!
-
Shaker and Walter
Thank you for responding to #158! I have just read it, and it all comes from a make-believe world, doesn't it? There must be few humans who do not know what it is to spend moments imagining a fantasy world, a place where the 'what ifs' might be realised, but the only way life can really be lived and experienced is with a clear, unblinkered knowledge of reality. - in my strongly held opinion, anyway!
SusanDoris
you are very welcome ,
happy new year
-
Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for the above post.
Christians believe in God because of the goodness and miracles of Jesus described in four gospels. Of course these are human works which need to be read in accordance with rules of forensic presentations (4th gospel) and historical enquiry (reading the four in conjunction). Not everything is properly attested, but the goodness and miracles are. This is the primary empirical evidence for God - the primary 'one fact' you are seeking
This is just a mix of fallacies: special pleading, reification and authority being the most obvious.
Your requirement for 'objectively repeated' observations cannot be applied to historical empirical evidence. But then, 'objectively repeated' observations are not considered essential for verdicts in murder trials, commercial litigation or historical research. So why change the rules in the case of Jesus alone.
I think you'll find that both legal processes and academic historians would just disregard these anecdotal accounts of both Jesus and claimed miracles.
That is the primary empirical evidence, but the existence of Science itself and the viability of your 'objectively repeated' observations also point to an understandable Universe permeated by an intelligent force acting through mathematical equations.
If mathematics is not an objective abstract reality existing independently of the human mind (true at the beginning of time as well as now), then science would have no reliable basis or certainty. The independent existence of maths shows beyond doubt that there is more to the Universe than just the particles and four forces known to science.
God bless
Which is an argument from personal incredulity.
-
This is just a mix of fallacies: special pleading, reification and authority being the most obvious.
I think you'll find that both legal processes and academic historians would just disregard these anecdotal accounts of both Jesus and claimed miracles.
Which is an argument from personal incredulity.
Gordon
you have far more patience than I, well said.
-
The Winter's Tale by William Vladspeare
Torridon: (Representing a febrile scientism) ''Science doesn't deal with 100% certainty.
Walter: (representing antitheist Alf Garnettism) Alright theists where's your proof?
Torridon:( as an aside) Oh dear.....I hope Walter hasn't noticed what I just said?
Vlad: Don't worry... would he let on even if he did?
-
The Winter's Tale by William Vladspeare
Torridon: (Representing a febrile scientism) ''Science doesn't deal with 100% certainty.
Walter: (representing antitheist Alf Garnettism) Alright theists where's your proof?
Torridon:( as an aside) Oh dear.....I hope Walter hasn't noticed what I just said?
Vlad: Don't worry...He wouldn't let on even if he did.
Encore
-
The Winter's Tale by William Vladspeare
Torridon: (Representing a febrile scientism) ''Science doesn't deal with 100% certainty.
Walter: (representing antitheist Alf Garnettism) Alright theists where's your proof?
Torridon:( as an aside) Oh dear.....I hope Walter hasn't noticed what I just said?
Vlad: Don't worry... would he let on even if he did?
[/quote
Y'know, this is better than that stuff from the Brummie bard........
-
Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for the above post.
Christians believe in God because of the goodness and miracles of Jesus described in four gospels. Of course these are human works which need to be read in accordance with rules of forensic presentations (4th gospel) and historical enquiry (reading the four in conjunction). Not everything is properly attested, but the goodness and miracles are. This is the primary empirical evidence for God - the primary 'one fact' you are seeking
Your requirement for 'objectively repeated' observations cannot be applied to historical empirical evidence. But then, 'objectively repeated' observations are not considered essential for verdicts in murder trials, commercial litigation or historical research. So why change the rules in the case of Jesus alone.
That is the primary empirical evidence, but the existence of Science itself and the viability of your 'objectively repeated' observations also point to an understandable Universe permeated by an intelligent force acting through mathematical equations.
If mathematics is not an objective abstract reality existing independently of the human mind (true at the beginning of time as well as now), then science would have no reliable basis or certainty. The independent existence of maths shows beyond doubt that there is more to the Universe than just the particles and four forces known to science.
God bless
Christians might believe in the goodness of Jesus. No problem with that. However I am at a loss as to why this should mean that he was God/son of God.
Christians believe in the miracles of Jesus as set forth in the gospels. They could be, of course, just as they could also be exaggerated anecdotal stories, or misinterpreted stories of a person with the qualities of a Derren Brown.
Hence I would say that neither of these qualities are 'primary empirical evidence for God'.
Obviously the claim that Jesus was God/son of God, based upon the gospels cannot fulfill a scientific requirement for 'objectively' repeated observations because it is based upon historical documents which can't be falsified. However the paucity of other evidence from that period, and taking into account the anecdotal evidence of others of that period who were committed to the idea that Jesus was God/the son of God, I think that it would be highly unlikely that a jury would be able to come to a decision that Jesus was God/the son of God.
So, in my opinion your 'primary empirical evidence' fails abysmally.
Your statement then follows that science points to an 'understandable Universe permeated by an intelligent force acting through mathematical equations.' Science suggests that we do have some understanding of our universe, but there are many questions for which we have no answer as yet. We seek to understand our universe with the aid of mathematics, true, but we also seek to verify our findings by experimentation and observation, with the understanding that ideas may be modified or rejected. In other words science says only that our understanding is provisional. As to the idea that science points to an intelligent force, it would depend on what you mean by intelligent. If you mean that this force is a conscious force then I would have to take issue with you. I would suggest that science has nothing to suggest that such a force exists. If by 'intelligent force' you mean that certain fixed laws of physics apply to our universe, then I would wonder why you would call them 'intelligent', which suggests, at the very least, some sort of mind(which doesn't have to be conscious) actually running things. You can believe it if you want, but science has nothing of importance to say on the matter.
Finally I don't see mathematics in your terms whatsoever. If there is a tree on top of a rock, by using language I can make the position of the tree in relation to the rock have a certain clarity to myself and others. I can then extend this idea of relative position to all sorts of other things. However If I have no language that doesn't make any difference to the tree or the rock's relative position at all.
I rather see mathematics as a language(albeit a complicated one) that we use to make the workings of the universe become, to some extent, accessible to human beings. In many ways it describes what is going on, rather than is the reason for it. I am of course open to other explanations.
So my feeling is that you haven't answered Susan's challenge in any way.
Happy New Year.
-
What a magnificent post.
-
........ As to the idea that science points to an intelligent force, it would depend on what you mean by intelligent. If you mean that this force is a conscious force then I would have to take issue with you. I would suggest that science has nothing to suggest that such a force exists. If by 'intelligent force' you mean that certain fixed laws of physics apply to our universe, then I would wonder why you would call them 'intelligent', which suggests, at the very least, some sort of mind(which doesn't have to be conscious) actually running things. You can believe it if you want, but science has nothing of importance to say on the matter.
............
Thus, you are making science a god. In your view, if science has nothing of importance to say on the matter, the idea might as well be chucked out. Science only deals with the objective and material and until the subjective and immaterial can be taken on board the complete picture cannot be whole.
-
If by 'intelligent force' you mean that certain fixed laws of physics apply to our universe, then I would wonder why you would call them 'intelligent', which suggests,
I think you misunderstand here. Christians do not say that the laws individually or collectively are intelligent rather than the idea that where there is law there is a lawgiver.
-
Christians believe in God because of the goodness and miracles of Jesus described in four gospels. Of course these are human works which need to be read in accordance with rules of forensic presentations (4th gospel) and historical enquiry (reading the four in conjunction). Not everything is properly attested, but the goodness and miracles are. This is the primary empirical evidence for God - the primary 'one fact' you are seeking
The miracles are reported in the Bible as having happened but this does not make them facts.
-
Thus, you are making science a god. In your view, if science has nothing of importance to say on the matter, the idea might as well be chucked out. Science only deals with the objective and material and until the subjective and immaterial can be taken on board the complete picture cannot be whole.
its not that the idea is chucked out , as you put it , it only exists in the minds of the wishful thinker and is therefore ignored as such .
-
Thus, you are making science a god.
Straw man.
In your view, if science has nothing of importance to say on the matter, the idea might as well be chucked out.
Another straw man.
Science only deals with the objective and material and until the subjective and immaterial can be taken on board the complete picture cannot be whole.
Assuming you mean claims of the non-natural, these claims can't be 'taken on board' until such times as the claimants (such as yourself) come up with a suitable method whereby these claims can be critically evaluated. Perhaps you can deliver here where others have failed, largely by either ignoring the problem or resorting to fallacies.
-
Thus, you are making science a god. In your view, if science has nothing of importance to say on the matter, the idea might as well be chucked out. Science only deals with the objective and material and until the subjective and immaterial can be taken on board the complete picture cannot be whole.
Don't be silly. I am always open to any other views, as long as they are backed by some sort of verifiable evidence. If you wish to say that your approach(the subjective and the immaterial) is so important, then my subjective ideas and my approach to the immaterial (which I would probably suggest are a world away from yours) are just as important and valid as yours, or, indeed, anybody else's. Where does that get us? I suggest nowhere.
-
Thus, you are making science a god.
No - nothing is a god.
Science however can be a gatekeeper.
-
Thus, you are making science a god.
Science is a useful reality, not a mythical entity like a god.
-
I think you misunderstand here. Christians do not say that the laws individually or collectively are intelligent rather than the idea that where there is law there is a lawgiver.
I think that you misunderstand. I was replying to one particular Christian poster who was responding to Susan in order to show that he/she was showing 'primary empirical evidence for God '. My arguments were based solely upon the explanations given in that response.
The idea of a lawgiver can well be true when associated with the workings of society but in science it simply suggests causal relationships of observed phenomena. They are descriptions of widely accepted unifying concepts, they are not concerned with the idea of a lawgiver at all.
-
Science only deals with the objective and material and until the subjective and immaterial can be taken on board the complete picture cannot be whole.
#thumbsup
Except now you'll be told that you have to demonstrate that there is such a thing as the subjective and immaterial, which only serves to illustrate at least two things.
1. The worldview for the methodology used is not falsifiable.
2. The methodology is being misused by being applied to things outside of its domain, a bit like trying to play Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March No.1 in the style of a Viennese Waltz.
-
#thumbsup
Except now you'll be told that you have to demonstrate that there is such a thing as the subjective and immaterial, which only serves to illustrate at least two things.
1. The worldview for the methodology used is not falsifiable.
2. The methodology is being misused by being applied to things outside of its domain, a bit like trying to play Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March No.1 in the style of a Viennese Waltz.
What 'worldview'? Which methodology?
-
What 'worldview'?
The one which assumes natural causes and explanations for the evidence or any phenomenon.
Which methodology?
Those that seek to come up with an explanation by analysis of evidence.
-
The one which assumes natural causes and explanations for the evidence or any phenomenon.
Those that seek to come up with an explanation by analysis of evidence.
which is why you need a methodology to back up your claims. I am willing to listen. No one has said that such a methodology cannot exist. You have just failed to provide one. So once again ball is in your court, and kindly don't fall back in the shifting the burden of proof.
-
which is why you need a methodology to back up your claims. I am willing to listen. No one has said that such a methodology cannot exist. You have just failed to provide one. So once again ball is in your court, and kindly don't fall back in the shifting the burden of proof.
Which you perhaps unwittingly have done by failing to state how a worldview that assumes natural causes/explanations is falsifiable, the point I made to SweetPea in #181 in anticipating objections to her #172
The net result is that there is no way to provide you with what you want because the only options are
1. Known natural explanation
2. Unknown natural explanation (how many times have you seen the terminology argument from incredulity used round here?)
-
Which you perhaps unwittingly have done by failing to state how a worldview that assumes natural causes/explanations is falsifiable, the point I made to SweetPea in #181 in anticipating objections to her #172
Which is a straw man, and a flagrant misrepresentation.
The net result is that there is no way to provide you with what you want because the only options are
1. Known natural explanation
2. Unknown natural explanation (how many times have you seen the terminology argument from incredulity used round here?)
Lots, and still you keep the fallacies coming.
-
which is why you need a methodology to back up your claims. I am willing to listen. No one has said that such a methodology cannot exist. You have just failed to provide one. So once again ball is in your court, and kindly don't fall back in the shifting the burden of proof.
NS, a tad rich coming from someone for whom shifting the burden of proof sometimes comes pretty easily.
More importantly though, it can be difficult to provide a methodology when the issue under debate transcends mere material naturalism, which so many of the members here seem to place all their trust in.
-
Which you perhaps unwittingly have done by failing to state how a worldview that assumes natural causes/explanations is falsifiable, the point I made to SweetPea in #181 in anticipating objections to her #172
The net result is that there is no way to provide you with what you want because the only options are
1. Known natural explanation
2. Unknown natural explanation (how many times have you seen the terminology argument from incredulity used round here?)
I did ask you to not do the switching the burden if proof routine, but you couldn't resist, could you?
Let's take this slowly. You (and Sweetpea) make claims about things not being natural. I am not making any claims about things being natural. You have the burden of proof and need some way to show me that your claims have any validity.
-
NS, a tad rich coming from someone for whom shifting the burden of proof sometimes comes pretty easily.
More importantly though, it can be difficult to provide a methodology when the issue under debate transcends mere material naturalism, which so many of the members here seem to place all their trust in.
When have I tried to switch the burden of proof? Citation? (BTW the way will I have to wait for it like your claim elsewhere that the WHO had announced the eradication of leprosy?)
And your evasion of any attempt to provide a methodology is shockingly obvious.
-
NS, a tad rich coming from someone for whom shifting the burden of proof sometimes comes pretty easily.
Which reminds me there is a thread still awaiting your clarification re.leprosy.
More importantly though, it can be difficult to provide a methodology when the issue under debate transcends mere material naturalism, which so many of the members here seem to place all their trust in.
You've yet to provide us with an alternative though: god knows you've been asked often enough.
-
NS, a tad rich coming from someone for whom shifting the burden of proof sometimes comes pretty easily.
More importantly though, it can be difficult to provide a methodology when the issue under debate transcends mere material naturalism, which so many of the members here seem to place all their trust in.
Dodge, dodge, duck, dive, bob and weave.
-
#189
More importantly though, it can be difficult to provide a methodology when the issue under debate transcends mere material naturalism, which so many of the members here seem to place all their trust in.
...And your evasion of any attempt to provide a methodology is shockingly obvious.
You've yet to provide us with an alternative though: god knows you've been asked often enough.
The charge against Hope is incorrect. Here was an attempt by him to address the issue:
'Cold-Case Christianity' (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.0)
And in terms of the wider charge against those of religious belief failing to find any method, here's 42 pages of a thread to illustrate what happens when they do.
AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12806.0)
So, for the last time this year:
1. A worldview that assumes natural causes and explanations cannot be used to evaluate any claims / submission of evidence for anything that doesn't have a natural cause / explanation.
2. Those that are going to examine any claims / submission of evidence need to know for themselves what they would consider as evidence or what methodology they would use to test any claims. This would not be an issue if their worldview was falsifiable, by their own scientific standards, as they would already have some idea.
The problem that exists currently is that the worldview and methodologies used assume natural causes / explanations, so guess what the conclusion is going to be?
- Evidence: Known or unknown natural cause. Suggesting a non-natural cause is an argument from incredulity / God of the gaps
- Cause: The explanation given in support of a non-natural cause is fallacious.
Happy New Year to all.
-
#189
The charge against Hope is incorrect. Here was an attempt by him to address the issue:
'Cold-Case Christianity' (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.0)
And in terms of the wider charge against those of religious belief failing to find any method, here's 42 pages of a thread to illustrate what happens when they do.
AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12806.0)
So, for the last time this year:
1. A worldview that assumes natural causes and explanations cannot be used to evaluate any claims / submission of evidence for anything that doesn't have a natural cause / explanation.
2. Those that are going to examine any claims / submission of evidence need to know for themselves what they would consider as evidence or what methodology they would use to test any claims. This would not be an issue if their worldview was falsifiable, by their own scientific standards, as they would already have some idea.
The problem that exists currently is that the worldview and methodologies used assume natural causes / explanations, so guess what the conclusion is going to be?
- Evidence: Known or unknown natural cause. Suggesting a non-natural cause is an argument from incredulity / God of the gaps
- Cause: The explanation given in support of a non-natural cause is fallacious.
Happy New Year to all.
And none of that actually has a methodology. It has a lot of repetiton saying induction but no worked example. Ooh and by the way, stop lying about people's worldviews. I pointed out you were wrong about my worldview and position earlier. Kindly retract your lie.
Oh and in addition your first numbers point is a complete misrepresentation of all of those peopke who have asked for a methododoligy for your claims. Why lie so often?
-
#189
The charge against Hope is incorrect. Here was an attempt by him to address the issue:
'Cold-Case Christianity' (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.0)
Try reading my #4 that followed: this attempt by Hope was derisory (and that is being kind).
1. A worldview that assumes natural causes and explanations cannot be used to evaluate any claims / submission of evidence for anything that doesn't have a natural cause / explanation.
So you assert - thing is, your assertion is a straw man since none of us nasty atheists are that naive.
2. Those that are going to examine any claims / submission of evidence need to know for themselves what they would consider as evidence or what methodology they would use to test any claims. This would not be an issue if their worldview was falsifiable, by their own scientific standards, as they would already have some idea.
Utter nonsense: but you've been told this before when you first tried this argument.
The problem that exists currently is that the worldview and methodologies used assume natural causes / explanations, so guess what the conclusion is going to be?
- Evidence: Known or unknown natural cause. Suggesting a non-natural cause is an argument from incredulity / God of the gaps
- Cause: The explanation given in support of a non-natural cause is fallacious.
Methodological naturalism is the only game in town at present but you're perfectly free to propose and detail a credible alternative. Instead though your arguments are exposed as being fallacious, and moreover they wander through the whole gamut of the most commonly used fallacies.
By the way without this other method 'non-natural cause' is no more than an oxymoron being used within fallacious arguments.
-
Regarding evidence, with Paul on this one.
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
17For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,fn just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Pray that God would bring people to their knees this side of eternity 😯 Happy New Year.
-
Methodological naturalism is the only game in town at present
Unfortunately for you on a different playing field from the one your trying to play on.
-
A Happy New Year to ALL here !!!!!
It's just after 9pm here in north east Lancashire ie Nelson near Burnley & have already heard fireworks ?!!?!??
Nick XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
-
A Happy New Year to ALL here !!!!!
It's just after 9pm here in north east Lancashire ie Nelson near Burnley & have already heard fireworks ?!!?!??
Nick XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I know that area very well, are you sure its fireworks? ;)
-
1. A worldview that assumes natural causes and explanations cannot be used to evaluate any claims / submission of evidence for anything that doesn't have a natural cause / explanation.
Monumental question-begging (in the true sense of that phrase)/circular non-reasoning at its finest.
We're trying to establish if there's such a thing as anything that doesn't have a natural cause or explanation. This is not achieved by simply assuming - as you have here - that there already is such a thing but is out of reach.
You will call this a prior commitment to naturalism. You would be absolutely correct. My prior commitment to naturalism is based partly on my own experience of the world (the world has always and in every case - with no exceptions at all in any way whatever - been a material world of matter and energy) and partly on its prior success in explaining and understanding the world. Your commitment to supernaturalism is based as far as I can see on no more than emotional need that there ought to be such a thing.
-
Pray that God would bring people to their knees this side of eternity 😯 Happy New Year.
No thanks. I like standing up on my two feet, like a man.
-
I know that area very well, are you sure its fireworks? ;)
OOOHHH Beeeecchhhhh.
May I ask where you know the area from?
Nick
-
A Happy New Year to ALL here !!!!!
It's just after 9pm here in north east Lancashire ie Nelson near Burnley & have already heard fireworks ?!!?!??
Nick XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Don't they still wear flared trousers up there?
-
Monumental question-begging (in the true sense of that phrase)/circular non-reasoning at its finest.
We're trying to establish if there's such a thing as anything that doesn't have a natural cause or explanation. This is not achieved by simply assuming - as you have here - that there already is such a thing but is out of reach.
You will call this a prior commitment to naturalism. You would be absolutely correct. My prior commitment to naturalism is based partly on my own experience of the world (the world has always and in every case - with no exceptions at all in any way whatever - been a material world of matter and energy) and partly on its prior success in explaining and understanding the world. Your commitment to supernaturalism is based as far as I can see on no more than emotional need that there ought to be such a thing.
Mind you a naturalistic universe has to have at least one supernatural feature. That's the family secret though.
-
Mind you a naturalistic universe has to have at least one supernatural feature. That's the family secret though.
Mind you, the supernatural is ill defined pish but Vlad will just lie about that openly.
-
Mind you, the supernatural is ill defined pish but Vlad will just lie about that openly.
Definitions from Wikipedia Sane, Definitions from Wikipedia.
-
Definitions from Wikipedia Sane, Definitions from Wikipedia.
How does that mean they aren't ill defined pish on Wikipedia?
-
How does that mean they aren't ill defined pish on Wikipedia?
I think you are confusing Wikipedia with Rational Wiki.
-
I think you are confusing Wikipedia with Rational Wiki.
You struggle in this sort of stuff, don't you. It's the whole negative proof thing. Citing something as being on any wiki does not make it correct and us open to challenge. You sat ng something is on wikipedia doesn't mean that it is right, and worse in this case doesn't even take into consideration about whether something makes any logical sense. After all, you could've been editing Wikipedia and, given your propensity for lying, that's hardly a recommendation.
-
Regarding evidence, with Paul on this one.
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
17For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,fn just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Pray that God would bring people to their knees this side of eternity 😯 Happy New Year.
So thank you for not arguing about evidence but just randomly saying anyone who disagrees with you must be lying.
-
You struggle in this sort of stuff, don't you. It's the whole negative proof thing. Citing something as being on any wiki does not make it correct and us open to challenge. You sat ng something is on wikipedia doesn't mean that it is right, and worse in this case doesn't even take into consideration about whether something makes any logical sense. After all, you could've been editing Wikipedia and, given your propensity for lying, that's hardly a recommendation.
Oh dear.
-
Oh dear.
argument beyond you now, darling?
-
Mind you a naturalistic universe has to have at least one supernatural feature.
Does it?
Why?
-
What a magnificent post.
It certainly is. Apart from a short time yesterday morning, I kept getting 'This page can't be displayed' on IE, so it is an excellent start to the new year to read the above posts.
-
No thanks. I like standing up on my two feet, like a man.
If ever a god turned up and I met him/her/it, I'd talk i to him/her/it on equal terms, as I presume that is what he/she/it would wish! :D
-
If ever a god turned up and I met him/her/it, I'd talk i to him/her/it on equal terms, as I presume that is what he/she/it would wish! :D
What do you mean by 'equal terms'? Looking like a human being - which YOU won't anyway, most likely.??
-
If ever a god turned up and I met him/her/it, I'd talk i to him/her/it on equal terms, as I presume that is what he/she/it would wish! :D
I would not feel myself in any way of less or more worth as a being. I would give due respect to qualities learned or gained and praiseworthy achievements and would expect an equal respect in return. Difficult to say really, but I would not bow down to or humble myself before said being nor would I act in any way to indicate that I felt superior to him/her/it.
-
So you DO feel superior - may I ask how & why?
Nick
-
So you DO feel superior - may I ask how & why?
Nick
Well, I don't know how you gathered that from my post; the whole point of it was to make it clear that I do not feel superior or inferior to anyone as a human being.
-
OOOHHH Beeeecchhhhh.
May I ask where you know the area from?
Nick
You may,
I made a living from the good people of Nelson and the surrounding towns for many years while working in the financial industry.
-
You may,
I made a living from the good people of Nelson and the surrounding towns for many years while working in the financial industry.
What? In one of those security vans collecting the daily takings from supermarkets etc?
ippy
-
What? In one of those security vans collecting the daily takings from supermarkets etc?
ippy
yeah, something like that! ???
-
You need a method to establish what the bloody phrase 'Son of God' means to start with.
Actually, Dicky,
You need to know the OT and the teachings..
Luke 3:38 Adam was the Son of God. In that his Father was God no earthly Father but he was created in Gods image. He was without sin originally..
Jesus Christ is the Son of God because like Adam he had no earthly Father but was created by the word and power of God. The word became flesh.
As Christ shows a Son does as his Father does. Hence stones could be turned into descendants of Abraham because Sons do as their father does. Abraham's descendants were not doing as Abraham did.
Job 38:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
The angels like God do not sin they are his sons because they do the will of God.
As Christ did the will of God. Adam chose to disobey God.
Jesus said: 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Jesus being the Son of God meant he did as his Father did. He came to do his Fathers will not his own. A change to Adam who followed his own will and not the will of God.
-
p
I can only assume you've never heard of quantum mechanics. I think the same of every person who spouts the slogan that the universe is a comprehensible, knowable place.
It isn't
Hi Shaker,
Thanks for the above post.
Of course most people on this board will have heard of Quantum Mechanics (and Schrödinger's Cat). Hopefully, they have also heard of its probabilistic nature, and its reducability to mathematical equations (due to discoveries from Heisenberg, Dirac etc).
So, contrary to what you say above, QM is 'comprehensible' to beings of sufficient intelligence, although not in accordance with the ideas of 'classical' physics for larger bodies. We need intelligence to be happy with the QM mathematical equations and probabilities, which point to a mathematical intelligence underlying the Universe.
If we do not accept the 'comprehensibility' of QM (and the mathematical nature of the Universe), how then do we account for the successes at CERN in confirming the Higgs boson and field? The mathematical equations of the Standard Model of Partical Physics identified these 40 years before the physical measurements could be done.
God bless
-
As for the universe being understandable, please explain quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment findings (but don't look)
Hi Walter,
Thanks for the above post.
Both may be expressed mathematically.
Anything convertible into mathematical equations becomes 'understandable' in scientific terms. This means 'intelligible' rather than 'user-friendly'. Nothing in Quantum Mechanics is 'user-friendly' but everything is convertible into mathematical equations. That is the essence of modern physics.
Science cannot progress unless scientists believe that current mysteries can each be resolved eventually by their efforts. In the case of physics, this will be by abstract mathematical equations initially, to be followed by verification from experimental measurement (same sequence as worked for the Higgs field).
Modern physics is so dependent on maths, that it is impossible to even discuss much of its current work in any other terms. If the current differences between QM and classical gravity is eventually resolved (a Theory of Everything), it will be in mathematical terms because cause and effect can no longer be discussed in any other way.
If abstract maths is not an objective reality (independent of the human mind), then QM is meaningless, but if it is an objective reality, then it is an intelligent abstract force permeating and controlling the Universe (ie the Logos of Christianity).
God bless
-
Hi Walter,
Thanks for the above post.
Both may be expressed mathematically.
Anything convertible into mathematical equations becomes 'understandable' in scientific terms. This means 'intelligible' rather than 'user-friendly'. Nothing in Quantum Mechanics is 'user-friendly' but everything is convertible into mathematical equations. That is the essence of modern physics.
Science cannot progress unless scientists believe that current mysteries can each be resolved eventually by their efforts. In the case of physics, this will be by abstract mathematical equations initially, to be followed by verification from experimental measurement (same sequence as worked for the Higgs field).
Modern physics is so dependent on maths, that it is impossible to even discuss much of its current work in any other terms. If the current differences between QM and classical gravity is eventually resolved (a Theory of Everything), it will be in mathematical terms because cause and effect can no longer be discussed in any other way.
If abstract maths is not an objective reality (independent of the human mind), then QM is meaningless, but if it is an objective reality, then it is an intelligent abstract force permeating and controlling the Universe (ie the Logus of Christianity).
God bless
well, its a reply.
but its nothing more than waffle and confusion and makes no sense.
Once again you've used some scientific terms hoping it will create an appearance of understanding. Its as though you pulled them blindly out of a bag and tried to fit them into a sentence and arriving at Christianity as the answer to everything.
Very strange .
god less.
-
If abstract maths is not an objective reality (independent of the human mind), then QM is meaningless, but if it is an objective reality, then it is an intelligent abstract force permeating and controlling the Universe (ie the Logus of Christianity).
Perhaps it is better to think of 'abstract maths' as being a language we have invented to describe what is 'out there'. Stuff exists, we we need to develop ways of describing the numerical aspects of said stuff, hence maths. Maths is something we invent in order to describe stuff that we discover.
-
well, its a reply.
but its nothing more than waffle and confusion and makes no sense.
Once again you've used some scientific terms hoping it will create an appearance of understanding. Its as though you pulled them blindly out of a bag and tried to fit them into a sentence and arriving at Christianity as the answer to everything.
Very strange .
god less.
Okay walter explain how you reached the above conclusion. To me it suggests you deliberately ignored what was actually being said. Show us your answer using Quantum Mechanic/physics and theory. Because Quantum Mechanics is basically all three.
Then show us how God would become all three.
-
Perhaps it is better to think of 'abstract maths' as being a language we have invented to describe what is 'out there'. Stuff exists, we we need to develop ways of describing the numerical aspects of said stuff, hence maths. Maths is something we invent in order to describe stuff that we discover.
Except maths is perfectly capable of describing stuff that doesn't exist as well,
4unicorns + 3unicorns = 7unicorns
is a perfectly valid mathematically, but it tells you absolutely nothing about whether unicorns exist.
(Incidentally, it's far more often the case that pure mathematics has been used and understood well before any application to the real world is even contemplated. I.E. its usually the case that the (mathematical) language is invented and then its found it describes something.)
-
Okay walter explain how you reached the above conclusion. To me it suggests you deliberately ignored what was actually being said. Show us your answer using Quantum Mechanic/physics and theory. Because Quantum Mechanics is basically all three.
Then show us how God would become all three.
Sassy,
as someone who has no understanding of basic physics or even that humans have stood on the moon , it would be a complete waste of time . Therefore I will not be explaining it to you, sorry.
-
Your idea of mathematics as an externally and objectively, eternally true realm of eternal Platonic truth is held by many mathematicians (e.g. Roger Penrose).
Unfortunately for you, "many" does not equal "all" - there are plenty of mathematicians and/or mathematical physicists who take the opposite view that mathematics is a human construct, i.e. something that human brains make and impose upon the cosmos (e.g. Michael Rowan-Robinson).
In short, opinion.
Hi Shaker,
Thank you again for the above post.
Nice to know that "many mathematicians (e.g. Roger Penrose)" hold a similar 'opinion' to mine. But of course, number of supporters (or opponents) of an opinion is not a reliable guide to its correctness. It is the quality of argument which matters (even with Roger Penrose).
If mathematical principles are "something that human brains impose upon the cosmos", then they are subjective, uncertain and the whole of Quantum Mechanics a circular and meaningless argument.
On the other hand, if mathematical principles are correct independently of the human mind (i.e. Objective), then they must have been correct before their discovery by humans and correct at the beginning of time (i.e. Big Bang).
So, if objective, they are eternal, and the question is where did they come from?
God bless
-
Sassy,
as someone who has no understanding of basic physics or even that humans have stood on the moon , it would be a complete waste of time . Therefore I will not be explaining it to you, sorry.
I agree!
-
Hi Shaker,
Thank you again for the above post.
Nice to know that "many mathematicians (e.g. Roger Penrose)" hold a similar 'opinion' to mine. But of course, number of supporters (or opponents) of an opinion is not a reliable guide to its correctness. It is the quality of argument which matters (even with Roger Penrose).
If mathematical principles are "something that human brains impose upon the cosmos", then they are subjective, uncertain and the whole of Quantum Mechanics a circular and meaningless argument.
On the other hand, if mathematical principles are correct independently of the human mind (i.e. Objective), then they must have been correct before their discovery by humans and correct at the beginning of time (i.e. Big Bang).
So, if objective, they are eternal, and the question is where did they come from?
God bless
So, if objective, they are eternal, and the question is where did they come from?
that's a good question and the answer is,NOBODY KNOWS and that includes you !
-
that's a good question and the answer is,NOBODY KNOWS and that includes you !
Hi again Walter,
Thanks for your post.
Does not the objective existence of an abstract intellectual 'thing' which explains the whole of the physical Universe meets the criteria for the Logos of Christianity?
God bless
-
An explanation actually has to explain things though - an unbroken chain stretching from thing-to-be-explained to explanation, with evidence all the way along and in every link -, and not be a gap-plugging Polyfilla concocted because you're unhappy with "I don't know."
-
Does not the objective existence of an abstract intellectual 'thing' which explains the whole of the physical Universe meets the criteria for the Logos of Christianity?
God bless
The likes of mathematics is axiomatic - if it is objective please send me a '2' at your earliest convenience. The 'Logos of Christianity' sounds like an example of the reification fallacy.
-
Hi Shaker,
Thank you again for the above post.
Nice to know that "many mathematicians (e.g. Roger Penrose)" hold a similar 'opinion' to mine. But of course, number of supporters (or opponents) of an opinion is not a reliable guide to its correctness. It is the quality of argument which matters (even with Roger Penrose).
If mathematical principles are "something that human brains impose upon the cosmos", then they are subjective, uncertain and the whole of Quantum Mechanics a circular and meaningless argument.
On the other hand, if mathematical principles are correct independently of the human mind (i.e. Objective), then they must have been correct before their discovery by humans and correct at the beginning of time (i.e. Big Bang).
So, if objective, they are eternal, and the question is where did they come from?
God bless
If we agree that two plus two equals four, why does that have to come from somewhere ? It is an observation that is expressed in abstract atemporal form. It has no existence of its own, it did not start to exist and it owes nothing to concepts of space and time.
-
An explanation actually has to explain things though - an unbroken chain stretching from thing-to-be-explained to explanation, with evidence all the way along and in every link -, and not be a gap-plugging Polyfilla concocted because you're unhappy with "I don't know."
A pity that science often doesn't fulfil these requirements, even when it tries to explain things.
-
Perhaps it is better to think of 'abstract maths' as being a language we have invented to describe what is 'out there'. Stuff exists, we we need to develop ways of describing the numerical aspects of said stuff, hence maths. Maths is something we invent in order to describe stuff that we discover.
Hi torridon,
Thanks for your post.
Some people argue as you suggest, but that would make maths subjective while facts point to it being objective.
Humans do invent the labels we use in maths - e.g. two, two squared, square root of two etc. But under each such label is an abstract reality, independent of the physical world, which is capable of defining relationships between all physical things - whether in units, distances, weights, momenta, spin, locations etc.
Firstly, humans invent words in national languages for theses realities (e.g. two, zwei, deux), then international symbols (e.g. 2), but the underlying realities must exist independently of these inventions, because they have an amazing propensity to forecst the existance of physical things of which we had no previous knowledge.
Higgs field and gravity waves are merely recent demonstration of this propensity. Quantum Mechanics itself owes much to Max Born introducing Heisenberg to mathematical matrices. These not only confirmed Heisenberg's work on hydrogen but also resolved problems with helium and heavier elements which Heisenberg had thought meaningless.
God bless
-
A pity that science often doesn't fulfil these requirements, even when it tries to explain things.
When in doubt misrepresent eh: you already know, or should do by now, that science provides provisional explanation where 'don't know' may be the best provisional explanation.
Science, unlike religion, doesn't do faux certainty.
-
A pity that science often doesn't fulfil these requirements, even when it tries to explain things.
Give examples.
-
Hi torridon,
Thanks for your post.
Some people argue as you suggest, but that would make maths subjective while facts point to it being objective.
Humans do invent the labels we use in maths - e.g. two, two squared, square root of two etc. But under each such label is an abstract reality, independent of the physical world, which is capable of defining relationships between all physical things - whether in units, distances, weights, momenta, spin, locations etc.
Firstly, humans invent words in national languages for theses realities (e.g. two, zwei, deux), then international symbols (e.g. two), but the underlying realities must exist independently of these inventions, because they have an amazing propensity to forecst the existance of physical things of which we had no previous knowledge.
Higgs field and gravity waves are merely recent demonstration of this propensity. Quantum Mechanics itself owes much to Max Born introducing Heisenberg to mathematical matrices. These not only confirmed Heisenberg's work on hydrogen but also resolved problems with helium and heavier elements which Heisenberg had thought meaningless.
God bless
If you are trying to use science to prove Christianity , do it now or fuck off .
-
If you are trying to use science to prove Christianity , do it now or fuck off .
Hi Walter,
Why are you so upset? If there is an error in my post, why not point it out so we can all debate it?
God bless
-
The likes of mathematics is axiomatic - if it is objective please send me a '2' at your earliest convenience. The 'Logos of Christianity' sounds like an example of the reification fallacy.
Hi Gordon,
Thank you for your post.
A '2' is an abstract reality, not a physical thing. It cannot be held in the hand or sent physically. Its existence can only be understood. It cannot be perceived by the senses.
Rather like God in those respects.
God bless
-
Hi Gordon,
Thank you for your post.
A '2' is an abstract reality, not a physical thing. It cannot be held in the hand or sent physically. Its existence can only be understood. It cannot be perceived by the senses.
Rather like God in those respects.
God bless
I had two this morning that could be perceived, physically held in the hand and the two I'm referring to can also be named as a description certain beliefs; I can prove the reality of my two, rather like verifiable evidence in that respect.
Foreign Office to your G B.
ippy
P S, are you Alan Burns or genitically related to him?
-
Hi torridon,
Thanks for your post.
Some people argue as you suggest, but that would make maths subjective while facts point to it being objective.
Humans do invent the labels we use in maths - e.g. two, two squared, square root of two etc. But under each such label is an abstract reality, independent of the physical world, which is capable of defining relationships between all physical things - whether in units, distances, weights, momenta, spin, locations etc.
Firstly, humans invent words in national languages for theses realities (e.g. two, zwei, deux), then international symbols (e.g. 2), but the underlying realities must exist independently of these inventions, because they have an amazing propensity to forecst the existance of physical things of which we had no previous knowledge.
Higgs field and gravity waves are merely recent demonstration of this propensity. Quantum Mechanics itself owes much to Max Born introducing Heisenberg to mathematical matrices. These not only confirmed Heisenberg's work on hydrogen but also resolved problems with helium and heavier elements which Heisenberg had thought meaningless.
God bless
Would two plus two still equal four when all humans and any other beings capable of understanding it have gone extinct ? Does a principle of logic have an existence of its own, or is it like beauty being in the eye of the beholder - is a principle something that exists in the mind of the understander ?
-
Hi Gordon,
A '2' is an abstract reality, not a physical thing. It cannot be held in the hand or sent physically.
A human construct then: a useful idea, provided the use of the idea doesn't exceed its utility.
Its existence can only be understood. It cannot be perceived by the senses.
Rather like God in those respects.
Or misunderstood, or just imagined (humans are quite good at imagining stuff).
-
Sassy,
as someone who has no understanding of basic physics or even that humans have stood on the moon , it would be a complete waste of time . Therefore I will not be explaining it to you, sorry.
Why not say you don't know. Appears my basic knowledge is even more than your knowledge. What you really mean is you don't fancy the truth coming out about what you THINK you know.
You pretend and that is not good. You went and checked what I said and found I was right, didn't you.
But that word came up 'theory' and you haven't anything to argue with that, have you? Make all the excuses you want but other people would have a liked an answer, an answer you are 'unable' to give and hide behind excuses. TUT! TUT! TUT!.
-
If we agree that two plus two equals four, why does that have to come from somewhere ? It is an observation that is expressed in abstract atemporal form. It has no existence of its own, it did not start to exist and it owes nothing to concepts of space and time.
Hi torridon,
Thanks for the above post.
I agree with you that for each mathematical concept we can say "it did not start to exist and it owes nothing to concepts of space and time." Surely, Pythagoras's theorem was true before he discovered it and (as far as we can know) true at the beginning of time?
Is our recognition of twoness + twoness = fourness instinctive to all humans, or is it something we have to be taught? Whichever, it is not something dependent upon what "we agree". It is true whether we know it or not. The role of mathematical concepts in the successes of science demonstrates that they are objective truths independent of the human mind.
In that regard, mathematical concepts are similar to moons around Saturn. The later are physical realities, true before we discovered them (i.e. objective). Mathematical concepts are abstract realities, true before we discovered them (i.e. objective).
If non-euclidean geometry is not an objective reality, then how was Einstein able to use it to discover gravitational waves 100 years before we could confirm their physical existence.
God bless
-
I had two this morning that could be perceived, physically held in the hand and the two I'm referring to can also be named as a description certain beliefs; I can prove the reality of my two, rather like verifiable evidence in that respect
Hi ippy,
Thank you for your post.
'Twoness' and 'two' are different things. The former is abstract and objective, the later is physical and objective. Human brains identify the former by intellectual understanding, the later by physical senses.
If mathematical concepts were not objective, science would not be objective. But abstract maths has enabled discovery Higgs field, gravitational waves etc as well as development of Quantum Mechanics, so both are objective.
God bless
-
Hi torridon,
Thanks for the above post.
I agree with you that for each mathematical concept we can say "it did not start to exist and it owes nothing to concepts of space and time." Surely, Pythagoras's theorem was true before he discovered it and (as far as we can know) true at the beginning of time?
Is our recognition of twoness + twoness = fourness instinctive to all humans, or is it something we have to be taught? Whichever, it is not something dependent upon what "we agree". It is true whether we know it or not. The role of mathematical concepts in the successes of science demonstrates that they are objective truths independent of the human mind.
In that regard, mathematical concepts are similar to moons around Saturn. The later are physical realities, true before we discovered them (i.e. objective). Mathematical concepts are abstract realities, true before we discovered them (i.e. objective).
If non-euclidean geometry is not an objective reality, then how was Einstein able to use it to discover gravitational waves 100 years before we could confirm their physical existence.
God bless
I'd agree things exist outwith human mind, the moons of Saturn, as you say. With abstract realities maybe we need to tread more carefully around words like 'exist'. I'd suggest that we could put it this way : things exist externally to us, and there are relationships between those things that could potentially be expressed in a suitable language, maths, say. However, the formulation of those relationships in terms of abstract principles is something that takes place in a cognitive mind. Beauty exists in the eye of the beholder, and abstract principles are another form of cognition in the mind of the understander.
-
I think that: before life began and if there was a stone and another stone and another stone and another stone which happened to be on the ground with no other stones nearby, there would be no living thing to look at them and form a counting system and then to conclude there were four of them. A counting system to be objective must somehow exist independently of all life.
How would you, Rosindubh, show that it was objective I wonder?
-
Hi ippy,
Thank you for your post.
'Twoness' and 'two' are different things. The former is abstract and objective, the later is physical and objective. Human brains identify the former by intellectual understanding, the later by physical senses.
If mathematical concepts were not objective, science would not be objective. But abstract maths has enabled discovery Higgs field, gravitational waves etc as well as development of Quantum Mechanics, so both are objective.
God bless
Just look up delusional in the O E U and stuff your pointless, empty G B; I suppose if you are delusional it doesn't dawn on you, but there, carry on if it keeps you happy.
ippy
-
Just look up delusional in the O E U and stuff your pointless, empty G B; I suppose if you are delusional it doesn't dawn on you, but there, carry on if it keeps you happy.
ippy
the problem is though, when this nonsense is peddled to young informative minds who don't know any better.
-
the problem is though, when this nonsense is peddled to young informative minds who don't know any better.
I agree and I'm not very happy about these new schools being allowed to have 100% faith/belief intake; no wonder the R C lot promised to build a number of new schools, like rats up a drainpipe, anything to keep up their intake of new recruits.
I mean look at how successful these organisations are at indoctrination, they have inbuilt the parents to act like automatons that actively indoctrinate their own children into indoctrinating the next lot, on and on, the best bit of that is none of them think they've been indoctrinated.
ippy
-
I agree and I'm not very happy about these new schools being allowed to have 100% faith/belief intake; no wonder the R C lot promised to build a number of new schools, like rats up a drainpipe, anything to keep up their intake of new recruits.
I mean look at how successful these organisations are at indoctrination, they have inbuilt the parents to act like automatons that actively indoctrinate their own children into indoctrinating the next lot, on and on, the best bit of that is none of them think they've been indoctrinated.
ippy
I used to know a head teacher of a catholic school who was the source of some heated arguments around the dinner table when he came to visit , and you are exactly right he thought I was the crazy one when I made such a suggestion .
Mind you , he always brought some decent wine with him ,so we had at least one thing in common .
-
I used to know a head teacher of a catholic school who was the source of some heated arguments around the dinner table when he came to visit , and you are exactly right he thought I was the crazy one when I made such a suggestion .
Mind you , he always brought some decent wine with him ,so we had at least one thing in common .
There is another deeply pragmatic issue with the expansion of faith schools - that being the difficulty in getting quality leadership when the schools require the Head (and other senior staff) to be practicing and 'upstanding' members of their faith community.
There was actually a letter to this effect in the Times (I think) the other day, noting how few applicants there are for Headships in faith schools and fewer still of quality. The letter writer had extensive experience in recruitment of senior leaders into schools and his comment was that those being appointed to faith school headships wouldn't even have made the long-list for the non faith schools he had experience of.
This rings true with my own experience, particularly the RC schools that my sister in laws kids attend in Wales - not sure this is the case now, but until recently none of the schools her kids attended had a permanent head because they couldn't recruit. And at one point all three RC senior schools in their locality didn't have a permanent head.
It didn't help that one of the schools appointed a head and then revoked the offer when they discovered the appointee had split from his wife (not not divorced just split up). And that was back in 2014 - they have not had a permanent head for 3 years now, running continually with an acting head who wants to retire but gets persuaded to stay on again and again as they fail to recruit a permanent successor to the previous head who retired in Dec 2013!
-
There is another deeply pragmatic issue with the expansion of faith schools - that being the difficulty in getting quality leadership when the schools require the Head (and other senior staff) to be practicing and 'upstanding' members of their faith community.
There was actually a letter to this effect in the Times (I think) the other day, noting how few applicants there are for Headships in faith schools and fewer still of quality. The letter writer had extensive experience in recruitment of senior leaders into schools and his comment was that those being appointed to faith school headships wouldn't even have made the long-list for the non faith schools he had experience of.
This rings true with my own experience, particularly the RC schools that my sister in laws kids attend in Wales - not sure this is the case now, but until recently none of the schools her kids attended had a permanent head because they couldn't recruit. And at one point all three RC senior schools in their locality didn't have a permanent head.
It didn't help that one of the schools appointed a head and then revoked the offer when they discovered the appointee had split from his wife (not not divorced just split up). And that was back in 2014 - they have not had a permanent head for 3 years now, running continually with an acting head who wants to retire but gets persuaded to stay on again and again as they fail to recruit a permanent successor to the previous head who retired in Dec 2013!
You might have noticed in my post I didn't mention his wife , he was at the time going through a divorce . It almost cost him his job . If I remember correctly he faced a series of interviews with the church and school governors to explain himself , it almost did for him . Poor chap.
-
You might have noticed in my post I didn't mention his wife , he was at the time going through a divorce . It almost cost him his job . If I remember correctly he faced a series of interviews with the church and school governors to explain himself , it almost did for him . Poor chap.
I really is totally unacceptable - in no other job would you be allowed to revoke a contract on the basis that the appointee had split up from his wife, or even been divorced. And all the more unacceptable when you recognise that the post is 100% paid for out of the public purse, so why on earth the church has any business in making these kinds of discriminatory judgment is beyond me.
-
I used to know a head teacher of a catholic school who was the source of some heated arguments around the dinner table when he came to visit , and you are exactly right he thought I was the crazy one when I made such a suggestion .
Mind you , he always brought some decent wine with him ,so we had at least one thing in common .
This very thing was brought up at one of the synod meetings at the later half of last year, so I've read and one of the contributers to this meeting mentioned redoubling the efforts of their schools to gain as many new recruits as they can, I've not got that verbatim but this was certainly their train of thought they were conveying where schooling is concerned.
They should be teaching children to think for themselves rather than teaching their dogmatic nonsense, any kind of introduction to religion should be for the 7/8 year olds and older not one day earlier than 7 or 8 years.
ippy
-
This very thing was brought up at one of the synod meetings at the later half of last year, so I've read and one of the contributers to this meeting mentioned redoubling the efforts of their schools to gain as many new recruits as they can, I've not got that verbatim but this was certainly their train of thought they were conveying where schooling is concerned.
They should be teaching children to think for themselves rather than teaching their dogmatic nonsense, any kind of introduction to religion should be for the 7/8 year olds and older not one day earlier than 7 or 8 years.
ippy
its frightening, and if I were religious id call it 'evil'.
-
I'd agree things exist outwith human mind, the moons of Saturn, as you say. With abstract realities maybe we need to tread more carefully around words like 'exist'. I'd suggest that we could put it this way : things exist externally to us, and there are relationships between those things that could potentially be expressed in a suitable language, maths, say. However, the formulation of those relationships in terms of abstract principles is something that takes place in a cognitive mind. Beauty exists in the eye of the beholder, and abstract principles are another form of cognition in the mind of the understander.
Hi torridon,
Thanks for your post.
I agree maths is a "suitable language" for expressing "relatationships between things" in science. It appears to be the only way we can even think about such relatationships in modern physics.
But mathematical concepts are much more than a mere language. No language of words can alone discover new things beyond our imagination, while mathematical concepts can. No language of words can alone offer an objective analysis of the physical Universe, while mathimatical concepts appear to do so.
Science is a work in progress, many questions to be resolved, much to be expected, but unless mathematical concepts (underlying the symbols) exist independently of human minds, then much of modern physics would be subjective circular reasoning. If the science is objective, then the maths from which it comes must also be objective (exist independently of the human mind).
God bless
-
Just look up delusional in the O E U and stuff your pointless, empty G B; I suppose if you are delusional it doesn't dawn on you, but there, carry on if it keeps you happy.
ippy
Hi ippy,
If there is an error in my post, why not point it out so we can debate it. Name calling is not a rational argument.
God bless
-
I think that: before life began and if there was a stone and another stone and another stone and another stone which happened to be on the ground with no other stones nearby, there would be no living thing to look at them and form a counting system and then to conclude there were four of them. A counting system to be objective must somehow exist independently of all life.
How would you, Rosindubh, show that it was objective I wonder?
Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for your post.
If current scientific theories of particle physics are true and objective, then the mathematical concepts on which they are based must be true and objective. If these mathematical concepts are true and objective, they needed to be true and objective at the beginning of timr before humans existed.
Does that answer your question?
God bless
-
Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for your post.
If current scientific theories of particle physics are true and objective, then the mathematical concepts on which they are based must be true and objective. If these mathematical concepts are true and objective, they needed to be true and objective at the beginning of timr before humans existed.
Does that answer your question?
God bless
No, I don't think so - too many 'ifs'!! What is your understanding of 'objective' in this context?
-
Hi torridon,
Thanks for your post.
I agree maths is a "suitable language" for expressing "relatationships between things" in science. It appears to be the only way we can even think about such relatationships in modern physics.
But mathematical concepts are much more than a mere language. No language of words can alone discover new things beyond our imagination, while mathematical concepts can. No language of words can alone offer an objective analysis of the physical Universe, while mathimatical concepts appear to do so.
...
Well I think I will just have to disagree with this. The difference between what we invent and what we discover is sometimes a subtle one; I see maths as a language we have to invent so that describing numerical relationships becomes easier to communicate from person to person. This sprang from accounting for trade originally, early merchant traders needed words like two and four and plus and equals and subtract so that all parties to a trade could be confidant they all agreed on the details of the trade. When we invent new branches of maths now we are continuing in this; we invent string theory as a mathematical description of matter below the level of quarks. We invented fractals in order to better describe and hence calculate the length of the British coastline, originally.
Having said that we invent mathematical language to describe what is out there, clearly there must be something out there to warrant description and what is out there is lots of stuff and that stuff stands in all sorts of particular relationships with each other. I think this is what you are getting at, that there are laws of nature that we discover; Einstein for instance realised the equivalence between matter and energy and was able to describe it using the language of maths as e=mc2.
-
Hi Walter,
Why are you so upset? If there is an error in my post, why not point it out so we can all debate it?
God bless
Rosindubh,
try this,
instead of trying to make an 'intelligent' argument that you hope will lead us all to the conclusion you want, why don't you just make a statement of what you believe the truth is and show us why you believe it .
I don't like following false trails .
-
No, I don't think so - too many 'ifs'!! What is your understanding of 'objective' in this context?
Hi again SusanDoris,
Thanks for your post. Which of the two 'if' do you not accept?
Look at the first - "if current scientific theories of particle physics are true and objective". Would you not agree that CERN's success with the Higgs field indicates they are as near to true and objective as humans can currenty achieve?
If you accept that first 'if', then surely the second follows? That is how logic goes - 'if that, then this'.
God bless
-
Rosindubh
No, that still doesn't tell me how you understand and define the word objective. As far as I am concerned - and will stand corrected if shown to be incorrect - objective means something that exists whether or not humans are here to observe and name it/them or not. How can 2 + 2 = 4 have existed before humans?
-
Rosindubh,
what is your objective for posting on this thread ?
-
Rosindubh
No, that still doesn't tell me how you understand and define the word objective. As far as I am concerned - and will stand corrected if shown to be incorrect - objective means something that exists whether or not humans are here to observe and name it/them or not. How can 2 + 2 = 4 have existed before humans?
I think the 'name it' is an unjustified jump. Does that mean when there were no humans there were no fish because they weren't named 'fish'?
-
Rosindubh
No, that still doesn't tell me how you understand and define the word objective. As far as I am concerned - and will stand corrected if shown to be incorrect - objective means something that exists whether or not humans are here to observe and name it/them or not. How can 2 + 2 = 4 have existed before humans?
There's a reasonable amount of evidence to show that the Earth and the moon both existed in broadly their current forms long before humanity evolved in order to develop counting systems.
Are you suggesting that those two rocky bodies were not 'two' rocky bodies before anyone could formulate a language to name 'two'? That's like suggesting that there were no kangaroos before we had the word kangaroo... but why would we come up with a word for something that wasn't there?
There was no-one (that we know of) to appreciate the fact there were two rocky bodies orbiting the sun, but there were still there, and there were still two of them.
O.
-
I think the 'name it' is an unjustified jump. Does that mean wgen there were no humans there were no fish because they weren't named 'fish'!
Exactly - 2+2=4 prior to the existence of humans although there wasn't an appropriate way to describe it as such.
-
Thank you for above posts. I wonder what Rosindubh will say.
-
Hi ippy,
If there is an error in my post, why not point it out so we can debate it. Name calling is not a rational argument.
God bless
I'm a bit busy at the mo and I will be for a while, I'll get back to your post eventually, in the mean time I suppose if describing someone's condition to them, using the correct word amounts to name calling, I must be guilty then.
All you're arguing is a convoluted argument with yourself, a bit like when a smoker is standing on their head, turning themselves inside out in an effort to justify to themselves hanging on to a wholy unjustifiable habit and I really don't see that there is any good reason to assist you with your very similar struggle with delusion; the smoker wrestles with any excuse they can find, you're doing much the same.
I don't really like bad language very much but now and again it's apt, so please fuck off with your god bless, does it make you feel superior in some way? Or make you feel I'm above all of that, regardless of what is said to me? So typical of a holier than thou, type person.
ippy
-
Ippy, while you are here and I am here, I want to ask you what these acronyms stand for please: O E U & G B.
I thought the OEU was perhaps Online Encyclopaedia U??(something) and I don't think GB stands for Great Britain. God Bothering perhaps (haven't heard that expression for a long time)? Or maybe "God Bless" which you object to but that's a bit too obvious.
I googled both and got all sorts of stuff which I don't think is relevant.
Ta.
Was going to PM you about this so as not to trivialise the thread but didn't want to bother you with a PM, so put me out of me misery. I can't be the only one - at least I hope not - who can't work out what the initials represent.
-
Ippy, while you are here and I am here, I want to ask you what these acronyms stand for please: O E U & G B.
I thought the OEU was perhaps Online Encyclopaedia U??(something) and I don't think GB stands for Great Britain. God Bothering perhaps (haven't heard that expression for a long time)? Or maybe "God Bless" which you object to but that's a bit too obvious.
I googled both and got all sorts of stuff which I don't think is relevant.
Ta.
Was going to PM you about this so as not to trivialise the thread but didn't want to bother you with a PM, so put me 8out of me misery. I can't be the only one - at least I hope not - who can't work out what the initials represent.
Oxford English University press dictionary.
The irritating god bless at the end of his squirming posts, G B.
The rest of my post must have coveyed how repugnant I find his posts, he's even more into self deceit (cognative dissonence), than Hope, I hadn't thought that possible.
ippy
-
........... The difference between what we invent and what we discover is sometimes a subtle one; I see maths as a language we have to invent so that describing numerical relationships becomes easier to communicate from person to person. This sprang from accounting for trade originally, early merchant traders needed words like two and four and plus and equals and subtract so that all parties to a trade could be confidant they all agreed on the details of the trade. When we invent new branches of maths now we are continuing in this; we invent string theory as a mathematical description of matter below the level of quarks. We invented fractals in order to better describe and hence calculate the length of the British coastline, originally.
Hi again torridon,
Thank you for your post.
I agree what you say above as far as it goes, but it is not the full picture.
We do invent words and symbols "describing numerical relationship" so that maths has and continues to develop as a series of definitions. But these definitions become maths when and only when they refer to "numerical relationships" which are objective (exist independently of the human mind).
Otherwise, they are entertaining fictions - e.g. chess which exists only in the human mind and leads to nothing but itself.
Your ancient merchant trader could not have 'sold' his idea of 2+2=4 unless he was able to show his customer that it was true independently of the trader's words. This was done by using counting sticks and abacuses, physical illustrations of the truth of the abstract concept.
So maths is never 'agreed', but each step is 'accepted' only after been proved correct objectively (i.e. independent of the human mind and true before humans existed)
I hope you find this interesting,
God bless
-
Hi again torridon,
Thank you for your post.
I agree what you say above as far as it goes, but it is not the full picture.
We do invent words and symbols "describing numerical relationship" so that maths has and continues to develop as a series of definitions. But these definitions become maths when and only when they refer to "numerical relationships" which are objective (exist independently of the human mind).
Otherwise, they are entertaining fictions - e.g. chess which exists only in the human mind and leads to nothing but itself.
Your ancient merchant trader could not have 'sold' his idea of 2+2=4 unless he was able to show his customer that it was true independently of the trader's words. This was done by using counting sticks and abacuses, physical illustrations of the truth of the abstract concept.
So maths is never 'agreed', but each step is 'accepted' only after been proved correct objectively (i.e. independent of the human mind and true before humans existed)
I hope you find this interesting,
God bless
God bless ------ MY ARSE
-
Hi again torridon,
Thank you for your post.
I agree what you say above as far as it goes, but it is not the full picture.
We do invent words and symbols "describing numerical relationship" so that maths has and continues to develop as a series of definitions. But these definitions become maths when and only when they refer to "numerical relationships" which are objective (exist independently of the human mind).
Otherwise, they are entertaining fictions - e.g. chess which exists only in the human mind and leads to nothing but itself.
Your ancient merchant trader could not have 'sold' his idea of 2+2=4 unless he was able to show his customer that it was true independently of the trader's words. This was done by using counting sticks and abacuses, physical illustrations of the truth of the abstract concept.
So maths is never 'agreed', but each step is 'accepted' only after been proved correct objectively (i.e. independent of the human mind and true before humans existed)
I hope you find this interesting,
God bless
The idea of 1=1=2 is perfectly reasonable in our idealised pure maths form, but as it relates to real world physics, it tends to be approximate or human dependent. Thus one apple plus one apple equals two apples only if you accept the human convenience definition of an apple, as they are only approximately similar. Even if you say one electron plus one electron equals two electrons, you haven't an exact mathematical model, because they are all slightly different in their motions, and by the uncertainty principle you can't even know their exact positions or velocities, which means they could have slightly different masses. You can however tokenise the real world by saying that, for instance, 1p+1p=2p, which is a human mathematical invention, is it not?
-
Hi again torridon,
Thank you for your post.
I agree what you say above as far as it goes, but it is not the full picture.
We do invent words and symbols "describing numerical relationship" so that maths has and continues to develop as a series of definitions. But these definitions become maths when and only when they refer to "numerical relationships" which are objective (exist independently of the human mind).
Otherwise, they are entertaining fictions - e.g. chess which exists only in the human mind and leads to nothing but itself.
Your ancient merchant trader could not have 'sold' his idea of 2+2=4 unless he was able to show his customer that it was true independently of the trader's words. This was done by using counting sticks and abacuses, physical illustrations of the truth of the abstract concept.
So maths is never 'agreed', but each step is 'accepted' only after been proved correct objectively (i.e. independent of the human mind and true before humans existed)
I hope you find this interesting,
God bless
Yes, maths describes quantitative relationships, usually between things that exist (but not necessarily - remember complex numbers ?). We can use maths to describe the orbit of Mercury around the Sun or calculate the apparent positions of stars in the sky from a given point on the surface of the Earth at a given moment in time irrespective of whether humans were alive on the planet at the time. These relationships exist 'out there', and maths is the formalised abstract conceptualisation of such quantitative relationships in human mind and culture.
This, to my way of thinking, touches on the essence of what minds do - they nurture a simplified, rendered internal 'echo' or model, of what is out there, externally to the mind.
-
Having said that we invent mathematical language to describe what is out there, clearly there must be something out there to warrant description and what is out there is lots of stuff and that stuff stands in all sorts of particular relationships with each other. I think this is what you are getting at, that there are laws of nature that we discover; Einstein for instance realised the equivalence between matter and energy and was able to describe it using the language of maths as e=mc2.
Hi torridon,
Thanks for the above post. Sorry for delay in replying. I wished to give some thougt to what you said.
I agree "that there are laws of natue that we discover" but what we use to discover them can not be subjective if we want these laws to be objective.
Surely, e=mc2 demonstrates my point that mathematical concepts are not just a language, but also objective reality independent of the human mind?
In e=mc2, Einstein is not using maths to 'describe' a known fact, but is using maths to deduce a physical fact for which there was little or no evidence at that time (AD 1905). He himself said he was seeking a "universal formal principle" to give "assured results" - i.e. abstract before physical.
By postulating two 'invariences', Einstein used mathematical concepts to deduce special relativity and from that not just equivalence between matter and energy, but also its amazing direct relationship with the speed of light. Not until AD 2005, one hundred years later, were people at MIT and elsewhere able to to demonstrate that Einstein's abstract equation was correct to within 4 by 10 to the power of minus 7.
Surely, either this is the most amazing guess in history, or Einstein's maths are objective reality, discovered not invented?
Can you agree?
God bless
-
......
In e=mc2, Einstein is not using maths to 'describe' a known fact, but is using maths to deduce a physical fact for which there was little or no evidence at that time (AD 1905). He himself said he was seeking a "universal formal principle" to give "assured results" - i.e. abstract before physical.
......
my bold
.... and that is crux on which everything hangs; if it were not for the abstract (before the material) we would not be here having this discussion.
So, the question is, what is the abstract.... where did it come from? The laws of nature.... who/what 'designed' (?) them? Why do they even exist? Yet without them nothing physical can exist.
-
my bold
.... and that is crux on which everything hangs; if it were not for the abstract (before the material) we would not be here having this discussion.
So, the question is, what is the abstract.... where did it come from? The laws of nature.... who/what 'designed' (?) them? Why do they even exist? Yet without them nothing physical can exist.
the universe looks the way it does because we are here to see it
-
..
Surely, e=mc2 demonstrates my point that mathematical concepts are not just a language, but also objective reality independent of the human mind?
In e=mc2, Einstein is not using maths to 'describe' a known fact, but is using maths to deduce a physical fact for which there was little or no evidence at that time (AD 1905). He himself said he was seeking a "universal formal principle" to give "assured results" - i.e. abstract before physical.
..
I don't get 'abstract before physical'. That runs counter to the meaning abstraction. If you read a long scientific paper for instance it will have an abstract, which is a short form summary, condensed from the detail. Likewise abstract conceptual principles are derived by observation of the natural world. We see things that have a circular shape for instance and so we have found it useful to abstract the conceptual relationship between the radius and the area. Spatial relationships don't exist in nature because of our ability to conceptualise them, it is the other way round, we can conceptualise them because they exist in nature.
-
The idea of 1=1=2 is perfectly reasonable in our idealised pure maths form, but as it relates to real world physics, it tends to be approximate or human dependent. Thus one apple plus one apple equals two apples only if you accept the human convenience definition of an apple, as they are only approximately similar. Even if you say one electron plus one electron equals two electrons, you haven't an exact mathematical model, because they are all slightly different in their motions, and by the uncertainty principle you can't even know their exact positions or velocities, which means they could have slightly different masses. You can however tokenise the real world by saying that, for instance, 1p+1p=2p, which is a human mathematical invention, is it not?
Hi Enki,
Thank you for your post
What you say is correct, but surely it confirms my point of abstract before physical?
It demonstrates that "our idealised pure maths" is not dependent upon the Material World, but the opposite is the case. Einstein's "real world physics" is dependent upon pure maths (including immaginary time and the square root of minus one - abstract as one can get). The same goes for Dirac's equations for QM.
Every set of two apples in the Material World is different in sizes, weights, shapes, colours etc while every mathematical set of 1+1=2 is identical, exact and consistent. All mathematical concepts (circles, triangles, right angles as well as 1+1=2) have an exactness and consistency which is not visible in the Material World. Natural circles and right angles are rare if they exist at all.
It is this exactness and consistency, distinct from the inexactness of Nature, which gives mathematical concepts their objectivity outside of the Material World and independent of the human mind.
Probability was a branch of maths before discovery of particle physics, but Heisenberg's uncertainty principle did not prevent the Maths of the Standard Model from forecasting the Higgs field in advance of physical evidence, i.e. Abstract before physical.
I hope you find this interesting,
God bless
-
Rosindubh
Your posts on first reading appear to be well thought out responses using scientific terminology and mathematics to further your arguments . However there are some basic misunderstandings which are apparent to me, which some people on here may not notice.
At this time I am not going to say what they are mainly because you are addressing Enki and Torridon and I would hope they pick up on what I have noticed too.
Apart from that why don't you just come clean and make your point plainly.
-
It is this exactness and consistency, distinct from the inexactness of Nature, which gives mathematical concepts their objectivity outside of the Material World and independent of the human mind.
Mathematical concepts might be objective but that doesn't mean that they exist independently of mind. Concepts are products of mind, they are idealised and simplified abstractions of the real world. Consider this : triangles don't exist; circles don't exist either. Sure, I can draw a circle on a piece of paper now, but that pencil mark on the paper is not actually a circle. For something to exist implies three spatial dimensions and a temporal one. Something with zero depth is not there. Something with length, breadth and depth that exists for zero time also never exists. A circle is a two dimensional concept so it cannot exist in reality. What we can say is that circles exist but in a looser sense of the word exist, ie they exist as concepts of mind and of our invention as simplifications of the messy world out there. The real world out there is full of relationships that are real and authentic and which exist independently of human mind and the conceptualisation of them is a product of human mind and culture. There are structures out there which are circle-like so we call on our mathematical language to describe them using the word 'circular'.
-
What you say is correct, but surely it confirms my point of abstract before physical?
It demonstrates that "our idealised pure maths" is not dependent upon the Material World, but the opposite is the case.
Others might say that the brain is physical, the conceptualising mind is a product of the brain and abstract concepts are a product of the mind therefore the physical precedes the abstract.
-
Hi Enki,
Thank you for your post
What you say is correct, but surely it confirms my point of abstract before physical?
It demonstrates that "our idealised pure maths" is not dependent upon the Material World, but the opposite is the case. Einstein's "real world physics" is dependent upon pure maths (including immaginary time and the square root of minus one - abstract as one can get). The same goes for Dirac's equations for QM.
Every set of two apples in the Material World is different in sizes, weights, shapes, colours etc while every mathematical set of 1+1=2 is identical, exact and consistent. All mathematical concepts (circles, triangles, right angles as well as 1+1=2) have an exactness and consistency which is not visible in the Material World. Natural circles and right angles are rare if they exist at all.
It is this exactness and consistency, distinct from the inexactness of Nature, which gives mathematical concepts their objectivity outside of the Material World and independent of the human mind.
Probability was a branch of maths before discovery of particle physics, but Heisenberg's uncertainty principle did not prevent the Maths of the Standard Model from forecasting the Higgs field in advance of physical evidence, i.e. Abstract before physical.
I hope you find this interesting,
God bless
No, I would disagree. It suggests that the physical came first, or, at most, runs alongside the abstract. I suggest that our brains tend to look at the physical, and look for useful patterns, which can then be applied in other circumstances. Hence we select, from the information before us, what we consider to be useful, and tend to disregard or eliminate what we consider not so useful. This is sound evolutionary behaviour of course, and is not just limited to homo sapiens.
I think that it is interesting that young children find it very difficult to grasp mathematical concepts without relating them to physical objects. It is only later, as they mature, that the abstract becomes more understandable and more useful.
Yes, of course, many angular and circular shapes are exhibited in nature, although not of course in two dimensional form.
https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=8734
I also find it interesting that you seem to be stressing the inexactness of the material world, which, you suggest, does not show the exactness and consistency of abstract mathematics, whilst suggesting earlier that mathematical concepts have an objective reality. If so, where is this objective reality located(as distinct from the material world)? It seems to me that you are arguing for a Platonic world of forms, for which this world is just a shadow. Is this a reasonable assumption on my part? If so, I suggest that this idea is untestable and is simply conjecture.
-
I don't get 'abstract before physical'. That runs counter to the meaning abstraction. If you read a long scientific paper for instance it will have an abstract, which is a short form summary, condensed from the detail. Likewise abstract conceptual principles are derived by observation of the natural world. We see things that have a circular shape for instance and so we have found it useful to abstract the conceptual relationship between the radius and the area. Spatial relationships don't exist in nature because of our ability to conceptualise them, it is the other way round, we can conceptualise them because they exist in nature.
Hi again torridon,
Thank you for your post. 'Abstract' (as an adjective) means existing in thought without having physical existence.
Contary to your post, "spatial relationships" do in fact exist in nature. All such relationships are physical not abstract - physical properties of material objects - shapes, sizes, locations, movements etc of individual stones or groups of stones. All such relationships are observable by the senses (sight and touch) and do not exist apart from the stones themselves. They are also imprecise and can be varied with the blow of a hammer.
Mathematical concepts are different. Circles, right angles, 2+2=4 etc do not exist in nature. They exist apart from and do not depend upon any physical object. They are not obseverable by sight or touch, but can only be understood by the intellect. They are also precise and cannot be varied with the blow of a hammer.
Of course, usefulness in economic activities spurred development of mathe, but it took thousands of years because mathematical concepts are not obvious until after they have been discovered. A lengthy maths papyrus from ancient Eygpt (Rhind papyrus) indicates that your "conceptual relationship between radius and area" of circles was unknown at that time (c. 1650 BC), although calculations of fractions, areas and volumes are abundant in the manuscript.
On the other hand, many of maths significant developments arose from intellectual curiosity alone, long before they had any practical use, e.g. Complex numbers (AD 1545) and non-euclidean geometry (AD 1760). The amazing thing about these very abstract concepts is that they enabled Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc to forecast the existence of physical things long before such things could be observed empirically. Abstract before physical.
How could these abstract concepts do that unless they were correct independently of the human mind (and from the beginning of time).
I hope you find this interesting
God bless
-
Wow, what a great post !!!!!
-
#290
How could these abstract concepts do that unless they were correct independently of the human mind (and from the beginning of time).
I hope torridon will correct me if I'm wrong, but taking that through to a logical conclusion, you are saying these mathematical, abstract conceptsmust have existed, had an independent, entirely separate existence before the universe began, or at any rate billions of years before there were animals which had evolved to notice them, and then luckily had a random mutation or something which resulted in their being able to invent sounds with abstract meanings. It is only humans who, using sight and their advanced brains, noticed that natural lines could be depicted by drawing, say, a line in sand, or several lines making a flat outline shape.
If that is so, then all these concepts, including those not yet discovered, were, or are, still hanging around .... where? In space?
-
Hi again torridon,
Thank you for your post. 'Abstract' (as an adjective) means existing in thought without having physical existence.
Contary to your post, "spatial relationships" do in fact exist in nature. All such relationships are physical not abstract - physical properties of material objects - shapes, sizes, locations, movements etc of individual stones or groups of stones. All such relationships are observable by the senses (sight and touch) and do not exist apart from the stones themselves. They are also imprecise and can be varied with the blow of a hammer.
Mathematical concepts are different. Circles, right angles, 2+2=4 etc do not exist in nature. They exist apart from and do not depend upon any physical object. They are not obseverable by sight or touch, but can only be understood by the intellect. They are also precise and cannot be varied with the blow of a hammer.
Of course, usefulness in economic activities spurred development of mathe, but it took thousands of years because mathematical concepts are not obvious until after they have been discovered. A lengthy maths papyrus from ancient Eygpt (Rhind papyrus) indicates that your "conceptual relationship between radius and area" of circles was unknown at that time (c. 1650 BC), although calculations of fractions, areas and volumes are abundant in the manuscript.
On the other hand, many of maths significant developments arose from intellectual curiosity alone, long before they had any practical use, e.g. Complex numbers (AD 1545) and non-euclidean geometry (AD 1760). The amazing thing about these very abstract concepts is that they enabled Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc to forecast the existence of physical things long before such things could be observed empirically. Abstract before physical.
How could these abstract concepts do that unless they were correct independently of the human mind (and from the beginning of time).
I hope you find this interesting
God bless
Hi
Well I think we are almost agreeing, then, this is close to what I have been saying all along, that spatial relationships exist out there independent of observer, whilst concepts do not 'exist' out there and only exist in minds. The difference between us is that for you, the principles, though not out there in nature, do exist independently of mind in some sense, and are there for minds to discover. If we take circularity, as an example, we agree that circles do not exist in nature (being a 2d concept) but we could say that the principle of circularity ie the conceptual relationships between radius and area and circumference, these principles are eternal - they are non-temporal and non-local. Is it surprising that the area of a circle for instance would be related to its radius ? Can you imagine a universe where this was not the case ?
-
......, but taking that through to a logical conclusion, you are saying these mathematical, abstract conceptsmust have existed, had an independent, entirely separate existence before the universe began, or at any rate billions of years before there were animals which had evolved to notice them, and then luckily had a random mutation or something which resulted in their being able to invent sounds with abstract meanings. It is only humans who, using sight and their advanced brains, noticed that natural lines could be depicted by drawing, say, a line in sand, or several lines making a flat outline shape.
If that is so, then all these concepts, including those not yet discovered, were, or are, still hanging around .... where? In space?
Hi SusanDoris,
Thank you for your post. It is, more or less, correct, as you say - a"logical conclusion" from the facts.
Numbers, squares of numbers, square roots and complex numbers are not observable in the Natural world, yet the successes of Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc are empirical evidence that they provide genuine Knowledge about the Universe.
But, it is a misunderstanding to ask where they are "hanging around", because by their nature mathematical concepts are not limited by spacetime but define it. To the extent that a mathematical concept is true now (e.g. Pythagoras's theorem), then it was also true at the beginning of time when spacetime was a singularity (with no space).
If Einstein's Special Relativity is correct, then matter-energy is controlled by the mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light, and the location (hanging around) of a speck of matter in spacetime is defined by a four dimensional Pythagorean equation which includes the square of imaginary time by the speed of light..
The mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light dominates the other elements in his theorem. Their existence and location in spacetime is dependent upon it. It is essential to the theorem. If we accept the objective existence of these other elements (energy-matter, spacetime and speed of light), then we are forced to accept the objective existence of the mathematical concepts as well (otherwise the theorem is meaningless).
I hope you find this interesting
God bless
-
Hi SusanDoris,
Thank you for your post. It is, more or less, correct, as you say - a"logical conclusion" from the facts.
Numbers, squares of numbers, square roots and complex numbers are not observable in the Natural world, yet the successes of Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc are empirical evidence that they provide genuine Knowledge about the Universe.
But this can happen only when the people concerned, building on knowledge of what previous people learned and recorded, work out the next steps forward. But, it is a misunderstanding to ask where they are "hanging around", because by their nature mathematical concepts are not limited by spacetime but define it. To the extent that a mathematical concept is true now (e.g. Pythagoras's theorem), then it was also true at the beginning of time when spacetime was a singularity (with no space).
It still sounds to me as if you are trying to say the concepts were there before space/time/singularity/etc. That to me is too far from reality to make any rational sense.
-
Hi torridon,
Thanks for your post.
I agree maths is a "suitable language" for expressing "relatationships between things" in science. It appears to be the only way we can even think about such relatationships in modern physics.
But mathematical concepts are much more than a mere language. No language of words can alone discover new things beyond our imagination, while mathematical concepts can. No language of words can alone offer an objective analysis of the physical Universe, while mathimatical concepts appear to do so.
Science is a work in progress, many questions to be resolved, much to be expected, but unless mathematical concepts (underlying the symbols) exist independently of human minds, then much of modern physics would be subjective circular reasoning. If the science is objective, then the maths from which it comes must also be objective (exist independently of the human mind).
God bless
I have to say your thinking on this is wrong. It all depends on where you put the dividing line between the mind and "stuff out there". Get that wrong and you come up with some odd conclusions. Let me try to explain with this example.
If you have four rocks floating in space you only have four rocks floating in space if you have a mind there declare it so. If there is no mind there then there is not four rocks floating in space - you barely even have rocks or anything. 2 + 2 only equals 4 when there is a mind there. It is not true in all cases, i.e. when there isn't a mind there. It will cease to be when mankind goes extinct. This is true of all physical and mathematical relationships developed by the mind, they are only there because of the mind and will cease to be once the mind ceases to be. All these only exist in the mind as relationships and as long one draws the line between these two worlds correctly then false conclusions won't be made. This still leaves the matter of what the mind is working on though; the patterns of physics and the universe.....
-
Hi SusanDoris,
Thank you for your post. It is, more or less, correct, as you say - a"logical conclusion" from the facts.
Numbers, squares of numbers, square roots and complex numbers are not observable in the Natural world, yet the successes of Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc are empirical evidence that they provide genuine Knowledge about the Universe.
But, it is a misunderstanding to ask where they are "hanging around", because by their nature mathematical concepts are not limited by spacetime but define it. To the extent that a mathematical concept is true now (e.g. Pythagoras's theorem), then it was also true at the beginning of time when spacetime was a singularity (with no space).
If Einstein's Special Relativity is correct, then matter-energy is controlled by the mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light, and the location (hanging around) of a speck of matter in spacetime is defined by a four dimensional Pythagorean equation which includes the square of imaginary time by the speed of light..
The mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light dominates the other elements in his theorem. Their existence and location in spacetime is dependent upon it. It is essential to the theorem. If we accept the objective existence of these other elements (energy-matter, spacetime and speed of light), then we are forced to accept the objective existence of the mathematical concepts as well (otherwise the theorem is meaningless).
I hope you find this interesting
God bless
What is your point?
Mathematics is an invention by humans to explain and predict what we have found and what we expect to happen, nothing more.
And your persistent use of the term 'the speed of light' in your posts is misleading .
'C' represents the universal constant. a maximum speed the universe allows which could include an electric toaster , a thought ,an electron ,a photon , a gravitation wave , any transfer of information, any electro magnetic wave, a quantum leap or fall back, the effect of gravity between bodies, a space craft .
Whether or not the universe exists if we are not here to see it is another matter , all I can say is it looks the way it does because we are here to look at it.
all the best
-
I have to say your thinking on this is wrong. It all depends on where you put the dividing line between the mind and "stuff out there". Get that wrong and you come up with some odd conclusions. Let me try to explain with this example.
If you have four rocks floating in space you only have four rocks floating in space if you have a mind there declare it so. If there is no mind there then there is not four rocks floating in space - you barely even have rocks or anything. 2 + 2 only equals 4 when there is a mind there. It is not true in all cases, i.e. when there isn't a mind there. It will cease to be when mankind goes extinct. This is true of all physical and mathematical relationships developed by the mind, they are only there because of the mind and will cease to be once the mind ceases to be. All these only exist in the mind as relationships and as long one draws the line between these two worlds correctly then false conclusions won't be made. This still leaves the matter of what the mind is working on though; the patterns of physics and the universe.....
The four rocks would still be there in the absence of a mind to count them. The rocks exist and the conceptualisation of the situation exists in minds. Rosindubh's question, is , is there any sense in which abstract principles exist in the absence of a mind to comprehend them. I would say that relationships exist externally to mind whereas the conceptualisations and descriptions of those relationships are constructions of mind. Planet Earth follows an elliptical orbit around its parent star and did so before humans realised that path through space could be formulated in mathematical terms, hence the relationship is actual and valid independently of our ability to understand or describe it. I think he/she is making a case for the primacy of logic. Planet Earth never followed a square orbit because that would confound natural law and all natural law itself is subject to logic.
-
The four rocks would still be there in the absence of a mind to count them. The rocks exist and the conceptualisation of the situation exists in minds. Rosindubh's question, is , is there any sense in which abstract principles exist in the absence of a mind to comprehend them. I would say that relationships exist externally to mind whereas the conceptualisations and descriptions of those relationships are constructions of mind. Planet Earth follows an elliptical orbit around its parent star and did so before humans realised that path through space could be formulated in mathematical terms, hence the relationship is actual and valid independently of our ability to understand or describe it. I think he/she is making a case for the primacy of logic. Planet Earth never followed a square orbit because that would confound natural law and all natural law itself is subject to logic.
This does tend to end up as a semantics game but that is where the problem is in that words can carry with them concepts and presuppositions which give some kind of agency to inanimate objects and situations.
Yes the four rocks are still there but are they rocks and are there four? OR who says so, who provides the classification if there is no mind there?
So, for the abstract principles these need a mind to say that is what they are otherwise any regular system; like, what is referred to as, the laws of physics; is very much like those four rocks that have no mind applied to them. It just is! I have a slight issue with the word 'relationships' (see my first paragraph) but other than that I reckon we are reading from the same page.
I can't see how logic enters the picture, though I think Rosindubh brought it from mathematics, which personally I don't see as being logical, or pure logic, as it can paint a thousand pictures but only one will be faithful to reality.
-
Well I think we are almost agreeing, then, this is close to what I have been saying all along, that spatial relationships exist out there independent of observer, whilst concepts do not 'exist' out there and only exist in minds. The difference between us is that for you, the principles, though not out there in nature, do exist independently of mind in some sense, and are there for minds to discover. If we take circularity, as an example, we agree that circles do not exist in nature (being a 2d concept) but we could say that the principle of circularity ie the conceptual relationships between radius and area and circumference, these principles are eternal - they are non-temporal and non-local. Is it surprising that the area of a circle for instance would be related to its radius ? Can you imagine a universe where this was not the case ?
Hi again torridon,
Thanks for the above post. It is nice to agree sometimes, but it is interesting to consider the critical differences which distinguish mathematical concepts from other abstract concepts (e.g from chess, Harry Potter, democracy, etc).
Take your example of the circle. As you say, we cannot imagine a universe where the mathematical relation between its area and radius was not the case, but we would have no difficulty at all imaging a universe where chess, Harry Potter, democracy etc do not exist. The former is a distinguishing feature of mathematical concepts, the latter a feature of all other abstract concepts.
To the extent they are true now, mathematical concepts were true before humans existed and will still be true after all humans have disappeared. So they are independent of the human mind (in a similar way to the moons around Saturn).
A further aspect of maths is an apparent interaction with the invariances which are essential to the science of physics. For every invariance, there appears to be a mathematical equation acting as a straight jacket controlling that invarience, e.g. E=MC2.
If every human disappeared right now, the Higgs and other quantum fields and particles would still behave in accordance with the equations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and energy-matter would still be controlled by the mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light.
However, the most significant feature of mathematical concepts is the way (since AD 1905) that the science of physics has progresed by using abstract mathematical concepts to forecast the existence of physical phenomena for which there was no previous evidence. How could this be if there was no interaction between these abstract concepts and the physical phenomena?
Maths and physics are works in progress, but if we accept the theorems of Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc, then we are forced to accept the objective existence (independent of the human mind) of all the elements which make up their theorems, including the mathematical concepts which dominate them.
It may seem strange to a materialist that there is more to the Universe than just the physical, but the evidence points that way. I apologise if I am repeating myself.
God bless
-
It may seem strange to a materialist that there is more to the Universe than just the physical, but the evidence points that way.
Can you list some of the other things you think make up the 'more to the universe than just the physical/ you refer to? What is your evidence for whatever you will put on said list?
-
Hi again torridon,
Thanks for the above post. It is nice to agree sometimes, but it is interesting to consider the critical differences which distinguish mathematical concepts from other abstract concepts (e.g from chess, Harry Potter, democracy, etc).
Take your example of the circle. As you say, we cannot imagine a universe where the mathematical relation between its area and radius was not the case, but we would have no difficulty at all imaging a universe where chess, Harry Potter, democracy etc do not exist. The former is a distinguishing feature of mathematical concepts, the latter a feature of all other abstract concepts.
To the extent they are true now, mathematical concepts were true before humans existed and will still be true after all humans have disappeared. So they are independent of the human mind (in a similar way to the moons around Saturn).
A further aspect of maths is an apparent interaction with the invariances which are essential to the science of physics. For every invariance, there appears to be a mathematical equation acting as a straight jacket controlling that invarience, e.g. E=MC2.
If every human disappeared right now, the Higgs and other quantum fields and particles would still behave in accordance with the equations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and energy-matter would still be controlled by the mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light.
However, the most significant feature of mathematical concepts is the way (since AD 1905) that the science of physics has progresed by using abstract mathematical concepts to forecast the existence of physical phenomena for which there was no previous evidence. How could this be if there was no interaction between these abstract concepts and the physical phenomena?
Maths and physics are works in progress, but if we accept the theorems of Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc, then we are forced to accept the objective existence (independent of the human mind) of all the elements which make up their theorems, including the mathematical concepts which dominate them.
It may seem strange to a materialist that there is more to the Universe than just the physical, but the evidence points that way. I apologise if I am repeating myself.
God bless
Morning Rosindubh.
Does Harry Potter exist ? Clearly the simplest answer is 'no', he is fictional. But does the fictional character Harry Potter exist in some sense ? I've seen the films and got the books and they are real enough; and anyone in the street can list some of his properties. Maybe we can describe Harry Potter as an information product - there is no simple ontology involved but a subtle one in terms of patterns of meaning shared between human minds.
Does beauty exist ? How about redness or niceness or fluency or difficulty or tastiness ? I think we would also have to put such things down as shared patterns of meaning and perception in minds although unlike Harry Potter, these are not all limited to minds of the human variety. But still, take away all minds and these things disappear along with Harry Potter.
Earth orbits the Sun on an elliptical path. It would still pursue the same path in the absence of human observers to describe it as elliptical or understand planetary dynamics. Planets will still obey the Newtonian inverse square law of gravitation, so does that mean that the inverse square law exists in some sense independently of human mind ? A theist will hold that the existence of laws suggests a law giver, there must be some source for such things. I would be more inclined to a notion of the primacy of logic, that all such principles derive ultimately from logic; logic needs no logician to give it, to recognise something as logical is to recognise that it could not be otherwise, as is the case with the relationship between radius and area of a circle. We don't need a law giver to arbitrarily decide such things, rather they are inevitably true. Hope this makes sense.
-
It still sounds to me as if you are trying to say the concepts were there before space/time/singularity/etc. That to me is too far from reality to make any rational sense.
Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for the above post.
If a mathematical concept is true right now, then it must also have been true before we thought of it.
When did Pythagoras's theorem become true? When he published it? Or was it true from the beginning of time?
God bless
-
It looks to me Rosin as though you'll turn yourself inside out, stand on your head, streach your ideas about maths to fit your bias in any direction to convince yourself of something you would like to think really exists.
I can't argue your ideas about maths but I'm equally sure your maths wouldn't stand up to the test or a challenge offered by someone like Laurence Krauss.
If you really think you have something to your maths idea that coud substanciate whatever it is you think they propose, why not offer them up for appraisal, if you have it right; world news! I somehow doubt you would jump the first hurdle, no one else ever has.
Just in case you do respond to my post in any way please stick your mindless god bless up to where the sun doesn't shine, right up.
ippy
-
If a mathematical concept is true right now, then it must also have been true before we thought of it.
When did Pythagoras's theorem become true? When he published it? Or was it true from the beginning of time?
God bless
This is where language has its limitations, since words like 'truth' and 'concept' are the products of human minds (and the evolved biology that supports these minds).
That there are aspects of the physical world that behaved in the same ways or patterns that we now describe using certain forms of language, and did so prior to our being here to apply this language, is self-evident given that the universe is older than our species - but so what!
-
......... And your persistent use of the term 'the speed of light' in your posts is misleading .
'C' represents the universal constant. a maximum speed the universe allows which could include an electric toaster , a thought ,an electron ,a photon , a gravitation wave , any transfer of information, any electro magnetic wave, a quantum leap or fall back, the effect of gravity between bodies, a space craft .
Hi Walter,
Thank you for your post. The 'c' in Einstein's equation was the square of the speed of light, but you can call it a constant if you wish.
Whether referred to as a square of a number or as a constant number, it is still an abstract mathematical concept which cannot be observed by the senses, but enabled Einstein to forecast the physical relationship between energy and matter long before empirical evidence was available.
I hope you find that interesting
God bless
-
Hi again torridon,
Thanks for the above post. It is nice to agree sometimes, but it is interesting to consider the critical differences which distinguish mathematical concepts from other abstract concepts (e.g from chess, Harry Potter, democracy, etc).
Take your example of the circle. As you say, we cannot imagine a universe where the mathematical relation between its area and radius was not the case, but we would have no difficulty at all imaging a universe where chess, Harry Potter, democracy etc do not exist. The former is a distinguishing feature of mathematical concepts, the latter a feature of all other abstract concepts.
To the extent they are true now, mathematical concepts were true before humans existed and will still be true after all humans have disappeared. So they are independent of the human mind (in a similar way to the moons around Saturn).
A further aspect of maths is an apparent interaction with the invariances which are essential to the science of physics. For every invariance, there appears to be a mathematical equation acting as a straight jacket controlling that invarience, e.g. E=MC2.
If every human disappeared right now, the Higgs and other quantum fields and particles would still behave in accordance with the equations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and energy-matter would still be controlled by the mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light.
However, the most significant feature of mathematical concepts is the way (since AD 1905) that the science of physics has progresed by using abstract mathematical concepts to forecast the existence of physical phenomena for which there was no previous evidence. How could this be if there was no interaction between these abstract concepts and the physical phenomena?
Maths and physics are works in progress, but if we accept the theorems of Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc, then we are forced to accept the objective existence (independent of the human mind) of all the elements which make up their theorems, including the mathematical concepts which dominate them.
It may seem strange to a materialist that there is more to the Universe than just the physical, but the evidence points that way. I apologise if I am repeating myself.
God bless
I go along with Torridon here.
It seems to me that whatever the universe is, it seems to have a logical self consistent structure which is not dependent on human beings, and, therefore, our attempts to disentangle this logic is the most reliable form of thinking. Mathematics, it seems to me, helps to clarify our logical thinking, and, to this extent, is a powerful tool that we can use to disentangle this logical structure.
Also I'm not sure where you are going with this. For instance, I can't see any reason why, by suggesting that because logic or mathematics seems to underpin our universe, there exists some outside intelligence which brought it all into being. Why should that conclusion carry any particular weight?
I leave you with a question. If the universe didn't exist(and assuming there were no other universes), in other words, if there were nothing at all, would the nature/characteristic of logic still exist in some form, or is it dependent on/a characteristic of the physical make up of our universe?
-
Earth orbits the Sun on an elliptical path. It would still pursue the same path in the absence of human observers to describe it as elliptical or understand planetary dynamics. Planets will still obey the Newtonian inverse square law of gravitation, so does that mean that the inverse square law exists in some sense independently of human mind ? A theist will hold that the existence of laws suggests a law giver, there must be some source for such things. I would be more inclined to a notion of the primacy of logic, that all such principles derive ultimately from logic; logic needs no logician to give it, to recognise something as logical is to recognise that it could not be otherwise, as is the case with the relationship between radius and area of a circle. We don't need a law giver to arbitrarily decide such things, rather they are inevitably true. Hope this makes sense.
Hi again torridon,
Thanks for the above post. I apologies for my delay in responding.
Your key point seems to be - "I would be more inclined to a notion of the primary of logic ...... to recognise something as logical is to recognise that it could not be otherwise".
By logic, I assume you mean deductive reasoning of maths. Analytic reasoning never tells us anything about the Natural world, while inductive reasoning never tells us anything about what "could not be otherwise".
How can mathematical logic, (abstract and not observable in the natural world) jump over Hume's Fork and enable us to recognise physical things which "could not be otherwise" (e.g. Higgs field), unless mathematical concepts are objective entities which can interact with the material Universe?
Logic could only be primary, if it enabled us to jump Hume's Fork.
On an arbitrary "law giver", a theist might say that maths is the understandable mind of the Logos, a law giver who decides rationally, not "arbitrarily. Surely the successes of modern physics point that way?
Food for your thoughts, I hope.
God bless
-
I would be one of the first non-religious people to convert when presented with a substantial wedge of verifiable evidence that proves this god figure exists; going by experience I don't think that event will be happening today.
To date I haven't seen anything or heard anything that points in the direction of anything such as these things described by others as gods, we have a few contributers to this forum using a Do Do of an idea about gods, all travelling from one end of the scale to the other in ever decreasing circles; some take the simplistic approach to faith and then it goes through all shdes of approach right up to the well educated have't got a clue irrationalists wrestling with all of their unrelated pot pourri of thouroughly mixed up ideas going around their heads.
From my experience both the former and latter of these people have been indoctrinated at that so very tender young age and are only using everthing they have learned to make, as they see it, to try to make sense out of the many irrational beliefs; I find it sad seeing examples of these people struggling and trying to make sense out of this not so intellectual nonsense.
Ippy
-
Hi again torridon,
Thanks for the above post. I apologies for my delay in responding.
Your key point seems to be - "I would be more inclined to a notion of the primary of logic ...... to recognise something as logical is to recognise that it could not be otherwise".
By logic, I assume you mean deductive reasoning of maths. Analytic reasoning never tells us anything about the Natural world, while inductive reasoning never tells us anything about what "could not be otherwise".
How can mathematical logic, (abstract and not observable in the natural world) jump over Hume's Fork and enable us to recognise physical things which "could not be otherwise" (e.g. Higgs field), unless mathematical concepts are objective entities which can interact with the material Universe?
Logic could only be primary, if it enabled us to jump Hume's Fork.
On an arbitrary "law giver", a theist might say that maths is the understandable mind of the Logos, a law giver who decides rationally, not "arbitrarily. Surely the successes of modern physics point that way?
Food for your thoughts, I hope.
God bless
It is right I think to recognise a difference between logical truths and contingent truths but there must be some relationship between the two classes of truth and the nature of that relationship must be of the form that contingent truths are dependent on or are bounded by logical truths and this is what I mean by the phrase 'primacy of logic'. Logical truths need no law giver to decide them; two plus two would always equal four inevitably in any possible world; the area of a circle will always be 3.14 times the square of its radius in all possible worlds. However when we come to natural law things are much messier, the speed of light in a vacuum say or the charge on an electron. These things are probably contingent but contingent upon what is not always easy to say, and that is why science is a process, a process of finding the way back from contingent truths to logical truths.
I think we are often tempted to short-circuit that process of enquiry, to posit an intelligent law giver in some higher realm who just decided that things should be as they are but that looks like a category fail to me, not least because intelligence itself is derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answer to 'why' questions. If we find a watch lying on the beach one day we might assume that someone must have made it. Fair enough for an everyday observation, but it's inadequate to extrapolate that line of reasoning into a formulation for the ultimate reason of all things. Clearly the watch was made by a watch maker, superficially true, yes, but the watch maker himself is a contingent derivative thing, he is a sort of human which is a sort of primate which is a sort of mammal which is a sort of vertebrate which is a sort of multicellular eukaryote which is a bounded replicating metabolic system which is a form of energy exchange which is contingent on thermodynamic law which comes back down to the application of the laws of probability which in themselves are not contingent and are inevitably true in all possible worlds. A tornado racing through an aircraft hanger might reduce the Boeing 747 to clutter, but a tornado racing through a scrapyard never spontaneously assembles a Boeing 747; why, not because it is impossible but rather because it is improbable. Thermodynamics ultimately boils down to the immutable laws of probability and these laws need no giver.
-
It is right I think to recognise a difference between logical truths and contingent truths but there must be some relationship between the two classes of truth and the nature of that relationship must be of the form that contingent truths are dependent on or are bounded by logical truths and this is what I mean by the phrase 'primacy of logic'. Logical truths need no law giver to decide them; two plus two would always equal four inevitably in any possible world; the area of a circle will always be 3.14 times the square of its radius in all possible worlds. However when we come to natural law things are much messier, the speed of light in a vacuum say or the charge on an electron. These things are probably contingent but contingent upon what is not always easy to say, and that is why science is a process, a process of finding the way back from contingent truths to logical truths.
I think we are often tempted to short-circuit that process of enquiry, to posit an intelligent law giver in some higher realm who just decided that things should be as they are but that looks like a category fail to me, not least because intelligence itself is derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answer to 'why' questions. If we find a watch lying on the beach one day we might assume that someone must have made it. Fair enough for an everyday observation, but it's inadequate to extrapolate that line of reasoning into a formulation for the ultimate reason of all things. Clearly the watch was made by a watch maker, superficially true, yes, but the watch maker himself is a contingent derivative thing, he is a sort of human which is a sort of primate which is a sort of mammal which is a sort of vertebrate which is a sort of multicellular eukaryote which is a bounded replicating metabolic system which is a form of energy exchange which is contingent on thermodynamic law which comes back down to the application of the laws of probability which in themselves are not contingent and are inevitably true in all possible worlds. A tornado racing through an aircraft hanger might reduce the Boeing 747 to clutter, but a tornado racing through a scrapyard never spontaneously assembles a Boeing 747; why, not because it is impossible but rather because it is improbable. Thermodynamics ultimately boils down to the immutable laws of probability and these laws need no giver.
Well put Torri.
ippy
-
#310
If we find a watch lying on the beach one day we might assume that someone must have made it. Fair enough for an everyday observation, but it's inadequate to extrapolate that line of reasoning into a formulation for the ultimate reason of all things. Clearly the watch was made by a watch maker, superficially true, yes, but the watch maker himself is a contingent derivative thing, he is a sort of human which is a sort of primate which is a sort of mammal which is a sort of vertebrate which is a sort of multicellular eukaryote which is a bounded replicating metabolic system which is a form of energy exchange which is contingent on thermodynamic law which comes back down to the application of the laws of probability which in themselves are not contingent and are inevitably true in all possible worlds.
Some questions here Torridon...
1. Is it possible to reach the conclusion that the watch was designed without knowing anything about the designer?
2. Is the truth that the watch was designed dependent on knowing anything about the designer?
3. If the philosophical arguments used against religious belief were applied to the watch, would it ever be possible to reach the truth of the matter, with regard to how the watch came to be?
-
#310
Some questions here Torridon...
1. Is it possible to reach the conclusion that the watch was designed without knowing anything about the designer?
Yes, since they are well known objects that most of us probably own.
2. Is the truth that the watch was designed dependent on knowing anything about the designer?
Not really since they are a common item with many different designers/manufacturers.
3. If the philosophical arguments used against religious belief were applied to the watch, would it ever be possible to reach the truth of the matter, with regard to how the watch came to be?
Why would you want to use fallacious arguments made for religion when considering jewellery - sounds like a category error to me?
I'm sure any high street jeweller would point you in the direction of Messrs Timex, Sekonda et al who'd be able to satisfactorily explain how they design watches: why, you could even watch them do it (if invited to of course).
-
#310
Some questions here Torridon...
1. Is it possible to reach the conclusion that the watch was designed without knowing anything about the designer?
2. Is the truth that the watch was designed dependent on knowing anything about the designer?
3. If the philosophical arguments used against religious belief were applied to the watch, would it ever be possible to reach the truth of the matter, with regard to how the watch came to be?
We can usually infer the designer from the design. I can usually recognise the composer from the style of the composition, a log jam in a north American river betrays the presence of a beaver, a clay nest in the rainforest is a hallmark of the weaver bird. These things are part of the extended phenotype of the designer involved. But can we extend that principle to infer a grand designer of all things ? Clearly not, I would say. Consider how we identify design - we need at least the following two elements, distinctiveness and recurrence. Distinctiveness requires some sort of context to differentiate the design from background noise. Recurrence suggests it is not a one-off. We can say neither of things in relation to the question of an ultimate grand designer of our reality. We cannot compare reality against some background context because there is none and cannot be any by its own definition. We cannot compare reality against other realities because there are none other to compare against. So there cannot be any justification for claims of design at that level; in fact the very term 'design' becomes meaningless in the absence of any broader context.
-
This is where language has its limitations, since words like 'truth' and 'concept' are the products of human minds (and the evolved biology that supports these minds).
That there are aspects of the physical world that behaved in the same ways or patterns that we now describe using certain forms of language, and did so prior to our being here to apply this language, is self-evident given that the universe is older than our species - but so what!
Hi Gordon,
Thank you for the above post. As usual, I have to apologise for my delay in responding.
You appear to be using the word "language" as a synomyn for 'mathematical concepts'. It is not.
Language enables us to communicate our experiences of the physical world and our thoughts about abstract concepts. But it does not create the physical world nor the abstract concepts. These exist independently of whatever language or words we use.
To say "we now describe" behaviour of the physical world "using certain forms of language" is to raise the question why should abstract concepts (maths which we cannot observe with our senses) be able to do that (and do it consistently, accurately and always). What is your rational explanation for believing that? Unless there is an objective interaction between the two (independent of the human mind).
Critical since 1905, to say that maths "describes" aspects of the physical world, is to ignore the fact that the primary use of maths in modern physics is to 'forecast' (not just describe) the objective existence of previously unsuspected physical phenomena. The gravitational waves of Einstein and the Higgs field and boson of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (as well as Heisenberg's introduction of mathematical matrices into QM) are empirical evidence for an objective interaction between abstract and physical (independent of any human language).
Empirical evidence is inductive reasoning but if you do not accept it in this case, then you have no rational explanation for the successes of abstract maths in modern physics.
I hope you find this interesting
God bless
-
Hi Gordon,
Thank you for the above post. As usual, I have to apologise for my delay in responding.
You appear to be using the word "language" as a synomyn for 'mathematical concepts'. It is not.
Language enables us to communicate our experiences of the physical world and our thoughts about abstract concepts. But it does not create the physical world nor the abstract concepts. These exist independently of whatever language or words we use.
To say "we now describe" behaviour of the physical world "using certain forms of language" is to raise the question why should abstract concepts (maths which we cannot observe with our senses) be able to do that (and do it consistently, accurately and always). What is your rational explanation for believing that? Unless there is an objective interaction between the two (independent of the human mind).
Critical since 1905, to say that maths "describes" aspects of the physical world, is to ignore the fact that the primary use of maths in modern physics is to 'forecast' (not just describe) the objective existence of previously unsuspected physical phenomena. The gravitational waves of Einstein and the Higgs field and boson of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (as well as Heisenberg's introduction of mathematical matrices into QM) are empirical evidence for an objective interaction between abstract and physical (independent of any human language).
Empirical evidence is inductive reasoning but if you do not accept it in this case, then you have no rational explanation for the successes of abstract maths in modern physics.
I hope you find this interesting
God bless
The god of the gaps, heard that one.
ippy
-
If you really think you have something to your maths idea that coud substanciate whatever it is you think they propose, why not offer them up for appraisal, if you have it right; world news! I somehow doubt you would jump the first hurdle, no one else ever has.
Hi ippy,
Thank you for your post.
I only report of what clever people than me have already explained. For an early example, check what Paul Dirac (Nobel Prize 1933) said in his lecture to the Royal Society (Edinburgh) in 1939. His concluding paragraph states:-
"there is thus a possibility that the ancient dream of philosopher to connect all Nature with the properties of whole numbers will some day be realised. To do so physics will have to develope a long way to establish the details of how the correspondence is to be made. One hint for this development seems pretty obvious, namely, the study of whole numbers in modern mathematics is inextricably bound up with the theory of functions of a complex variable, which theory we have already seen has a good chance of forming the basis of the physics of the future. The working out of this idea would lead to a connection between atomic theory and cosmology."
Things have progressed since then, but it is the quality of the argument which counts, not who said it. So check the whole lecture.
For a more recent example, look for a video of what Roger Penrose says on this subject. But judge my posts on what they say, not on what others say.
God bless
-
Hi Gordon,
Thank you for the above post. As usual, I have to apologise for my delay in responding.
You appear to be using the word "language" as a synomyn for 'mathematical concepts'. It is not.
I'm not, so you're wrong.
Language enables us to communicate our experiences of the physical world and our thoughts about abstract concepts.
Yes: but only within the scope of current language(s) to express these.
But it does not create the physical world nor the abstract concepts.
Which is a straw man in the case of the former, and in the case of the latter the implication that abstract concepts somehow equate to the physical world is true only in the sense of the biology used to do the thinking about them.
These exist independently of whatever language or words we use.
The physical ones seem to, but our use of language to be express the abstract doesn't mean that, say, altruism 'exists' in the same way that, say, what we call 'heat' does.
To say "we now describe" behaviour of the physical world "using certain forms of language" is to raise the question why should abstract concepts (maths which we cannot observe with our senses) be able to do that (and do it consistently, accurately and always).
You can't observe language either: show me an 'or'! You can't, but when the term is used you are able to infer a meaning: you can't show me a 'three' either, yet you can infer meaning from that, just as you can if I say I find a certain poem to be ' profound'. Of course language, and mathematics, isn't static and evolves to meet needs whether these involve entirely new requirements or to reflect refinements or subtleties in our understanding.
What is your rational explanation for believing that? Unless there is an objective interaction between the two (independent of the human mind).
I'm not exactly sure that I 'believe' what you think I do, largely since I suspect your approach involves the fallacy of personal incredulity (and probably others too).
Critical since 1905, to say that maths "describes" aspects of the physical world, is to ignore the fact that the primary use of maths in modern physics is to 'forecast' (not just describe) the objective existence of previously unsuspected physical phenomena. The gravitational waves of Einstein and the Higgs field and boson of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (as well as Heisenberg's introduction of mathematical matrices into QM) are empirical evidence for an objective interaction between abstract and physical (independent of any human language).
If anything I suspect the above is evidence only of your muddled thinking and tendency towards personal incredulity, and also the fallacy of equivocation since I'm not certain you're using terms such as 'objective', 'interaction' and 'abstract' in consistently meaningful ways.
-
The gravitational waves of Einstein and the Higgs field and boson of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (as well as Heisenberg's introduction of mathematical matrices into QM) are empirical evidence for an objective interaction between abstract and physical (independent of any human language.
Except maths is a language.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/language/MathIsLanguage.shtml
Mathematics is pure language - the language of science. It is unique among languages in its ability to provide precise expression for every thought or concept that can be formulated in its terms. (In a spoken language, there exist words, like "happiness", that defy definition.) It is also an art - the most intellectual and classical of the arts.
As I said before 4unicorns+3unicorns= 7unicorns is perfectly valid mathematically, but it tells you nothing about whether unicorns exist. Prattling on about higgs fields and Relativity doesn't change those expressions from being mathematical descriptions to some sort of "objective-y things".
-
Posted by Gordon
I'm not exactly sure that I 'believe' what you think I do, largely since I suspect your approach involves the fallacy of personal incredulity (and probably others too).
If anything I suspect the above is evidence only of your muddled thinking and tendency towards personal incredulity, and also the fallacy of equivocation since I'm not certain you're using terms such as 'objective', 'interaction and 'abstract' in a consistently meaningful ways.
Ditto, and I think there are lots of words written to blur the lack of objective facts at the core.
-
Hi ippy,
Thank you for your post.
I only report of what clever people than me have already explained. For an early example, check what Paul Dirac (Nobel Prize 1933) said in his lecture to the Royal Society (Edinburgh) in 1939. His concluding paragraph states:-
"there is thus a possibility that the ancient dream of philosopher to connect all Nature with the properties of whole numbers will some day be realised. To do so physics will have to develope a long way to establish the details of how the correspondence is to be made. One hint for this development seems pretty obvious, namely, the study of whole numbers in modern mathematics is inextricably bound up with the theory of functions of a complex variable, which theory we have already seen has a good chance of forming the basis of the physics of the future. The working out of this idea would lead to a connection between atomic theory and cosmology."
Things have progressed since then, but it is the quality of the argument which counts, not who said it. So check the whole lecture.
For a more recent example, look for a video of what Roger Penrose says on this subject. But judge my posts on what they say, not on what others say.
God bless
Thank you for your rather supercilious post; whilst I have to admit I admire the standard of bullshit you have managed to acheive, it still doesn't seperate you from the knowledge available to all of us these days, so really all of those, I'm sure the noteably big hitters you love referring to, would have been even bigger hitters if they had found the definitive answer you're looking for.
Having said the above if the arguments of those on your big hitters list, were that good and possibly definitive even, no one would need to be into any of the forms of maths there are available, because others that study maths and don't let themselves get into the bullshit zone, would only be to pleased to spread the proven word if it was proved and then of course we would all then know the people we saw as bullshitters were right, all without having to know that much about maths; mind you R, it's not very likely we'll be hearing this world shattering news anytime soon.
Ippy
-
It is right I think to recognise a difference between logical truths and contingent truths but there must be some relationship between the two classes of truth and the nature of that relationship must be of the form that contingent truths are dependent on or are bounded by logical truths and this is what I mean by the phrase 'primacy of logic'. Logical truths need no law giver to decide them; two plus two would always equal four inevitably in any possible world; the area of a circle will always be 3.14 times the square of its radius in all possible worlds. However when we come to natural law things are much messier, the speed of light in a vacuum say or the charge on an electron. These things are probably contingent but contingent upon what is not always easy to say, and that is why science is a process, a process of finding the way back from contingent truths to logical truths.
Hi torridon,
Thank you for the above post.
Whether there is a "law giver" or not, we appear to agree that mathematical concepts are true objectively (independent of human minds). In you words:- "in all possible worlds".
However, except for maths, there is no "difference between logical truths and contingent truths" in respect of uncertainty. Indeed, if there is "some relationship between the two classes of truth", it is that (except for maths) logical truths "are dependent on or bound by" contingent truths - the opposite of what you argue here.
Except for maths, logic cannot be primary in science, because it can never tell us anything about the world unless it is supplemented by something additional. By their nature, logical statements have an implied 'IF' in each premises, and these 'ifs' need support from inductive (uncertain) reasoning before they can be considered 'sound' (i.e. probably true).
For example:- (a) all men are mortal (b) Socrates is a man (c) therefore Socrates is mortal. That is a 'valid' logical statement which we accept as 'sound' because of the inductive support for both premises (a) and (b). In essence, it means (a) if all men are mortal (b) and if Socrates is a man (c) then Socrates is mortal.
Compare that against:- (x) all men have red hair (y) Socrates is a man (z) therefore Socrates has red hair. This also is a 'valid' logical statement, but we do not accept it as 'sound' because it lacks inductive support for premise (x). So, unlike maths (true in all possible worlds), other logical statements are only true in particular cases (not true in all possible worlds).
However, mathematical concepts are different to all other human statements in that they are true in themselves, and in all possible worlds (whether humans inhabit those worlds or not). Science would make no sense unless this was so. It is contingent upon maths.
An interesting question then arises. Is that all there is to it? Are mathematical concepts the ultimate reality? Or is there a further abstract reality underlying maths, something like an abstract mathematician's intellect? Prof. Max Tegmark has published a book claiming the former, while Christians believe the latter due to the goodness and miracles of Jesus (i.e. the Logos).
Deciding between these (or any other idea you might like to raise) needs abductive reasoning, but then, so did Special and General Relativity.
I hope you find this interesting,
God bless
-
Hi torridon,
Thank you for the above post.
Whether there is a "law giver" or not, we appear to agree that mathematical concepts are true objectively (independent of human minds). In you words:- "in all possible worlds".
However, except for maths, there is no "difference between logical truths and contingent truths" in respect of uncertainty. Indeed, if there is "some relationship between the two classes of truth", it is that (except for maths) logical truths "are dependent on or bound by" contingent truths - the opposite of what you argue here.
Except for maths, logic cannot be primary in science, because it can never tell us anything about the world unless it is supplemented by something additional. By their nature, logical statements have an implied 'IF' in each premises, and these 'ifs' need support from inductive (uncertain) reasoning before they can be considered 'sound' (i.e. probably true).
For example:- (a) all men are mortal (b) Socrates is a man (c) therefore Socrates is mortal. That is a 'valid' logical statement which we accept as 'sound' because of the inductive support for both premises (a) and (b). In essence, it means (a) if all men are mortal (b) and if Socrates is a man (c) then Socrates is mortal.
Compare that against:- (x) all men have red hair (y) Socrates is a man (z) therefore Socrates has red hair. This also is a 'valid' logical statement, but we do not accept it as 'sound' because it lacks inductive support for premise (x). So, unlike maths (true in all possible worlds), other logical statements are only true in particular cases (not true in all possible worlds).
However, mathematical concepts are different to all other human statements in that they are true in themselves, and in all possible worlds (whether humans inhabit those worlds or not). Science would make no sense unless this was so. It is contingent upon maths.
An interesting question then arises. Is that all there is to it? Are mathematical concepts the ultimate reality? Or is there a further abstract reality underlying maths, something like an abstract mathematician's intellect? Prof. Max Tegmark has published a book claiming the former, while Christians believe the latter due to the goodness and miracles of Jesus (i.e. the Logos).
Deciding between these (or any other idea you might like to raise) needs abductive reasoning, but then, so did Special and General Relativity.
I hope you find this interesting,
God bless
There are around 400 words there. As you probably know, I use a screen reader and to try and extract some simple facts from that lot is just about impossible. I personaly would very much appreciate it if you could, in a few clear sentences, say what the most important facts are.
thank you.
-
Does it exist?
Can certain types of Christian idea be construed as mythological in essence & maybe didn't actually happen 'on earth' or is it all to be taken as literally true ?!!!??
I'm pretty well up on Hindu mythology & its use to help understand many idea IN that religion but do ALL Christians just blindly accept & not try to look deeper?
Bit of a rhetorical question but....
What do we all feel about this?
Nick
I'd say this is Christian mythology
http://www.storyline-features.co.uk/glastonbury.htm
-
..
However, mathematical concepts are different to all other human statements in that they are true in themselves, and in all possible worlds (whether humans inhabit those worlds or not). Science would make no sense unless this was so. It is contingent upon maths.
An interesting question then arises. Is that all there is to it? Are mathematical concepts the ultimate reality? Or is there a further abstract reality underlying maths, something like an abstract mathematician's intellect? Prof. Max Tegmark has published a book claiming the former, while Christians believe the latter due to the goodness and miracles of Jesus (i.e. the Logos).
..
Hope you don't mind me boiling your last post down to the above, which is the nub of the matter I think.
Science is contingent on maths, as you say, but maths itself (as a form of pure logic) is incontingent; the truths expressed by maths are self-referentially true and dependent on nothing. Does that justify us in calling maths an ultimate reality ? I think that would be to make capricious use of the word 'reality'. That something exists in reality normally means it has mass/energy/coordinates/speed etc. and we cannot say that of abstract concepts. The truths of maths are inevitably true, and they do not need some prior truth giver to decide that they should be true. In my understanding this is implied by the incontingency of maths, the primacy of logic. I think your position is self-contradictory because you recognise the incontingency of maths (say) on one hand, but then go on to imply a law giver who decides such things - this is flatly denying the incontingency of maths. Why should the fact that two plus two equals four need someone to decide that it should be so ? You are saying that, yes, maths is incontingent, but it is contingent on a mathematician in the sky. That looks an incoherent position to me; and that without even touching upon the question of the contingency of the great mathematician.
-
Hope you don't mind me boiling your last post down to the above, which is the nub of the matter I think.
Science is contingent on maths, as you say, but maths itself (as a form of pure logic) is incontingent; the truths expressed by maths are self-referentially true and dependent on nothing. Does that justify us in calling maths an ultimate reality ? I think that would be to make capricious use of the word 'reality'. That something exists in reality normally means it has mass/energy/coordinates/speed etc. and we cannot say that of abstract concepts. The truths of maths are inevitably true, and they do not need some prior truth giver to decide that they should be true. In my understanding this is implied by the incontingency of maths, the primacy of logic. I think your position is self-contradictory because you recognise the incontingency of maths (say) on one hand, but then go on to imply a law giver who decides such things - this is flatly denying the incontingency of maths. Why should the fact that two plus two equals four need someone to decide that it should be so ? You are saying that, yes, maths is incontingent, but it is contingent on a mathematician in the sky. That looks an incoherent position to me; and that without even touching upon the question of the contingency of the great mathematician.
Classic intellectually imperialistic post.
Reality corresponds to what philosophical materialism says it is? That is the mere et pere of circular argument.
When last we looked maths was not subject to any physical context. Gravity apparently does not affect how 'mathive'
something is.
-
Hope you don't mind me boiling your last post down to the above, which is the nub of the matter I think.
Science is contingent on maths, as you say, but maths itself (as a form of pure logic) is incontingent You are saying that, yes, maths is incontingent, but it is contingent on a mathematician in the sky. That looks an incoherent position to me; and that without even touching upon the question of the contingency of the great mathematician.
Why does God HAVE to be contingent, if you allow that maths IS incontingent?....You aren't being coherent.
-
An interesting question then arises. Is that all there is to it? Are mathematical concepts the ultimate reality? Or is there a further abstract reality underlying maths, something like an abstract mathematician's intellect? Prof. Max Tegmark has published a book claiming the former, while Christians believe the latter due to the goodness and miracles of Jesus (i.e. the Logos).
Tegmark's book was interesting but I see absolutely no way in which his speculation could be tested.
Your further speculation (that there might be a "an abstract mathematician's intellect" seems like nothing but wishful thinking. Everything we know (from actual evidence) about intellects is that they need a physical reality to support them. Taking one of the most complex products of the reality we observe and trying to make it fundamental seems bizarre in the extreme.
As for your 'reason' - where is this "goodness and miracles of Jesus" of which you speak (apart from in an old, inconsistent and contradictory book)...?
-
Tegmark's book was interesting but I see absolutely no way in which his speculation could be tested.
Your further speculation (that there might be a "an abstract mathematician's intellect" seems like nothing but wishful thinking. Everything we know (from actual evidence)
You seem to have fallen behind and out of step. An infinite, eternal universe is now ''in'', as is the multiverse and string theory even in the lack of actual evidence.....particularly if it sticks one on the theists.
-
You seem to have fallen behind and out of step. An infinite, eternal universe is now ''in'', as is the multiverse and string theory even in the lack of actual evidence.....particularly if it sticks one on the theists.
Is there a point you are struggling to make...?
-
Is there a point you are struggling to make...?
Make a quick survey of the posts and see how many times an atheist declaration of an unproved infinity or an unproved multiverse is delivered as if it trumps all considerations.
But then you haven't been in these parts lately.
-
Make a quick survey of the posts and see how many times an atheist declaration of an unproved infinity or an unproved multiverse is delivered as if it trumps all considerations.
Why?
It doesn't have anything to do with what I said. The only such concept I mentioned was Tegmark's and I pointed out that it seemed to be untestable.
-
Why?
It doesn't have anything to do with what I said. The only such concept I mentioned was Tegmark's and I pointed out that it seemed to be untestable.
Testability doesn't seem to matter to string theorists and multiversists or those given to scientism....They are always telling us that science will find an answer one day.
-
Testability doesn't seem to matter to string theorists and multiversists or those given to scientism....They are always telling us that science will find an answer one day.
This (even if true) still has nothing to do with what I said...
-
This (even if true) still has nothing to do with what I said...
I think something should only be classed as science if it is scientifically testable also.
-
I think something should only be classed as science if it is scientifically testable also.
I didn't say that either (science needs speculation, conjecture, and hypothesis in order to arrive at theory).
Do you have anything to say that actually has anything to do with what I originally said (#328)?
-
Vlad,
Make a quick survey of the posts and see how many times an atheist declaration of an unproved infinity or an unproved multiverse is delivered as if it trumps all considerations.
But then you haven't been in these parts lately.
That's easy - there are none.
What you're attempting to do here is to conflate conjecture or hypothesis with theory or fact. Statements about multiverses and the rest are the former - ideas that are logically cogent but pending further investigation that would validate or invalidate them. Statements like, "God is" on the other hand are the latter - essentially they skip the process that would take you beyond conjecture and jump straight to the fact bit.
If instead you wanted to find an equivalence you'd have to say something like, "I have a conjecture that I call "God"". The response would be, "OK then - what method or process do you propose to validate or to invalidate it, perhaps starting with some coherent definitions of your terms?"
Which, as we both know, is precisely the point at which you disappear over the hill.
Oh, and conjectures about multiverses have nothing to do with atheism by the way.
-
Vlad,
Testability doesn't seem to matter to string theorists and multiversists or those given to scientism....They are always telling us that science will find an answer one day.
No "they" don't. Stop lying.
-
torridon #325
Much applause from me!!
-
Why does God HAVE to be contingent, if you allow that maths IS incontingent?....You aren't being coherent.
God is not even well defined, it varies from person to person and culture to culture. If we subtract all the cultural embellishments, God is great, God hates sin etc what is there that is left. What data do we have to go on ? If we look for an origin of all things it must be by definition irreducible and incontingent and most portrayals of god, such as they are, are manifestly culturally derivative. Exactly how is hating sin relevant to the construction of spiral arm galaxies or deciding the charge on an electron ? The psychological state of hatred is a contingent outcome of complexity not the primal source of it.
-
Vlad,
That's easy - there are none.
What you're attempting to do here is to conflate conjecture or hypothesis with theory or fact. Statements about multiverses and the rest are the former - ideas that are logically cogent but pending further investigation that would validate or invalidate them. Statements like, "God is" on the other hand are the latter - essentially they skip the process that would take you beyond conjecture and jump straight to the fact bit.
If instead you wanted to find an equivalence you'd have to say something like, "I have a conjecture that I call "God"". The response would be, "OK then - what method or process do you propose to validate or to invalidate it, perhaps starting with some coherent definitions of your terms?"
Which, as we both know, is precisely the point at which you disappear over the hill.
Oh, and conjectures about multiverses have nothing to do with atheism by the way.
You ask Vlad what methods he would us to investigate his hypothesis and this is a valid question but an hypothesis is worthless unless there is some conjecture on how to follow this up and investigate it. So things as multiverse or string theory are as stupid as claims about God because what method would science use to investigate these? Until they set out their method for this it is just farting in the wind.
-
JK,
You ask Vlad what methods he would us to investigate his hypothesis and this is a valid question but an hypothesis is worthless unless there is some conjecture on how to follow this up and investigate it. So things as multiverse or string theory are as stupid as claims about God because what method would science use to investigate these? Until they set out their method for this it is just farting in the wind.
Not really. In the first place, as I understand it string theory etc have some logic to support them - they're not just white noise. In the second though - and more to the point - Vlad doesn't think "God" is just a hypothesis at all; he thinks it's a fact. That's where he went wrong earlier - he tried to draw an equivalence between conjectures and hypotheses about the multiverse and such like with his asserted fact of "God".
-
I think we are often tempted to short-circuit that process of enquiry, to posit an intelligent law giver in some higher realm who just decided that things should be as they are but that looks like a category fail to me, not least because intelligence itself is derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answer to 'why' questions. If we find a watch lying on the beach one day we might assume that someone must have made it. Fair enough for an everyday observation, but it's inadequate to extrapolate that line of reasoning into a formulation for the ultimate reason of all things. Clearly the watch was made by a watch maker, superficially true, yes, but the watch maker himself is a contingent derivative thing, he is a sort of human which is a sort of primate which is a sort of mammal which is a sort of vertebrate which is a sort of multicellular eukaryote which is a bounded replicating metabolic system which is a form of energy exchange which is contingent on thermodynamic law which comes back down to the application of the laws of probability which in themselves are not contingent and are inevitably true in all possible worlds. A tornado racing through an aircraft hanger might reduce the Boeing 747 to clutter, but a tornado racing through a scrapyard never spontaneously assembles a Boeing 747; why, not because it is impossible but rather because it is improbable. Thermodynamics ultimately boils down to the immutable laws of probability and these laws need no giver.
Hi again torridon,
And thanks again for the above post.
We appear to agree that "the application of the laws of probability .......... are inevitably true in all possible worlds".
Probability is a mathematical concept not observable with our five senses (discovered in about AD 1654), but is an abstract concept without which modern science could not function. If it were not objective (true independent of human minds), then modern science would be meaningless.
You are not correct about 'intelligence'. It is the human brain which is "derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answers to 'why questions'", but intelligence itself is something different. Intelligence (in the natural world) is a measure of what the brains of evolutionary animals can achieve. For some humans it is an IQ of 100, for others (say watch-makers) it may be an IQ of 160, and for aliens (if they exist) who knows, say an IQ of 2000! However, for an immaterial God (the Logos), there would be no limit as he (like maths) would exist from or before the beginning of time and not be formed by evolution.
A claim that "these laws need no giver" is an opinion without evidence. On the other hand, in our experience of this world, mathematical ability and personal intelligence go hand in hand, and nobody has explained how the situation would or could be different elsewhere.
Maths is a function of rational intelligence, with higher maths needing above average intelligence, and ground breaking maths needing exceptional intelligence. In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher is the IQ which is needed. This escalating need for intelligence makes it plausable abductive reasoning to posit the existence of an immaterial mathematician 'law giver' underlying the complex abstract mathematical nature of the physical Universe.
One final point, objective existence of mathematical concepts (independent of the human mind) is a valid abductive reason for believing in a God who sustains the Universe, but it is the goodness and miracles of Jesus which are the primary reasons for Christian belief.
I hope you find this interesting
God bless
-
Hi again torridon,
And thanks again for the above post.
We appear to agree that "the application of the laws of probability .......... are inevitably true in all possible worlds".
Probability is a mathematical concept not observable with our five senses (discovered in about AD 1654), but is an abstract concept without which modern science could not function. If it were not objective (true independent of human minds), then modern science would be meaningless.
You are not correct about 'intelligence'. It is the human brain which is "derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answers to 'why questions'", but intelligence itself is something different. Intelligence (in the natural world) is a measure of what the brains of evolutionary animals can achieve. For some humans it is an IQ of 100, for others (say watch-makers) it may be an IQ of 160, and for aliens (if they exist) who knows, say an IQ of 2000! However, for an immaterial God (the Logos), there would be no limit as he (like maths) would exist from or before the beginning of time and not be formed by evolution.
A claim that "these laws need no giver" is an opinion without evidence. On the other hand, in our experience of this world, mathematical ability and personal intelligence go hand in hand, and nobody has explained how the situation would or could be different elsewhere.
Maths is a function of rational intelligence, with higher maths needing above average intelligence, and ground breaking maths needing exceptional intelligence. In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher is the IQ which is needed. This escalating need for intelligence makes it plausable abductive reasoning to posit the existence of an immaterial mathematician 'law giver' underlying the complex abstract mathematical nature of the physical Universe.
One final point, objective existence of mathematical concepts (independent of the human mind) is a valid abductive reason for believing in a God who sustains the Universe, but it is the goodness and miracles of Jesus which are the primary reasons for Christian belief.
I hope you find this interesting
God bless
Here we have another 356 words but you still fail to provide the essential observation which would, if available, provide an objective starting point for a method. You even point out that there are no observations to be had.
You seem to think that numbers, intelligence, probability.and whatever else is in that post are objective and independent of human minds; you say that the lack of need for a law-giver is an opinion which is wrong and without evidence.
When you come up with a fact to support your belief that there must be some God or something behind everything, then you will have something testable to put forward.
-
Hi again torridon,
And thanks again for the above post.
We appear to agree that "the application of the laws of probability .......... are inevitably true in all possible worlds".
Probability is a mathematical concept not observable with our five senses (discovered in about AD 1654), but is an abstract concept without which modern science could not function. If it were not objective (true independent of human minds), then modern science would be meaningless.
You are not correct about 'intelligence'. It is the human brain which is "derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answers to 'why questions'", but intelligence itself is something different. Intelligence (in the natural world) is a measure of what the brains of evolutionary animals can achieve. For some humans it is an IQ of 100, for others (say watch-makers) it may be an IQ of 160, and for aliens (if they exist) who knows, say an IQ of 2000! However, for an immaterial God (the Logos), there would be no limit as he (like maths) would exist from or before the beginning of time and not be formed by evolution.
A claim that "these laws need no giver" is an opinion without evidence. On the other hand, in our experience of this world, mathematical ability and personal intelligence go hand in hand, and nobody has explained how the situation would or could be different elsewhere.
Maths is a function of rational intelligence, with higher maths needing above average intelligence, and ground breaking maths needing exceptional intelligence. In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher is the IQ which is needed. This escalating need for intelligence makes it plausable abductive reasoning to posit the existence of an immaterial mathematician 'law giver' underlying the complex abstract mathematical nature of the physical Universe.
One final point, objective existence of mathematical concepts (independent of the human mind) is a valid abductive reason for believing in a God who sustains the Universe, but it is the goodness and miracles of Jesus which are the primary reasons for Christian belief.
I hope you find this interesting
God bless
Morning Rosindubh
you have a peculiar habit of addressing not the latest post from me but rather the one before, rather in the comic style of a Ronnie Barker sketch. Perhaps I ought to let you catch up as I've already addressed the points you make in this post in #325, then maybe we will be in step.
-
Hi again torridon,
And thanks again for the above post.
We appear to agree that "the application of the laws of probability .......... are inevitably true in all possible worlds".
Probability is a mathematical concept not observable with our five senses (discovered in about AD 1654), but is an abstract concept without which modern science could not function. If it were not objective (true independent of human minds), then modern science would be meaningless.
You are not correct about 'intelligence'. It is the human brain which is "derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answers to 'why questions'", but intelligence itself is something different. Intelligence (in the natural world) is a measure of what the brains of evolutionary animals can achieve. For some humans it is an IQ of 100, for others (say watch-makers) it may be an IQ of 160, and for aliens (if they exist) who knows, say an IQ of 2000! However, for an immaterial God (the Logos), there would be no limit as he (like maths) would exist from or before the beginning of time and not be formed by evolution.
A claim that "these laws need no giver" is an opinion without evidence. On the other hand, in our experience of this world, mathematical ability and personal intelligence go hand in hand, and nobody has explained how the situation would or could be different elsewhere.
Maths is a function of rational intelligence, with higher maths needing above average intelligence, and ground breaking maths needing exceptional intelligence. In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher is the IQ which is needed. This escalating need for intelligence makes it plausable abductive reasoning to posit the existence of an immaterial mathematician 'law giver' underlying the complex abstract mathematical nature of the physical Universe.
One final point, objective existence of mathematical concepts (independent of the human mind) is a valid abductive reason for believing in a God who sustains the Universe, but it is the goodness and miracles of Jesus which are the primary reasons for Christian belief.
I hope you find this interesting
God bless
This is little more than your personal incredulity affecting your thinking.
Your final paragraph being notable since you refer to abductive reasoning (which means reasoning to the simplest/most likely explanation) which, if I read you correctly, implies that you think the most likely explanation for the fact that when rolling two dice you are more likely to score 7 than score 3 is 'God' - seriously!
In addition the 'goodness' of Jesus reads like an example of the reification fallacy and the 'miracles' of Jesus are anecdotal claims that are indistinguishable from fiction.
I think you need to remove the theoglasses.
-
A claim that "these laws need no giver" is an opinion without evidence. On the other hand, in our experience of this world, mathematical ability and personal intelligence go hand in hand, and nobody has explained how the situation would or could be different elsewhere.
Maths is a function of rational intelligence, with higher maths needing above average intelligence, and ground breaking maths needing exceptional intelligence. In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher is the IQ which is needed. This escalating need for intelligence makes it plausable abductive reasoning to posit the existence of an immaterial mathematician 'law giver' underlying the complex abstract mathematical nature of the physical Universe.
If mathematical laws are being discovered (that is, they have an independent existence), then your argument suggests that intelligence is required to make discoveries in that field. That says nothing whatsoever about why those laws exist in the first place.
If mathematics is a purely human construct (as many would argue), then (obviously) your argument doesn't get off the ground.
...but it is the goodness and miracles of Jesus which are the primary reasons for Christian belief.
I'll ask again: where are they (outside of old myths, unsupported anecdotes, and subjective feelings)?
-
In addition the 'goodness' of Jesus reads like an example of the reification fallacy and the 'miracles' of Jesus are anecdotal claims that are indistinguishable from fiction.
I think you need to remove the theoglasses.
Indeed. After Rosindubh step by step rationally based argument they then make a quantum leap to Jesus. I wonder on the probability of that truly happening? If ever there was a supernatural miracle, where there is no connection at all between the two items, that would have to be it.
-
JK,
Indeed. After Rosindubh step by step rationally based argument they then make a quantum leap to Jesus. I wonder on the probability of that truly happening? If ever there was a supernatural miracle, where there is no connection at all between the two items, that would have to be it.
Our Ros reminds me of this famous cartoon by Stanley Harris:
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php
-
Science is contingent on maths, as you say, but maths itself (as a form of pure logic) is incontingent; the truths expressed by maths are self-referentially true and dependent on nothing. Does that justify us in calling maths an ultimate reality ? I think that would be to make capricious use of the word 'reality'. That something exists in reality normally means it has mass/energy/coordinates/speed etc. and we cannot say that of abstract concepts. The truths of maths are inevitably true, and they do not need some prior truth giver to decide that they should be true. In my understanding this is implied by the incontingency of maths, the primacy of logic. ..........
Hi again torridon,
Thank you for the above post. I left out the second half as I hope to answer it separately.
To say something "has mass/energy/coordinates/speed etc" is to define it as a physical thing, distinct from an abstract concept. However, to say "something exists in reality" only if it meets such definition is to use subjective symantics to close ones mind to the 'reality' of objective measurement (independent of the human mind).
Reality is what is true independent of the human mind (ie Objective). Some things (chess, Harry Potter) are true (exist) only within the human mind so are subjective (not real). Other things (eg gluons, Pythagoras theorem) are true (exist) independently of the human mind so are objective (real). Mathematical concepts and measurements are the latter.
You refer to "the incontingency of maths, the primacy of logic", but why should they, being products of the human mind (a contingent thing), be incontingent or primary by their own reckoning, unless in maths, humans have discovered a reality which exists independently of the human mind.
My previous posts gave facts which show the uniqueness of mathematical concepts compared to other abstract concepts, including a facility to forecast previously unsuspected physical phenomena. Examples include Einstein's relativity forecasting gravity waves, Heisenberg's matrices explaining the motion of electrons in Helium, Dirac's equation forecasting antimatter particles, the Standard Model of Particle Physics forecsating the Higgs field, and many other examples.
It we accept the Standard Model as correct reality, then we are forced to accept the reality of each of its essential elements, including the mathematical concepts which dominate it as well as its massless gluons.
If modern physics is correct, these mathematical concepts appear to control the fundamental laws of motion which explain the past, present and future history of the physical Universe.
So, there is more to reality than just physical things.
I hope you can find this persuasive.
God bless
-
However, to say "something exists in reality" only if it meets such definition is to use subjective symantics to close ones mind to the 'reality' of objective measurement (independent of the human mind).
You keep on asserting that objective measurement exists independent of the human mind. As far as I know, there is no objective evidence for this, so I would say you are quite wrong.
By the way, why do you spell semantics with a y? Synthetic Dave pronounces it slightly differently.:)…gluons, Pythagoras theorem) are true (exist) independently of the human mind so are objective (real). Mathematical concepts and measurements are the latter.
.
Another assertion. If there were zero humans, there would not be such a concept floating around waiting to be discovered. A concept is a human idea.
So, there is more to reality than just physical things.
I do not agree. I have no reason to, since in a long life I have never seen or heard of anything that is not because of physical things.
-
If modern physics is correct, these mathematical concepts appear to control the fundamental laws of motion which explain the past, present and future history of the physical Universe.
You wouldn't say then that logic, abstract ideas and axioms (such as mathematics) haven't been developed by humans as tools to describe the physical Universe?
-
Hi again torridon,
Thank you for the above post. I left out the second half as I hope to answer it separately.
To say something "has mass/energy/coordinates/speed etc" is to define it as a physical thing, distinct from an abstract concept. However, to say "something exists in reality" only if it meets such definition is to use subjective symantics to close ones mind to the 'reality' of objective measurement (independent of the human mind).
Reality is what is true independent of the human mind (ie Objective). Some things (chess, Harry Potter) are true (exist) only within the human mind so are subjective (not real). Other things (eg gluons, Pythagoras theorem) are true (exist) independently of the human mind so are objective (real). Mathematical concepts and measurements are the latter.
You refer to "the incontingency of maths, the primacy of logic", but why should they, being products of the human mind (a contingent thing), be incontingent or primary by their own reckoning, unless in maths, humans have discovered a reality which exists independently of the human mind.
My previous posts gave facts which show the uniqueness of mathematical concepts compared to other abstract concepts, including a facility to forecast previously unsuspected physical phenomena. Examples include Einstein's relativity forecasting gravity waves, Heisenberg's matrices explaining the motion of electrons in Helium, Dirac's equation forecasting antimatter particles, the Standard Model of Particle Physics forecsating the Higgs field, and many other examples.
It we accept the Standard Model as correct reality, then we are forced to accept the reality of each of its essential elements, including the mathematical concepts which dominate it as well as its massless gluons.
If modern physics is correct, these mathematical concepts appear to control the fundamental laws of motion which explain the past, present and future history of the physical Universe.
So, there is more to reality than just physical things.
I hope you can find this persuasive.
God bless
Hi Rosindubh, thanks for the above. For the sake of succinctness, I'll just talk to the below extract which I think is at the nub of where we differ :
You refer to "the incontingency of maths, the primacy of logic", but why should they, being products of the human mind (a contingent thing), be incontingent or primary by their own reckoning, unless in maths, humans have discovered a reality which exists independently of the human mind.
To be pedantic, I would have to restate this distinction - that the expression or description of such concepts in mathematical language is a product of human mind and culture; whereas the concepts being so described themselves are incontingent and dependent on nothing. They do not 'exist' in any normal sense of the word and because they have no dependencies to posit a law giver to so decide them would be irrational. If there are parallel universes for example we might find the speed of light varies and we might find the periodic table varies but the incontingent truths of logic and maths would be consistent across all possible universes because they are inevitabilities and not dependent on any context. To imagine some law-giver in a higher realm deciding for 'some reason' that two plus two should equal four in our universe makes no sense - it implies that two plus two only equals four because of some contingent dependency and this is not the case.
-
Hi Rosindubh, thanks for the above. For the sake of succinctness, I'll just talk to the below extract which I think is at the nub of where we differ :
To be pedantic, I would have to restate this distinction - that the expression or description of such concepts in mathematical language is a product of human mind and culture; whereas the concepts being so described themselves are incontingent and dependent on nothing. They do not 'exist' in any normal sense of the word and because they have no dependencies to posit a law giver to so decide them would be irrational. If there are parallel universes for example we might find the speed of light varies and we might find the periodic table varies but the incontingent truths of logic and maths would be consistent across all possible universes because they are inevitabilities and not dependent on any context. To imagine some law-giver in a higher realm deciding for 'some reason' that two plus two should equal four in our universe makes no sense - it implies that two plus two only equals four because of some contingent dependency and this is not the case.
That was a very interesting and clear post - which I could understand!!
-
Reality is what is true independent of the human mind (ie Objective). Some things (chess, Harry Potter) are true (exist) only within the human mind so are subjective (not real). Other things (eg gluons, Pythagoras theorem) are true (exist) independently of the human mind so are objective (real). Mathematical concepts and measurements are the latter.
But they, the maths, are not literally out there though are they, as objective concepts. Only the forces, and the like, and the way they interact, and so on, are. We impose these concepts on to them with our minds but those concepts are only in our minds as ways to relate to what we 'see' for our own understanding. Therefore, maths is contingent on the behaviour and patterns of the universe and how we 'see' things.
My previous posts gave facts which show the uniqueness of mathematical concepts compared to other abstract concepts, including a facility to forecast previously unsuspected physical phenomena. Examples include Einstein's relativity forecasting gravity waves, Heisenberg's matrices explaining the motion of electrons in Helium, Dirac's equation forecasting antimatter particles, the Standard Model of Particle Physics forecsating the Higgs field, and many other examples.
Are you saying that every prediction that maths has ever come up with has always come true? That all we need to do is plug in the numbers, and what not, and hey presto result of the next reality?
If modern physics is correct, these mathematical concepts appear to control the fundamental laws of motion which explain the past, present and future history of the physical Universe.
A rather misuse or over emphasis in a malapropism of the word 'control'. I don't think math does anything of the sort.
-
To be pedantic, I would have to restate this distinction - that the expression or description of such concepts in mathematical language is a product of human mind and culture; whereas the concepts being so described themselves are incontingent and dependent on nothing. They do not 'exist' in any normal sense of the word and because they have no dependencies to posit a law giver to so decide them would be irrational. If there are parallel universes for example we might find the speed of light varies and we might find the periodic table varies but the incontingent truths of logic and maths would be consistent across all possible universes because they are inevitabilities and not dependent on any context. To imagine some law-giver in a higher realm deciding for 'some reason' that two plus two should equal four in our universe makes no sense - it implies that two plus two only equals four because of some contingent dependency and this is not the case.
I don't follow that bit. Can you explain it, especially as you don't know what all possible universes would be like? You seem to be saying that maths is so plastic it could mould itself into any situation....?
-
.......... I think your position is self-contradictory because you recognise the incontingency of maths (say) on one hand, but then go on to imply a law giver who decides such things - this is flatly denying the incontingency of maths. Why should the fact that two plus two equals four need someone to decide that it should be so ? You are saying that, yes, maths is incontingent, but it is contingent on a mathematician in the sky. That looks an incoherent position to me; and that without even touching upon the question of the contingency of the great mathematician.
Hi again torrido,
Thank you for the above post. This is the second half I promised to comment on separately.
My position is that mathematical concepts are TRUE objectively (ie independent of the human mind), from or before the beginning of time, and are as REAL as any of the other elements in the Standard Model of Particle Physics.
I do not remember using the word ,"incontingent", but I am happy with it and see nothing "self-contradictory" about a law giver choosing which of his incontingent numbers or concepts he should use in any particular equation or situation.
In my post #322, I mentioned three alternatives which I set out in more detail below:-
(a) That mathematical concepts are themselves the mindless Ultimate Immaterial Reality (controlling the physical Universe) - i.e. Prof Max Tegmark's position; or
(b) That mathematical concepts are the ideas of an intelligent Ultimate Immaterial Reality (controlling the physical Universe) - i.e. the Logos of Christianity; or
(c) Any other proposal you might like to suggest.
I favour alternative (b) for the following reasons:-
(1) In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher the IQ needed. This escalating need for intelligence points to an inherent connection between mathematical concepts and intellectual power.
(2) The fine tuning of the initial conditions of the Universe (1 in 10 to the power of 122) which is massive odds against a random accidental origin for any expanding Universe capable of producing Carbon and other heavy elements necessary for the 13 billion year Kaleidoscope which is our Universe.
(3) The goodness, claims and miracles of Jesus as reported in the consistently forensic 4th gospel.
Reason (1) is abductive, reason (2) is probalistic and reason (3) is empirical.
I hope you find them convincing
God bless
-
In my post #322, I mentioned three alternatives which I set out in more detail below:-
(a) That mathematical concepts are themselves the mindless Ultimate Immaterial Reality (controlling the physical Universe) - i.e. Prof Max Tegmark's position; or
(b) That mathematical concepts are the ideas of an intelligent Ultimate Immaterial Reality (controlling the physical Universe) - i.e. the Logos of Christianity; or
(c) Any other proposal you might like to suggest.
(c) Logical self-consistency is actually what is fundamental (at least to any environment that can contain life and intelligence) and mathematics consists of human constructs that explore self-consistency (mathematical results are true by definition).
(d) Mathematics is an entirely human made modelling tool.
(e) .... the point being that it's a philosophical question without an accepted answer (and is likely to remain such, IMO).
I favour alternative (b) for the following reasons:-
(1) In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher the IQ needed. This escalating need for intelligence points to an inherent connection between mathematical concepts and intellectual power.
(2) The fine tuning of the initial conditions of the Universe (1 in 10 to the power of 122) which is massive odds against a random accidental origin for any expanding Universe capable of producing Carbon and other heavy elements necessary for the 13 billion year Kaleidoscope which is our Universe.
(3) The goodness, claims and miracles of Jesus as reported in the consistently forensic 4th gospel.
Reason (1) is abductive, reason (2) is probalistic and reason (3) is empirical.
(1) As I pointed out before, if (as you claim) mathematics is being discovered, then the IQ to which you refer is what is needed to make discoveries and understand them. To link that to why mathematics is 'real' just doesn't follow.
(2) Nobody knows why the universe is the way it is. If we were able to conclude that there actually was an "intelligent Ultimate Immaterial Reality", then that would be exactly as puzzling as the universe. A reality with a god is every bit as inexplicable as one without. This 'argument' doesn't get off the ground.
(3) These "goodness, claims and miracles of Jesus" are notable only by their complete absence, outside of old inconsistent stories and subjective personal experiences.
-
My position is that mathematical concepts are TRUE objectively (ie independent of the human mind), from or before the beginning of time, and are as REAL as any of the other elements in the Standard Model of Particle Physics.
I do not remember using the word ,"incontingent", but I am happy with it and see nothing "self-contradictory" about a law giver choosing which of his incontingent numbers or concepts he should use in any particular equation or situation.
In my post #322, I mentioned three alternatives which I set out in more detail below:-
(a) That mathematical concepts are themselves the mindless Ultimate Immaterial Reality (controlling the physical Universe) - i.e. Prof Max Tegmark's position; or
(b) That mathematical concepts are the ideas of an intelligent Ultimate Immaterial Reality (controlling the physical Universe) - i.e. the Logos of Christianity; or
(c) Any other proposal you might like to suggest.
I favour alternative (b) for the following reasons:-
(1) In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher the IQ needed. This escalating need for intelligence points to an inherent connection between mathematical concepts and intellectual power.
(2) The fine tuning of the initial conditions of the Universe (1 in 10 to the power of 122) which is massive odds against a random accidental origin for any expanding Universe capable of producing Carbon and other heavy elements necessary for the 13 billion year Kaleidoscope which is our Universe.
(3) The goodness, claims and miracles of Jesus as reported in the consistently forensic 4th gospel.
Reason (1) is abductive, reason (2) is probalistic and reason (3) is empirical.
I hope you find them convincing
God bless
I find 'them' to be fallacious nonsense.
-
I find 'them' to be fallacious nonsense.
At least only 276 words this time to say them.
I wonder why people feel that the morewords they use, the more likely they are to communicate their message.
-
At least only 276 words this time to say them.
I wonder why people feel that the morewords they use, the more likely they are to communicate their message.
Because some people don't see the world in terms of black and white, yes and no.
Also some character types like to analyse why they think so, and tell you how they got to their particular shade of grey.
;)
-
Because some people don't see the world in terms of black and white, yes and no.
Also some character types like to analyse why they think so, and tell you how they got to their particular shade of grey.
;)
Do you not feel sometimes that too many words actually obscure the intended message rather than reveal it?
-
Do you not feel sometimes that too many words actually obscure the intended message rather than reveal it?
Lol
I used to write such lengthy posts on here, early mods requested I shorten them.
Over the years, I have.
You might have a point, Susan ;D
I also got criticised for my over use of exclamation marks!!!
Betty, that was 😜🌹
-
Rose
Thank you for reply! :)
This is a curiosity killed the cat question: May I ask why you use double spacing? Several others do this too. Synthetic Dave reads them just as easily, but they take up so much more space!!
-
Ros,
That’s quite a dog’s breakfast of reasoning you’ve attempted there:
I favour alternative (b) for the following reasons:-
(1) In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher the IQ needed. This escalating need for intelligence points to an inherent connection between mathematical concepts and intellectual power.
Yes, the smarter you are the more you’ll be able to do harder maths. Maths itself though is just an abstracted way to describe and predict consistent patterns in the universe. That we can do maths says nothing however to whether a divine something must have made the universe that way.
(2) The fine tuning of the initial conditions of the Universe (1 in 10 to the power of 122) which is massive odds against a random accidental origin for any expanding Universe capable of producing Carbon and other heavy elements necessary for the 13 billion year Kaleidoscope which is our Universe.
That’s the lottery winner’s fallacy (see also “Douglas Adams’ puddle” and “anthropic principle” for further details). If you just assume that little old you was the end game all along, then yes – it’d be a remarkable co-incidence if the starting conditions of the universe were just right to make that happen. The universe though neither knows nor cares whether you pop out of it, any more than Camelot knows or cares who’ll win the lottery. For all you know there are all sorts of species dotted around the place – maybe even the less thinking of whom are posting on websites right now, “what are chances of the universe being fine tuned to produce me and the other three-headed fraggle monsters of Alpha Centauri, therefore my god”.
To put it another way: imagine that you're a blade of grass, that someone drove a golf ball 300 yards, and that the ball just happened to land on you rather than on the blade of grass next to you. What are the chances eh? Would that make you somehow "special" though?
Your solipsism here is in other words the result of looking down the wrong end of the telescope.
(3) The goodness, claims and miracles of Jesus as reported in the consistently forensic 4th gospel.
Lots of books from the pre-scientific age make lots of claims about lots of supposed miracles. You’d have all your work ahead of you though to demonstrate that any of them were true – however “forensic” you think the 4th gospel to be.
Imagine for a moment that I offered you a prize of £1m if you could prove a miracle of Jesus. Do you seriously think that – on the evidence of a gospel – a court of law would find for you (which is what “forensic” means by the way)?
Reason (1) is abductive, reason (2) is probalistic and reason (3) is empirical.
Reason (1) is a non sequitur, reason (2) is the anthropic fallacy, and reason (3) is unsupportable wishful thinking – essentially the fallacy of reification.
I hope you find them convincing
I hope you find these rebuttals convincing.
God bless
May Colin, the Grand Chieftain of the Leprechauns shower his tap dancing blessings on your newly grateful feet.
-
Rose
Thank you for reply! :)
This is a curiosity killed the cat question: May I ask why you use double spacing? Several others do this too. Synthetic Dave reads them just as easily, but they take up so much more space!!
I do it because I think it makes it easier to read, but I hadn't thought about screen readers.
I wonder if Anchorman finds the same issue.
I'll stop.
-
..
I do not remember using the word ,"incontingent", but I am happy with it and see nothing "self-contradictory" about a law giver choosing which of his incontingent numbers or concepts he should use in any particular equation or situation.
..
It seems self-contradictory to me. We cannot say that maths is incontingent and then immediately go on to say that it is contingent upon a law-giver. Such a scenario would yield incomprehensible outcomes. If we imagine a god arbitrarily 'deciding' that 2 + 2 = 4 in our universe, but maybe it totals 27 in another or 458 in another then you are describing an incomprehensible situation. This is what I mean by the primacy of logic. It is a definitional inevitability that non-contingent truths can have no such prior dependencies; if there were a god then he too would be subject to the dictates of logic. He would not be capable of drawing a square circle, he would not be capable of speaking a truthful lie, he could not imagine a four sided triangle. Even gods, even omnipotent gods should they exist, would be subject to logic; this is the primacy of logic. A god that could transcend logic would be incomprehensible, and no-one I believe is truly capable of comprehending the incomprehensible.
-
I don't follow that bit. Can you explain it, especially as you don't know what all possible universes would be like? You seem to be saying that maths is so plastic it could mould itself into any situation....?
No, I think you misread; what I am arguing is that maths, like logic, is not malleable, mouldable, contingent or contextual. I am calling this the primacy of logic. In a sense I am resurrecting the argument of 10th century islamic theologian Avicenna, who observed that everything we can point to in this world is contingent, it derives from something else, so there must be something uncontextual and incontingent as the source of all things. And this is what we call God, so claimed Avicenna. I am making a similar case but with logic as the incontingent source of all things. As I pointed out to Rosindubh earlier, even a god would be subject to logic, even an omnipotent god could not lift a rock that was too heavy for him to lift, or draw a five sided triangle with his divine pencil.
-
At least only 276 words this time to say them.
I wonder why people feel that the morewords they use, the more likely they are to communicate their message.
So you think a 300 page book is a farce and a sign the person is just a narcissistic arse?
-
Do you not feel sometimes that too many words actually obscure the intended message rather than reveal it?
I find pointless posts like this annoying and obscure the flow of the thread!!! >:(
-
No, I think you misread; what I am arguing is that maths, like logic, is not malleable, mouldable, contingent or contextual. I am calling this the primacy of logic. In a sense I am resurrecting the argument of 10th century islamic theologian Avicenna, who observed that everything we can point to in this world is contingent, it derives from something else, so there must be something uncontextual and incontingent as the source of all things. And this is what we call God, so claimed Avicenna. I am making a similar case but with logic as the incontingent source of all things. As I pointed out to Rosindubh earlier, even a god would be subject to logic, even an omnipotent god could not lift a rock that was too heavy for him to lift, or draw a five sided triangle with his divine pencil.
Ok. So how do emotions emanate come from this primacy of logic? Or is it just half the picture?
-
To be pedantic, I would have to restate this distinction - that the expression or description of such concepts in mathematical language is a product of human mind and culture; whereas the concepts being so described themselves are incontingent and dependent on nothing. They do not 'exist' in any normal sense of the word and because they have no dependencies to posit a law giver to so decide them would be irrational. If there are parallel universes for example we might find the speed of light varies and we might find the periodic table varies but the incontingent truths of logic and maths would be consistent across all possible universes because they are inevitabilities and not dependent on any context. To imagine some law-giver in a higher realm deciding for 'some reason' that two plus two should equal four in our universe makes no sense - it implies that two plus two only equals four because of some contingent dependency and this is not the case.
Hi again toridon. Thank you for the above post.
Of course, all languages (as you say) are "a product of human mind and culture", and the description of a concept in any language is a separate matter to the concept itself - (two, deux and zwei all refer to the same entity). However, the big question is always which concept is 'real' and which is 'not real'.
Surely, all concepts have some kind of existence, even Harry Potter. The question is whether a particular concept is fiction, existing only in the human mind (subjective like Harry Potter, not real), or whether the concept is true independent of the human mind (objective like gluons and antimatter, real).
By arguing (as you do) that the incontingent truths of logic and maths "would be consistent across all possible universes", while the speed of light might vary in a parallel universe, you imply that mathematical concepts are more certain (more true) than physical things.
If we accept that the Standard Model of Particle Physics is correct and true, then we are forced to accept the reality of the mathematical entities which dominate it. However, by saying that the truths of maths are 'incontingent' while the physical entities are only 'contingent', you appear to be saying that its mathematical entities are even more true than its physical entities.
Reality is what is true independent of the human mind, and surely this must include all 'incontingent' mathematical entities necessary for the objective measurements which are the foundation of modern science. So, mathematical entities have an objective existence, or modern physics is circular reasoning.
God bless
-
what I am arguing is that maths, like logic, is not malleable, mouldable, contingent or contextual. I am calling this the primacy of logic. In a sense I am resurrecting the argument of 10th century islamic theologian Avicenna, who observed that everything we can point to in this world is contingent, it derives from something else, so there must be something uncontextual and incontingent as the source of all things. And this is what we call God, so claimed Avicenna. I am making a similar case but with logic as the incontingent source of all things. As I pointed out to Rosindubh earlier, even a god would be subject to logic, even an omnipotent god could not lift a rock that was too heavy for him to lift, or draw a five sided triangle with his divine pencil.
Ok. So how do emotions emanate come from this primacy of logic? Or is it just half the picture?
It's not that we can immediately cut to simple answers to our hardest questions. Why does chocolate taste nice, why does stuff exist, what is beauty, how does mind arise from matter, exactly how long is the present moment ? For millennia, most western and eastern thought has been predicated on the assumption of god as the source of all things, but to me that looks like a false friend, a tautology disguised as profundity. Why does stuff exist ? because god wills it, silly, it's a simple answer that hides that fact that 'will' is in fact a complex derivative psychological state. If we remove god then what do we posit as the source of all things ? I'm suggesting we model logic into the space vacated by god; logic is atemporal, it has no mass, requires no energy, it has no prior dependencies and yet all contingent things are dependent upon it. Why does stuff exist ? perhaps because it would be illogical for it to not exist might be our answer when we have done the math back through long chains of insight and dependencies. I'm not saying that is easy, maybe it is a harder road to tread initially, but perhaps things will fall into place over time and we will get to a more authentic understanding, not having all the red herrings thrown up by having the false friend 'god' as our starting point.
-
Ok. So how do emotions emanate come from this primacy of logic? Or is it just half the picture?
It's not that we can immediately cut to simple answers to our hardest questions. Why does chocolate taste nice, why does stuff exist, what is beauty, how does mind arise from matter, exactly how long is the present moment ? For millennia, most western and eastern thought has been predicated on the assumption of god as the source of all things, but to me that looks like a false friend, a tautology disguised as profundity. Why does stuff exist ? because god wills it, silly, it's a simple answer that hides that fact that 'will' is in fact a complex derivative psychological state. If we remove god then what do we posit as the source of all things ? I'm suggesting we model logic into the space vacated by god; logic is atemporal, it has no mass, requires no energy, it has no prior dependencies and yet all contingent things are dependent upon it. Why does stuff exist ? perhaps because it would be illogical for it to not exist might be our answer when we have done the math back through long chains of insight and dependencies. I'm not saying that is easy, maybe it is a harder road to tread initially, but perhaps things will fall into place over time and we will get to a more authentic understanding, not having all the red herrings thrown up by having the false friend 'god' as our starting point.
I suppose 'God wills it' satisfied people for a period of time, but then people began to realize that it's a non-answer. We can see this easily in AB's formulations, since after he has said that science cannot explain consciousness, he then suggests a solution which definitely cannot be explained! And when asked how the soul interacts with the brain, of course, he has no answer, since the soul is not material. It is a kind of blank really. It's a celebration of ignorance.
As to why does stuff exist, well, because nothing can't.
-
Hi Rosindubh, thanks for the above. For the sake of succinctness, I'll just talk to the below extract which I think is at the nub of where we differ :
To be pedantic, I would have to restate this distinction - that the expression or description of such concepts in mathematical language is a product of human mind and culture; whereas the concepts being so described themselves are incontingent and dependent on nothing. They do not 'exist' in any normal sense of the word and because they have no dependencies to posit a law giver to so decide them would be irrational. If there are parallel universes for example we might find the speed of light varies and we might find the periodic table varies but the incontingent truths of logic and maths would be consistent across all possible universes because they are inevitabilities and not dependent on any context. To imagine some law-giver in a higher realm deciding for 'some reason' that two plus two should equal four in our universe makes no sense - it implies that two plus two only equals four because of some contingent dependency and this is not the case.
If you insist that maths is not contingent then why do you insist that God has to be?
I think materialists would say that maths is contingent on matter
-
If you insist that maths is not contingent then why do you insist that God has to be?
I think materialists would say that maths is contingent on matter
I don't see why maths would be contingent on matter. Maths is abstract.
As for God being contingent, well to start with God is largely undefined, so you have a problem of definition to start with. But if we run with a popular view that god is some sort of being but then go on to observe that 'god could not lift a rock that was too heavy for him to lift' then with this observation we are demonstrating that god is in fact contingent upon logic; an origin of all things would be contingent upon nothing.
-
I don't see why maths would be contingent on matter. Maths is abstract.
As for God being contingent, well to start with God is largely undefined, so you have a problem of definition to start with. But if we run with a popular view that god is some sort of being but then go on to observe that 'god could not lift a rock that was too heavy for him to lift' then with this observation we are demonstrating that god is in fact contingent upon logic; an origin of all things would be contingent upon nothing.
So are you now saying God is not contingent?
-
All gods are a human creation, imo.
-
All gods are a human creation, imo.
A fine old traditional world view to be sure. However how does it bear up in a world of materialists dalliances with eternity and cosmologists toying with simulated universes? Not good since an eternal multiverse could throw up simulated universes and we would probably be one of them. As often happens when scientists near a conclusion on cosmology, theologians have got their before them and the author of our universe has been contemplated and worshipped for centuries.
-
A fine old traditional world view to be sure. However how does it bear up in a world of materialists dalliances with eternity and cosmologists toying with simulated universes? Not good since an eternal multiverse could throw up simulated universes and we would probably be one of them. As often happens when scientists near a conclusion on cosmology, theologians have got their before them and the author of our universe has been contemplated and worshipped for centuries.
It is just possible some intelligent designer was responsible, but I am of the opinion it is not the god of the Bible, which appears to be a very human creation.
-
So are you now saying God is not contingent?
No, I am pointing out that god is contingent upon logic, according to popular conceptions at least. God is bounded by and subject to logic.
-
It is just possible some intelligent designer was responsible, but I am of the opinion it is not the god of the Bible, which appears to be a very human creation.
I look forward to reading your thesis on this bearing in mind you strike me as one of the ''no person in command of their senses could possible see anything humane in the GOTB''. I think that reflects more on your own sense of moral superiority. I don't see it your way, obviously and think this type of book or collection thereof is definitely not of your standard stable of overhyped literature.
-
No, I am pointing out that god is contingent upon logic, according to popular conceptions at least. God is bounded by and subject to logic.
Does logic therefore give rise to matter/energy......or is it contingent on it?
-
Vlad,
Does logic therefore give rise to matter/energy......or is it contingent on it?
Actually current thinking is that information is the foundational substrate or reality - and that matter and forces are manifestations of it.
Try Vlatko Vedral's "Decoding Reality - the Universe as Quantum Information".
-
Vlad,
Actually current thinking is that information is the foundational substrate or reality - and that matter and forces are manifestations of it.
Try Vlatko Vedral's "Decoding Reality - the Universe as Quantum Information".
OK.
-
Vlad,
Actually current thinking is that information is the foundational substrate or reality - and that matter and forces are manifestations of it.
Try Vlatko Vedral's "Decoding Reality - the Universe as Quantum Information".
There's the magic word though............ quantum.
-
Vlad,
Actually current thinking is that information is the foundational substrate or reality - and that matter and forces are manifestations of it.
Manifestations of or contingent on?
-
Vlad,
Manifestations of or contingent on?
Both, and the quantum is no more "magic" than gravity is magic. Read the book.
-
Vlad,
Both,
ROFL.
-
Vlad,
ROFL.
Dull incomprehension noted. Come back when you've read the book.
-
Vlad,
Dull incomprehension noted. Come back when you've read the book.
Dull incomprehension? Hillside.........., How can something be fundamental AND contingent?
-
Vlad,
Dull incomprehension? Hillside.........., How can something be fundamental AND contingent?
Now try reading what you actually asked.
Dull incomprehension is fine, unless you want to 'fess up to yet another falsehood instead?
-
Vlad,
Now try reading what you actually asked.
Dull incomprehension is fine, unless you want to 'fess up to yet another falsehood instead?
You cannot sensibly claim to be both fundamental and contingent Hillside.
-
You cannot sensibly claim to be both fundamental and contingent Hillside.
:D :D :D
You seem to have forgotten your own question...
Manifestations of or contingent on?
You're always good for a laugh, Vlad.
-
Vlad,
You cannot sensibly claim to be both fundamental and contingent Hillside.
No-one has. Again, try reading what you actually asked.
-
:D :D :D
You seem to have forgotten your own question...
You're always good for a laugh, Vlad.
If information is contingent on matter then it is not the foundation of reality is it? Matter is.
If matter is contingent on information then matter is not information...which is the foundation of reality.
If matter is a manifestation of information then it IS information and therefore fundamental but it cannot be fundamental and contingent.
-
Vlad,
No-one has. Again, try reading what you actually asked.
A manifestation of something IS that thing Hillside. If you are the foundation of reality then you cannot be contingent on it since you are it....and you are fundamental.
-
Vlad,
If information is contingent on matter then it is not the foundation of reality is it? Matter is.
If matter is contingent on information then matter is not be information...which is the foundation of reality.
If matter is a manifestation of information then it IS information and therefore fundamental but it cannot be fundamental and contingent.
None of which has anything whatever to do with the question you actually asked - which concerned whether matter and forces were manifestations of or contingent on information.
Stop digging.
-
Vlad,
A manifestation of something IS that thing Hillside. If you are the foundation of reality then you cannot be contingent on it since you are it....and you are fundamental.
You'll reach Australia soon. A "thing" is a thing - a manifestation of it is something else that shows or demonstrates it. Octopi are "manifestations" of evolution for example. They are also contingent on it.
0/10 - See me
-
If matter is a manifestation of information then it IS information...
;D ;D ::)
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/manifestation
No, don't stop! This is hilarious...
-
Vlad,
None of which has anything whatever to do with the question you actually asked - which concerned whether matter and forces were manifestations of or contingent on information.
Stop digging.
Answer this....is information the foundation of reality? is matter the same as information?
-
Some,
;D ;D ::)
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/manifestation
No, don't stop! This is hilarious...
Sadly our Vlad has a long and ignoble history of just re-defining words to suit his purpose.
-
Vlad,
Answer this....is information the foundation of reality?
So it appears, yes.
...is matter the same as information?
No - it's a manifestation of it.
It's also contingent on it.
-
Vlad,
So it appears, yes.
No - it's a manifestation of it.
It's also contingent on it.
Well now I know which definition of manifestion you are using.
Doesn't help the materialist case though does it.
-
Some,
Sadly our Vlad has a long and ignoble history of just re-defining words to suit his purpose.
Sadly Hillside has such a history for ignoring all dictionary definitions and encyclopedic ones that don't suit his case eg philosophical materialism, supernatural etc.
-
Well now I know which definition of manifestion you are using.
;D ;D ;D
Where did you find the 'definition' that you were using? In what dictionary does "manifestation of" mean "is"?
Is there a Vladictionary somewhere?
-
Vlad,
Well now I know which definition of manifestion you are using.
Yes, the correct one. A house is a "manifestation" of cement, bricks etc. It's not though the "same as" cement, bricks etc. Hope that clears it up for you.
Apology accepted.
Oh, hang on though - you didn't bother with one did you.
Ah well.
Doesn't help the materialist case though does it.
And once again brave Sir Vlad just moves on as if he hadn't just crashed and burned.
It's got nothing to do with materialism, at least not unless you want to essay your personal re-definition of it again?
-
;D ;D ;D
Where did you find the 'definition' that you were using? In what dictionary does "manifestation of" mean "is"?
Is there a Vladictionary somewhere?
Your link didn't work.
-
Vlad,
Sadly Hillside has such a history for ignoring all dictionary definitions and encyclopedic ones that don't suit his case eg philosophical materialism, supernatural etc.
Why do you think lying like this helps you?
-
Some,
Is there a Vladictionary somewhere?
I did pitch the idea of a Vladdish:Englsh/English:Vladdish dictionary to the Oxford University Press a while back but they said it would take too many volumes to fit most shelves ;)
Shame really - think of the royalties!
-
;D ;D ;D
Where did you find the 'definition' that you were using? In what dictionary does "manifestation of" mean "is"?
The Oxford where it means ''a version of something''.
-
Some,
I did pitch the idea of a Vladdish:Englsh/English:Vladdish dictionary to the Oxford University Press a while back but they said it would take too many volumes to fit most shelves ;)
Did you really or did you just make that up?
-
Vlad,
The Oxford where it means ''a version of something''.
He quote mined, and failed to spot that "a version" isn't "same as" in any case.
Is a house "a version of" cement an bricks would you say?
On second thoughts, don't bother.
-
Vlad,
Yes, the correct one. A house is a "manifestation" of cement, bricks etc. It's not though the "same as" cement, bricks etc. Hope that clears it up for you.
Trouble is though Hillside....a house IS cement, bricks etc.
-
But they, the maths, are not literally out there though are they, as objective concepts. Only the forces, and the like, and the way they interact, and so on, are. We impose these concepts on to them with our minds but those concepts are only in our minds as ways to relate to what we 'see' for our own understanding. Therefore, maths is contingent on the behaviour and patterns of the universe and how we 'see' things.
Hi Jack Knave,
Thank you for the above. Sorry for delay in responding.
The question is not whether we "impose" mathematical concepts onto the physical Universe with our minds. That happens from time to time when people try to force a concept to fit a particular situation where it does not fit. Fortunately, peer review protects against this.
So, the question is whether mathematical concepts are solely imaginary (with no more power than Harry Potter's wand); or whether they are true independently of the human mind, with a propensity to interact with the physical Universe. Successes of modern science indicate the latter.
If mathematical concepts were solely imaginary, then they would be the product of random processes in our contingent brains, with no purpose but amusement, and no more relevance to reality than Harry Potter's wand. If just imaginary and random, it would be difficult to "impose" them on the physical Universe in a coherent way.
Numbers, squares of numbers, square roots, right angles, triangles, second derivatives etc are not visible in the natural world. For thousands of years, maths developed these concepts, aware of their usefulness for man-made things, but unaware of a relevance to the physical Universe.
However, in about AD 1590, Galileo dropped some stones frim the Tower of Pisa, and from then until AD 1905, he, Newton, Maxwell etc made objective measurement, followed by mathematical equations the critical factor in science - i.e. the certainty of science depended upon the certainity of its mathimatical concepts. How could that be if maths was just an imaginary product imposed by contingent brain?
To be coherent, science needs its maths to be as objective (independent of human mind) as the objectivity of its physical elements (e.g. moons around Saturn).
However, from AD 1905, the sequence of physics was turned on its head. Instead of experiment followed by maths, the more fruitful sequence became abstract maths followed by empirical experiment. Mathematical reasoning enabled forecasts of previously unsuspected phenomena to an extraordinary extent. I gave four examples in my previous post. I can give more examples if you wish.
One could "impose" equations upon a few things which are already known (if you can get around modern peer review and incoherence), but impossible to make your maths forecast new phenomena such as black holes, gravitational waves, Higgs field etc of modern physics unless the mathematical concepts are as objective as the phenomena they forecast.
So, if we accept the reality of the forecasts of modern physics, then we are forced to accept the reality of the abstract concepts used to make the forecasts. In modern physics, the Universe is contingent upon the maths.
God bless
-
Thought this might help:
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1118426/prove-or-disprove-discrete-math
ippy
-
Vlad,
Trouble is though Hillside....a house IS cement, bricks etc.
Then good luck living in it. Your claim you remember was that one was "the same as" the other.
A house is no more "the same as" bricks and mortar than matter and forces are the same as the information from which they derive.
Epic, epic fail. Again.
-
I don't see why maths would be contingent on matter. Maths is abstract.
As for God being contingent, well to start with God is largely undefined, so you have a problem of definition to start with. But if we run with a popular view that god is some sort of being but then go on to observe that 'god could not lift a rock that was too heavy for him to lift' then with this observation we are demonstrating that god is in fact contingent upon logic; an origin of all things would be contingent upon nothing.
That's just playing with words. That's more an issue of the flexibility of the rules of language than a statement about reality.
-
Does logic therefore give rise to matter/energy......or is it contingent on it?
Everything is contingent on what 'IS'.
-
ROFL.
What does ROFL mean?
-
What does ROFL mean?
Roll On the Floor Laughing
-
Vlad,
Then good luck living in it. Your claim you remember was that one was "the same as" the other.
A house is no more "the same as" bricks and mortar than matter and forces are the same as the information from which they derive.
Epic, epic fail. Again.
So for Vlad a pile if bricks and mortar etc. would constitute a house. I think the house is contingent on a design and a will to create it...... ;D
-
Numbers, squares of numbers, square roots, right angles, triangles, second derivatives etc are not visible in the natural world. For thousands of years, maths developed these concepts, aware of their usefulness for man-made things, but unaware of a relevance to the physical Universe.
Nope. There are many examples of people trying to use mathematics to describe the World that predate Galileo. One need only review Eratosthenes' attempt to measure the size of the Earth or Archimedes principle or the Ptolemaic model of the Universe to see examples of people applying maths to describe the World.
However, in about AD 1590, Galileo dropped some stones frim the Tower of Pisa
He didn't actually. Galileo did all his experiments in the lab by rolling balls to inclines.
and from then until AD 1905, he, Newton, Maxwell etc made objective measurement, followed by mathematical equations the critical factor in science - i.e. the certainty of science depended upon the certainity of its mathimatical concepts. How could that be if maths was just an imaginary product imposed by contingent brain?
I think you have it a bit wrong. We use mathematics to build models of the Universe and then we test them against reality. It's not compulsory for the World to obey the laws we make just because those laws use elegant maths.
However, from AD 1905, the sequence of physics was turned on its head. Instead of experiment followed by maths, the more fruitful sequence became abstract maths followed by empirical experiment. Mathematical reasoning enabled forecasts of previously unsuspected phenomena to an extraordinary extent. I gave four examples in my previous post. I can give more examples if you wish.
I see no reason to believe anything in the scientific method really changed in 1905. Watch this clip. It's the best and only description of the scientific method you'll ever need and it's 62 seconds long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
It hasn't changed in hundreds of years.
-
What does ROFL mean?
Roof on, foundations laid.
He was talking about building houses wasn't he? :-\
-
Seb,
Roof on, foundations laid.
He was talking about building houses wasn't he? :-\
Roof On, Foundations Lacking surely?
-
Seb,
Roof On, Foundations Lacking surely?
Foundations for Vladistics, definitely!
-
Seb,
Roof On, Foundations Lacking surely?
I assumed that Chunsty built the roof first so that he knew where the foundations needed to go?
-
If we accept that the Standard Model of Particle Physics is correct and true, then we are forced to accept the reality of the mathematical entities which dominate it. However, by saying that the truths of maths are 'incontingent' while the physical entities are only 'contingent', you appear to be saying that its mathematical entities are even more true than its physical entities.
Reality is what is true independent of the human mind, and surely this must include all 'incontingent' mathematical entities necessary for the objective measurements which are the foundation of modern science. So, mathematical entities have an objective existence, or modern physics is circular reasoning.
God bless
I'm not sure it is valid to say that abstract mathematical laws 'exist' in any normal sense of the word. Perhaps to claim they exist would imply contingency. Rather I think of them as inevitabilities that we have come to understand and describe; a conceptual principal of logic or maths would be like a baseline in our schemes of how to understand what is possible and what is not. Thus Pi R2 for instance is not some independently existing principle that guides the character of circles, rather it is a statement summing our understanding of the inevitable truth regarding the nature of circular things. Not sure if this is making sense or not, the words are not coming out right today :(
-
Thought this might help:
I clicked on the link and listened ... Hmmm :D I don't think I'll try and learn what it means! However, I see that rosindubh has written another 440 or so words, but I note that neither he, nor Sriram, nor AB comment on the fact that top scientists, mathematicians, engineers and Nobel Prize committee members are not beating a path to their doors.
-
Roof on, foundations laid.
He was talking about building houses wasn't he? :-\
:D :D :D
-
I clicked on the link and listened ... Hmmm :D I don't think I'll try and learn what it means! However, I see that rosindubh has written another 440 or so words, but I note that neither he, nor Sriram, nor AB do not comment on the fact that top scientists, mathematicians, engineers and Nobel Prize committee members are not beating a path to their doors.
There's no need for all of us to be mathematicians because anything Rosindubh feels the need to spend his time on with his various conclusions would have been jumped on years ago by some other, clutching at straws, religionist equally as keen as he obviously is; since we haven't heard anything from that direction I'd say the stuff he keeps on coming out with can be dismissed, with some confidence and without a need to watch this space of his either.
ippy
-
There's no need for all of us to be mathematicians because anything Rosindubh feels the need to spend his time on with his various conclusions would have been jumped on years ago by some other, clutching at straws, religionist equally as keen as he obviously is; since we haven't heard anything from that direction I'd say the stuff he keeps on coming out with can be dismissed, with some confidence and without a need to watch this space of his either.
ippy
Agreed - as usual.
By the way, I have modified my post as I hadn't noticed the grammatical error - 'do not' now deleted.
-
Vlad,
You'll reach Australia soon. A "thing" is a thing - a manifestation of it is something else that shows or demonstrates it. Octopi are "manifestations" of evolution for example. They are also contingent on it.
0/10 - See me
Yes there are several definitions of manifestation Hillside. You make yourself manifest through your internet drivel....But you are not contingent on it.
I suspect being a big muggle materialist you want to appear to be a slick informationist but at base believe that material IS information or even that information contingent on material. You seem to be evasive about what you mean.
Can you prove yourself to be no longer a dyed in the wool materialisthead but a new, go ahead, thrusting informationist?
-
:D :D
Vald, you really, really should stop digging. Then again, it is funny!
You make yourself manifest through your internet drivel....But you are not contingent on it.
You make yourself manifest through your hilarious misunderstandings of basic logic - and said basic misunderstandings are contingent on you.
A manifestation is contingent on what it is a manifestation of - not the other way around. The original claim that you scoffed (#384 to #389), was that matter and forces were manifestations of (and hence contingent on) information.
-
Vlad,
Yes there are several definitions of manifestation Hillside.
None of which are "the same as". A house is not "the same as" bricks and mortar, you are not "the same as" lots of cells etc.
Stop digging.
-
The question is not whether we "impose" mathematical concepts onto the physical Universe with our minds. That happens from time to time when people try to force a concept to fit a particular situation where it does not fit. Fortunately, peer review protects against this.
So, the question is whether mathematical concepts are solely imaginary (with no more power than Harry Potter's wand); or whether they are true independently of the human mind, with a propensity to interact with the physical Universe. Successes of modern science indicate the latter.
If mathematical concepts were solely imaginary, then they would be the product of random processes in our contingent brains, with no purpose but amusement, and no more relevance to reality than Harry Potter's wand. If just imaginary and random, it would be difficult to "impose" them on the physical Universe in a coherent way.
Are you saying here that the function of our brains are random? If so how do we manage to get anything done? How would we manage to hold and apply, sufficiently long enough, those mathematical concepts you so love?
If we, as you say, with this random brain of ours, couldn't "impose them on the physical universe in a coherent way" how does this brain of ours impose, with its 'randomness', on these so called incontingent, objective mathematical concepts that you claim are 'out there' as oppose to being 'in here'? These concepts have to be held and understood by our brains internally even if they are objective and 'out there'. You claim about the feebleness of our brains to 'impose' applies to all things which are 'out there', which would mean that the scope to understand these mathematic concepts would be out of our reach.
Your implication of imaginary is all wrong these concepts are developed from observations
etc. not from someone just sitting at a desk and making them up like a story or tale. And that is my point that the concepts that have been developed have come from what has been observed of our physical world. How else would we know that they are correct and represent the reality we see?
Numbers, squares of numbers, square roots, right angles, triangles, second derivatives etc are not visible in the natural world. For thousands of years, maths developed these concepts, aware of their usefulness for man-made things, but unaware of a relevance to the physical Universe.
However, in about AD 1590, Galileo dropped some stones frim the Tower of Pisa, and from then until AD 1905, he, Newton, Maxwell etc made objective measurement, followed by mathematical equations the critical factor in science - i.e. the certainty of science depended upon the certainity of its mathimatical concepts. How could that be if maths was just an imaginary product imposed by contingent brain?
To be coherent, science needs its maths to be as objective (independent of human mind) as the objectivity of its physical elements (e.g. moons around Saturn).
However, from AD 1905, the sequence of physics was turned on its head. Instead of experiment followed by maths, the more fruitful sequence became abstract maths followed by empirical experiment. Mathematical reasoning enabled forecasts of previously unsuspected phenomena to an extraordinary extent. I gave four examples in my previous post. I can give more examples if you wish.
One could "impose" equations upon a few things which are already known (if you can get around modern peer review and incoherence), but impossible to make your maths forecast new phenomena such as black holes, gravitational waves, Higgs field etc of modern physics unless the mathematical concepts are as objective as the phenomena they forecast.
So, if we accept the reality of the forecasts of modern physics, then we are forced to accept the reality of the abstract concepts used to make the forecasts. In modern physics, the Universe is contingent upon the maths.
God bless
As for forecasting that is just a function of the scope and range of the maths at hand etc. seeking out all the potentialities of the tools at our finger tips. This is an interlinked universe, it is not surprising that something found and developed in one aspect of it is found to relate to some other part of it.
I feel this isn't a thorough response to your post but I'm a little busy at the moment to delve fully into its nuances.
-
I assumed that Chunsty built the roof first so that he knew where the foundations needed to go?
Arrh, yes, those sky hooks. Sky implying Heaven.