God exists, I'll tell you why.
Please tell me your thought on this website:http://godisimaginary.com This does not necessarily represent my opinion or that of anyone else's. However I would love to hear you feedback! Also, here is how I came to this conclusion:
1. The website I used had some interesting topics. The further I read, the less convinced I became. I realized that for the Bible to be used and interpreted correctly you need to read quite a lot of it, because other wise you won't understand the context. You can't expect a single verse to mean exactly what it says, because of sarcasm, metaphorical speaking and the occasional description of something that is ungodly.
2. God is difficult to grasp for some people, but I can tell you that assuming there is a God, specifically the one in the Bible, it answers thousands of scientific questions we've been wondering about for ages. It works better for everyone to have one, solid answer to a question than hundreds of possibilities.
3. I can prove all of the proofs in on that website false, although sometimes it's difficult to explain. Either way, I have solid evidence that I would be willing to share with anybody who's interested, so say the word. The first proof is false in the fact that Deut 6:16 says not to test God, and the author was obviously testing God which would explain the unanswered prayer. The author also mentioned about gathering faithful God fearing people to pray as well, but that would also be a test, so that still explains why the prayers wouldn't be answered.
4. I prayed, and my prayer was answered. This means one of two things: 1. God answered my prayer. or 2. Coincidentally something happened that answered my prayer at the same time I was praying.
5. Last but not least, I heard some amazing testimonies and they boosted my moral and reasoning.
So those are my reasons, and I'm totally open for any debate concerning it.
1. The website I used had some interesting topics. The further I read, the less convinced I became. I realized that for the Bible to be used and interpreted correctly you need to read quite a lot of it, because other wise you won't understand the context. You can't expect a single verse to mean exactly what it says, because of sarcasm, metaphorical speaking and the occasional description of something that is ungodly.
2. God is difficult to grasp for some people, but I can tell you that assuming there is a God, specifically the one in the Bible, it answers thousands of scientific questions we've been wondering about for ages. It works better for everyone to have one, solid answer to a question than hundreds of possibilities.
3. I can prove all of the proofs in on that website false, although sometimes it's difficult to explain. Either way, I have solid evidence that I would be willing to share with anybody who's interested, so say the word. The first proof is false in the fact that Deut 6:16 says not to test God, and the author was obviously testing God which would explain the unanswered prayer. The author also mentioned about gathering faithful God fearing people to pray as well, but that would also be a test, so that still explains why the prayers wouldn't be answered.
4. I prayed, and my prayer was answered. This means one of two things: 1. God answered my prayer. or 2. Coincidentally something happened that answered my prayer at the same time I was praying.
5. Last but not least, I heard some amazing testimonies and they boosted my moral and reasoning.
So those are my reasons, and I'm totally open for any debate concerning it.
Comments (183)
You need to make better OPs, see the guidelines for help.
The person writing that commentary apparently has a particular god in mind.
If he/she does have a particular god in mind...the commentator has set him/herself up for a demand for proof.
Saying a particular god is imaginary is a positive assertion...and the burden of proof for the assertion falls on the person making the assertion.
You're misinterpreting the solution "it answers thousands of scientific questions we've been wondering about for ages" religion provides, as proof of its necessary existence. Religion certainly answers these questions, or the "silence of the universe" as Camus wrote (read him!) but that doesn't mean it's true by any means
Point 4: I often interpret prayer as a form of confirmation bias. People in desperate or unfortunate situations are driven to attempt to do anything they believe could help alleviate their suffering/situation, and thus find hope in prayer, which likewise, now they find 'hope' in their life. Faith as psychological tricking.
I prayed that my dog would be cured from a form of incurable canine cancer, and he was. I prayed before the blood tests were taken, and just before the vet gave me the results. I know it seems childish, but it's what worked for me. The vet was the most surprised, couldn't wrap his head around the idea that my dog would not have to be put down and therefore I wouldn't have to pay for it.
Well, I am a person of education, and it was difficult for me to come to terms with the existence of God. I studied the evidence, and no matter how hard I tried to disprove, I ended up proving that he does exist. Pick one of the fifty proofs from that website, and I will prove to you it's absolutely false.
So how does that work? You think that god suspended the laws of nature for you and your dog but not for other people whose dogs, children, mothers, fathers and wives died from cancer or whatever else? What makes you and your dog so special? Was it they way you prayed? The timing? Because you prayed twice?
One can certainly make a guess in either direction...and almost anyone can come up with rationalizations for a guess in either direction.
But no meaningful conclusion can be drawn.
One cannot even make a meaningful conclusion about whether either position is more likely.
That will never stop people from making absolute assertions that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist.
No, I think there was a possibility that that maybe the blood tests were wrong or that it was all a coincidence, but either way it was still answered for me. I think mostly likely it was the timing, but I think that maybe God had other plans for my dog, because I'm raising him to be a guide dog.
It depends on what “god” you are talking about, what attributes are being assigned to the “god” in question. These claims, at least some of them, are testable. The current popular “god” of monotheism is actually a much diluted “god”, after having been tested and found wanting many, many times. Now, “god” is this nebulous pseudo-entity that exists outside any ability to test it or even just differentiate from the various forms delusion we know humans are subject to.
Convenient, but not very convincing.
The Bible says not to test God, so that would explain why any tests done would be negative or wrong. Deut 6:16
I do not talk about "a" god...and I did not do so in my comments.
I am saying that the assertion, "There are no gods"...is a guess.
I am saying that the assertion, "There exists at least one god"...is a guess.
If you disagree, tell me why and we can discuss THAT.
And the unanswered prayers of others? No plan fir them? Not worthwhile people? My son dies of cancer even though I prayed, no plan for him I guess? Not worthwhile enough to save?
God works in mysterious ways, right?
To see what would happen after I was convinced of the existence of God. I thought, "Hey, I don't care if the dog dies, but if I pray will it live?" The answer to the prayer further convinced me, but I don't count prayer as a complete form of evidence. I also use the term 'believe' rather loosely, because I don't believe so much as I am convinced.
Alright, well I wasnt intending to imply you said anything about god specifically, nor was I trying to be adversarial. It was related commentary for the purpose of discussion, and an explanation about the nebulous state of the topic of god which resulted in your stance about the “yay” or “nay” about god being “guesses”.
Absolutely not. God does not make it 'mysterious' at all. In fact, he makes it plain and obvious. However, when people want to give reasons why God did this or that and they don't understand, they use the "God works in mysterious ways" to supplement their incomprehension of what happened.
It seems that you were convinced of God already before you prayed. That means that the outcome of the situation, which you prayed about, had to pass through and be interpreted by your *I already believe in god* filter.
Also you said one shouldn't test god. Then you did exactly that by praying about the dog simply to see what would happen.
...and the rest of what I said? Do you have an answer for that?
No, I didn't. I didn't care if it was answered or not, in fact it may have been half hearted. I was convinced of God, but not of prayer. I thought, sure, there is a God, but no, prayer isn't useful. I haven't really tried praying at all besides that, but I don't see why not God wouldn't answer it, when he answered something I didn't care about.
Negative. A prayer should be in a form of request and when granted by God, it is a gift. Although this theory somewhat contradicts with free will and human's rational capability, a request - happens for a reason. When Jesus was tempted by Satan - he was dared to 'call thy angels as the Lord will catch you when you fall'. That is no longer considered as a request, as it is more of a condition, than a request.
A test is a dare without any faithful ideology. Just to see what happens.
here is an example:
You and me are playing hold em poker heads up.
on the deal -
I get A Hearts, A clubs
You get 4 -5 spades.
I guess I have the best hand right now, don’ t want to get out drawn
I 3 bet
You like your suited connectors, guess I have a pair but you want to see a flop
The Flop goes A spades, 3 spades, 7 spades
I love the flop – trip A’s - bet half the pot
You seem to take a long time – but call - I guess you are playing me with the delay and have the flush and am glad you are slow playing it so I can get out on the turn
The turn is 7 hearts
I am trying to control my breathing and act cool. I check hoping to check raise you when you
Bet your flush, you guessed I had trips on the flop when I bet big and are happy I checked here guessing the board paired 7 either gave me the full house or quad 7’s - you check – expecting to fold on the river
The river is 6 spades
I know the odds of that card filling in a strait flush is 22 – 1, but I know the hand is possible the only one that can beat me. I bet the pot. Guessing you just have the flush. You go all in.
I guess you put me on trips early and didn’t bet my check on the river because you knew it was a trap and would have folded into any bet I would have made. So the river must have given you the strait flush or you would not have gone all in - But I can’t give into I would be folding a full house into a 22-1 shot - I call and lose
In your understanding of guessing – how much or all that was guessing or reasoning an unknown with limited information.
Most of it was guessing...informed guessing.
Poker is informed guessing...probability analysis.
Asserting there exists at least one god in the REALITY of existence...is also a guess...but IT IS A BLIND GUESS.
Asserting there are no gods in the REALITY of existence...is also a guess...and also a BLIND GUESS.
I used to play Hold 'em 4 - 5 hours a day on-line. Don't do that anymore. Love the game. And I loved your "example."
So what is the request in a prayer of thanksgiving?
I don't know about 'unanswered', because I've been told God can say no as well as yes.Quoting DingoJones
There probably is, but unless you
1. 'Believe' in God
2. Ask God concerning it
3. Go where He 'leads' you
You will never find out what God has planned for you or your loved ones.
Quoting DingoJones
Quoting DingoJonesQuoting DingoJones
They definitely are! But if God exists, than heaven is a way better place than earth could ever be, so why wouldn't they want to live there? It would be a place without pain or sickness. A true paradise! Wanting them to stay healthy or at least alive on earth would be selfish, would it not? I think God takes them to heaven where they can be eternally happy and healthy, wouldn't you want that for your son instead of constant pain and the grief? The Bible says that to a certain age God doesn't hold us accountable for our choices concerning Him, so if this son has yet to be a teen, he would probably be in heaven regardless what you or he thought.
Will you share your opinion on abortion, OM?
Sure! I think that it's not okay because what if that person was the guy who would save our butts in the future from who knows what? Also, as soon as it has a heartbeat it's a living creature, and whether you call it a 'fetus' or a 'baby' it's still alive. Would you kill a puppy in the womb? Then why would you kill a human baby? I say that all abortions should come to an end, at that all those supposedly unwanted children could be put up for adoption for those who are less fortunate.
Of course, some people can't have that baby because they need to work instead of being pregnant, but there are help centers for people like that. Anything else?
Using that same logic when someone prays and the prayer is not answered, would that then be proof that god does not exist?
Devastating. Wish I had thought to put it that way.
There's a nice addendum to that: since God is the one granting prayers under this account, then anyone who acts to give me what I pray for will be God. That's a lot of Gods.
I Suppose so, although I was operating under the impression prayers had to have a supernatural component otherwise ya, one wonders just whats so impressive about a prayer being answered to begin with.
A prayer of thanksgiving is gratitude for the things you have today which logically, is because of prayer - or God's (regardless of what god) actions. To conclude, if the existence of God is true, we only know an approximate definition of him. Therefore the accidental and essential intrinsic attributes cannot define God - he is undefinable.
The difference is the state of being. Contingent beings like us human beings, do not correlate to godly principles. Necessary beings like God or a god - do not correlate to humanly principles. So the argument for the existence of God by Anselm and Aquinas mostly imply to necessary beings.
An example would be the envy of God - he will not allow you to praise other gods or prophets beside him. Yet envy for him, is only approximate to human envy as he is undefinable.
I know that's that argument, my point is it doesn't make sense.
If our prayer is to be answered, something or some being act in the world, to produce one contingent state or another (e.g. curing my illness, rather than me being sick and dying). Our prayers are answered because they are definable, something we know happens in the world, on account of the moving and changing through action of its entities.
So if we take the happening of answering of a prayer, like in the OP, to be evidence of God, we are talking about the entity which caused that contingent state to occur (e.g. the doctor, who, with the right knowledge, cured me), we are taking that entity to be God (in this case the doctor, since they are the one who answered my prayer to be well).
Take Aquinas' argument on God's existence. The theory of causation and motion - that things has happened because of a necessary being making that happen. The doctor who, you argued, made your prayer come true, is also because of God - back when he was in primary to his present career, it was caused by an uncaused causer.
Personally, I believe the arguments of Aquinas and most especially Anselm are not much of logical value, but they can be potentially utilised for other arguments - like prayer. Whether it makes sense or not, we really just can't know God yet for sure as even his characteristics as an all knowing and powerful god is not written in the bible.
:lol:
That's exactly the issue though: such a God is not a causer at all. Since God is the most perfect simple, unaltered over time and beyond contingent events, they can do nothing. No matter what happens in the world, God remains the perfect simplicity, infinite and never changing.
Such a God cannot be the contingent difference that causes me to be cured rather than not. God is identical whether I get cured or not.
I need an imperfect being, with the complexity of the form of causing my cure, to do the work.
The events of our creation was caused by this causer, so I apologise, I don't understand. If he created us, which if you are theistic or not, that is a known concept, he should be capable to intertwine with contingent affairs.
The necessary being, God; is omniscient so he should be able to know the perspective of contingent beings, and therefore still be the reason of causing that cure. The curing process though, might be something really out of the detail, one small alteration of ecological relationships or just one more carcinogen causing cancer. The necessity of him actually leads to knowledge beyond the human capacity to know, so yes, he should be able to intertwine to contingent events.
I think you need a larger sample size than one before drawing any conclusions.
'Recent medical studies on prayer have generally shown mixed results when it comes to healing from illnesses'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer
I personally think it is probable that a creator of the universe exists, but proving there is a God is another question and rather a tricky undertaking (particularly without defining the characteristics of God first).
Well...earlier you mentioned, "They definitely are (worthy)! But if God exists, than heaven is a way better place than earth could ever be, so why wouldn't they want to live there? It would be a place without pain or sickness. A true paradise! Wanting them to stay healthy or at least alive on earth would be selfish, would it not? I think God takes them to heaven where they can be eternally happy and healthy,"
So...if the aborted fetuses were "living"...they would go to Heaven and live in that "true paradise" with your god...and be "eternally happy and healthy."
Your god may know that if allowed to live here on Earth for a relatively few years, they will do something that stops them from attaining Heaven...and the god may want to give them a pass. Your god may know that if allowed to live...they would live in excruciating pain from disease...and the god may want to give them a pass from that.
So you would deny your god that?
You would deny that fetus the chance to attain Heaven with a free pass...or to be freed from a life of pain and anguish?
Why would you do that?
There is no way to establish that any gods exist...or to establish that none do, Tim.
In fairness, I think Devans is just sharing his blind guesses about these things.
I figure eventually he will acknowledge that.
For example, the fine-tuning argument: The universe is fine-tuned for life; there must be a fine tuner. But who fine-tuned the fine-tuner's environment for life? There must be another fine-tuner. This infinite regress terminates with a timeless fine-tuner (IE timeless so beyond cause and effect so does not in itself need creating).
As to the question of 'Is there a God?'; if the definition of God includes the 3O's then framing a logical argument is more difficult. People sometimes say that the laws of nature possess some or all of the 3O's and then associate the laws of nature with God...
Perhaps.
But what we humans call "the universe" may actually have had a "creator"...and that creator may not be a god.
Keep in mind that what we humans call "the universe" may be only an insignificant part of what exists.
In some much larger reality...what we humans call "the universe" may be a molecule in an experiment being performed by a kid using a chemistry set.
You seem determined to suppose "the universe" is fine tuned.
It may not be.
All of what we humans consider "the universe" may be an accidental amalgam of things we cannot even imagine, Devans.
The ONLY "logical argument" that can be made about the true nature of the REALITY of existence is:
I do not know.
Try that one out for a bit...and when you finally grok it...you can move on to:
But here are my guesses about what it might be.
Yes. I think we can conclude if there was a creator, then he would have the following characteristics:
- Timeless
- Powerful
- Benevolent
But there is a gulf between the above and the traditional religious view of God. Thinking of God as the creator of the natural laws partially bridges the gap in terms of omnipresence and omnipotence. It does not cover omniscience or omnibenevolence. I'm not sure that the traditional religious view of God is amenable to being tackled with a logical proof. The very idea of omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence seems to fly in the face of logical thinking,
Quoting Frank Apisa
It is an interesting point. When discussing the universe, it is sometimes helpful to use the term 'base reality' to refer to the entirety of everything. Then we can look at creation arguments and say whether they apply to our reality or 'base reality' or both.
Arguments that relate to our universe and our time generally recast as arguments relating to base reality and base reality time with no problem I find.
Quoting Frank Apisa
It's a hotly debated subject. Personally I think both the weak and strong Anthropic principle arguments can be countered. My conclusion is the universe is probably fine-tuned for life.
Respectfully as possible, Devans...I do not think we can conclude any of those things.
If there is a "creator"...the creator may not even realize it is a creator.
If you make toast this morning...and it happens that one molecule of the toast you make "creates" a universe that is much like the thing we humans call "the universe"...you would be the creator of a universe...and not even know it.
We ALL may be creating new universes every minute of every day.
A "creator" does not have to be "timeless" "powerful" or "benevolent."
Those are gratuitous characteristics you want for a creator.
One thing it shares with "the traditional religious view"...is that it is nothing but a blind guess about what MIGHT BE.
I'm not sure where you are going with that line of thinking...but if it helps get your away from what seems to be certainty of a "god"...good for you.
Okay...that is your "conclusion."
But it is so inappropriate as a "conclusion" you might want to re-consider it.
The only reasonable "conclusion" would be: "It may be fine tuned for life...and life may not be the result of any fine-tuning."
Any conclusion you make is nothing more than a blind guess.
The evidence of fine-tuning for life counts against accidental creation.
Quoting Frank Apisa
- Timeless. Has to be else we'd have an infinite regress in time.
- Powerful. Has to be powerful enough to create the universe, IE pretty powerful
- Benevolent. Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible. If God ever meets a greater god, the outcome is as follows: Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished. Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded. The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I think we already discussed this, but what you call 'a blind guess', I call 'a probability analysis'.
This "god" thing is something you need...and will defend no matter what.
I hope at some point you get to "we really do not know...and any blind guesses I make about what is more probable than its opposite...is self-serving."
In the meantime, I'll comment from time to time.
But humanist or not, I am still interested in whether there is a God or not and probability is a more enlightening approach that just saying 'I don't know'.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT PRETENDING TO HAVE A PROBABILITY ESTIMATE IS ANY MORE "ENLIGHTENED" THAN SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE DO NOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE.
Your probability estimate is total fiction, Devans.
1. Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
2. The start of time/Big Bang: 50% + 50% * 50% = 75%
3. Fine tuning of the universe for life: 75% + 25% * 50% = 87.5%
4. Why is there something rather than nothing 87.5% + 12.5% * 25% = 90.6%
So a 91% chance of the existence of a creator of the universe.
What exactly am I ‘pretending’ about? Why is it fiction? It looks like a perfectly valid probability analysis to me. It could be more detailed I grant and the actual numbers used are guesstimates but it is still a more refined approach to the problem than just saying 'I don't know'.
You are kidding yourself, Devans. The fact that you are supposing you have solved a problem that the greatest minds that have ever existed on the planet have not been able to solve...
...should give you a clue that you are kidding yourself.
But apparently it is not.
Okay...continue to think YOU have solved the most difficult problem ever...and that you were able to do it in only one paragraph...and that all the rest of humanity has not been able to accomplish what you have done here.
Doesn't sound delusional at all...
...RIGHT?
I have not solved the problem of whether there is a God or not, I've just done a probability analysis of whether there is a creator of the universe. And you are not pointing out any problems with my analysis so what am I to think?
Well, since I cannot point out any problems, the ONLY think you can think is that for certain YOU have solved the most baffling problem every to face any human; that no human (no matter how intelligent) has ever done it before; and that you have managed to do it in only one paragraph.
Right??????
It's not my OP.
Quoting Frank Apisa
So how then do you solve problems that require a meta-analysis? For example, we have a proposition for which we have multiple inductive pieces of evidence for and against. How would you go about judging the worthiness of the proposition if it is not using a probability meta-analysis?
Oops!
I lost track of that. I was wrong, Devans,.you are correct. I apologize.
Damn...and it is only March. I usually do not make my first mistake until after June! ;)
WE DON'T.
The question of whether or not "the universe" is a "creation" or not...may simply not be answerable.
The question, "Is it more likely that the universe is a creation than that it is not"...may simply not be answerable.
You seem to be ruling that out.
It is permissible to "judge" the worthiness of a particular proposition and determine that the evidence is so ambiguous that it is better to simply acknowledge "we do not know"...than to hazard a blind guess.
But if a blind guess is what you prefer...fine. No law against it.
It would be more ethical, however, to acknowledge it as a blind guess than to pretend the "evidence" leads to it.
I believe the question it is probably not answerable deductively. It might be answered through inductive or empirical routes though. But both of these forms of knowledge are inherently uncertain. In fact there is an argument that most/all of human knowledge is inherently uncertain: we assume we are not brains in vats; we know this inductively only; we cannot prove anything deductively.
So we have to live with the fact that most of our knowledge is of an inductive nature. We base our lives on the principle of induction. So I see no problem with extending its use to address questions like whether the universe was created.
I think I am only doing explicitly what our minds do when we process multiple pieces of inductive evidence for the same proposition... what you call blind guessing is probably a sub-conscious probability analysis.
I've been at this for a very, very long time, Devans.
I know that I have seen dozens (tens of dozens) of probability estimates that show conclusively that it is more likely that "the universe" is a "creation" (necessitating a creator)...
...and tens of dozens of probability estimates that show conclusively that it is more likely that "the universe" is NOT a creation (that there is no need for a creator).
They all used the same "evidence" and the same intellectual approaches...the same logic!
People find what they want to find.
I am willing to live with the truth. I DO NOT KNOW...and neither side of the issue actually seems more likely than the other.
I suspect everyone else is in that same position...although there are many who refuse to acknowledge it.
I would be interested in seeing any evidence against the proposition 'the universe was created'... I can't find any.
My position is:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
Yeah. Even if the "probability" is nothing more than confirmation bias.
I very, very, very seldom listen to "they."
No problem.
It is the same "evidence" that goes into "'the universe' was created."
There is no one God of the Bible. There is not even one Bible. Christians have relegated the Hebrew Bible to an old testament. Not only did they attempt to usurp the authority of the Hebrew Bible, they displaced the God of that Bible in favor of a pagan god and his progeny. In addition, the Christian Bible does not end with the words found in the books. There is, for example, no trinity in the Bible yet many Christians conceive of God as a trinity. The divine status of Jesus is not something that was determined by the Bible, but by the Council of Nicaea, based on some questionable interpretative claims.
The interpretation of Genesis 1 as creatio ex nihilo is dubious. The use of the plural "our image" and in the second and different story of the beginning "like one of us", raises questions about monotheism. In Exodus there is the problem of the name of God. However else one might interpret it, it is clear that there is an attempt at unification, whatever your ancestors may have called their god it is the same god. The commandment that you shall have no other god before me is not a claim of monotheism but of henotheism - this god and no others is to be your God. Monotheism is a later development, one that can be found in Isaiah but not earlier.
Quoting OpinionsMatter
The Bible is a patchwork collection of books and stories. Consider, for example, the story of the Flood. It is not a single story but two different stories or versions with different and conflicting details woven together. For example, we are told both that there was one pair of each kind of animal (7:15) and seven of each kind (7:2). There are two diametrically opposed stories of the beginning, one in which everything is fluid and nothing separate or distinct from anything else, and a second in which everything is static and distinct until the rains come.
There have been different interpretations that are as old as the stories themselves. The idea that there is a correct interpretation is incorrect. One more interesting story that occurs in the beginning. God tells Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, but from God to Adam to Eve to the serpent what God said has already been altered. Eve embellishes the story, not only are they forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree, they are forbidden from even touching it. In addition, the tree "in the midst of the garden" is not the tree of knowledge but the tree of life. One might think that the move from an oral tradition to a written one has solved that problem but it has not. It is not a question of not hearing correctly or not remembering correctly but of interpretation. It is not simply a matter of the words of God but of their interpretation. The serpent understood this. He spoke the truth when he assured Eve that they would not die on the day they ate of the tree. But his reputation for subtlety is well deserved. It is because of what they did on that day that they would die. As a literal interpretation of God's warning the serpent was right, they did not die on that day, but that was not the whole of it, as he knew. He wittingly deceived her, but we, wittingly or unwittingly, deceive ourselves; interpreting things in such a way that they conform to some larger picture or structure of belief.
Quoting tim wood
How exactly for example am I 'confusing being with existence'?
Quoting tim wood
It came up in a conversation with someone who had not seen it before. And it is not a busted argument. I do not see a valid counter argument in your last post.
You are so confused. You have done a completely different kind of calculation. You have calculated the chances of simultaneous events which is a multiplicative process.
That is not what I'm doing. I have a proposition X for which I have inductive statements A, B, and C which tell me about the truth of X. How do you combine such statements? It is an additive process as demonstrated above. You assign probabilities for each individual inductive statement and then combine the results with addition:
- Start at 50% for proposition 'is there a creator?'
- Say that the Big Bang is on its own regarded as evidence 25% certain that there is a creator
- Then the revised calculation is 50% + 50% * 25% = 62.5%
- And so on for the other pieces of evidence...
Quoting tim wood
No I am not. For each piece of evidence I am assigning a probability that it implies a creator (like 50% for the Big Bang). Then I am combining the probabilities together for multiple pieces of evidence as explained above.
Quoting tim wood
You are just plain wrong. I would not be standing by my arguments if anyone had come up with any valid counter arguments. As you have demonstrated clearly above with the probability example, you yourself do not even understand my arguments... you should at least understand them first before offering up your usual vague and wishy-washy criticisms.
Devans...let me ask you directly something I have asked you directly (albeit, sarcastically) previously.
Make one of your probability estimates on this issue:
The greatest minds that have ever existed on planet Earth have devoted themselves to consideration of the question of whether or not a CREATOR of what we humans call "the universe"...exists.
And they have come up short.
Now here you are in an Internet forum...claiming YOU can show (in a short paragraph) that what we humans call "the universe" not only was created, but that logic and reason dictate that OF NECESSITY it had to have been created. (All of which makes a CREATOR a given.)
Would you just apply that formula you just applied to a MUCH more difficult problem to this one...
...and tell us what you see the probability estimate to be for this being so.
As to probability of new philosophical discoveries coming up in a philosophical forum, I would say it is non-zero. I would not bother doing this if I did not think there was a chance we could get somewhere.
Well...since my position is 180 degrees out of synch with yours, I don't think discussing it is making too much of it.
But if you would prefer not to attempt a probability estimate on what I asked, I understand and accept.
I would say it is non-zero also.
BUT of this magnitude? Of a discovery that goes beyond what the best of the best have been able to produce...and so easily "shown?"
Really!
Quoting coolguy8472
No, but it's hard for some people to come to terms with "God can say no". Apparently he knows what's best for us, even when we don't. If the prayer isn't answered I would suspect that the prayer isn't what's best even though it seems that it's best for the one who is praying.
No, 2 means on its own, what is the probability that the Big Bang was caused by a creator? So I assign 50% to that probability.
We already have a 50% probability of yes, so within the 'no' probability space, I take 50% of it an add it to the 'yes' probability space:
50% + 50% * 50% = 75%
Can't you see the way you are calculating it every piece of evidence 'for God' is reducing the probability 'of God' - clearly you must be doing something wrong - evidence for should increase the probability.
It's hard to come to conclusions quickly, but I'll see what I can do about that.
One statement people usually use to argue against God is :"He never answers my prayer." They believe that a perfect being will give them what they want, when they want it, which is kind of weird. The Bible tells us God made us for companionship, which is more of a friend to friend approach, right? Would you expect your best friend to do whatever you want because you want it? Not really. Than why should you expect that from God? Because he's perfect? That would be silly, seen as he knows exactly what you really need[/I], not what you [i]want.
Another thing as that we can't see, hear, smell, touch, or whatever else to prove he's around. However, we can see his creation, but most people would argue that's not enough. The only thing I can say on this is that God would explain the things science can't. Remember when that cancer patient lived when they were deemed dead by a trained doctor? Those things can easily be explained when you consider God.
Also, I've been asked why God would let people get sick if he loves us so much. There was a time where we disobeyed God, and he told us that if we did disobey, we'd get sickness, disease, death and pain. We brought this upon ourselves, it was not God's fault. Consider this, if you get yourself 1 million dollars of debt, would you walk up to your best friend and demand they pay off your debt? No, because you were to blame and what did they have to do with it? Same with God, why should we expect him to pay of our debt when we are to blame, and likely we'll all into debt again.
I may have swerved off topic, so let's continue with the big subject. To be honest, it's incredibly difficult to show that God does exist, but it's super easy to disprove why he doesn't, in fact I can pull apart every single argument against God, but to straight out prove his existence is hard when we can't observe God. I have brought two atheists (Both professors in philosophy) to believe in the existence of God, and to this day they continue to explain to other professors and doctors of philosophy the proof for God. All I can say is that I am not religious, I never will be. But I certainly am convinced of late that God exists.
If you include other forums the number of threads is much more.
Karl Popper's theory of falsificationism
If a theory cannot be disproved or falsified - It is not scientific. This is true as the existence of God is not by the validity of observations but by faith. Philosophically, faith relies on believing something without conclusive evidence, so it is not much valuable in the table of Philosophy.
What I do believe; is that it takes more faith to attempt to disprove the existence of God than believing in him. The concept really, is that faith does not require arguments, the philosophy of religion should rely on faith and faith alone. Obviously, that was not the case for free-thinkers, and thus, the constant argument for the existence of a god was born.
So is it fair to assume that this all began because of questions from atheism? If so disproving the existence of a god requires more faith. More ideology.
I am a theist. I believe in God and I am in a religion - so we have different perspectives.
Here we go with the "what do you mean by that" question. (The "believe in" construct is unfathomable to me.)
When you say, "I believe in God" (with a capital 'G' and without the use of the indefinite article)...
...are you actually saying, "It is my guess (or assumption/supposition) that at least one god exists...and that another guess (assumption/supposition) is that the nature of that god has been revealed to me via some scripture or another?"
Are you saying you know what pleases or offends the god you guess/assume/suppose exists?
I believe in God; the christian god specifically in the roman catholic belief that's monotheistic. I believe in God solely by faith. The god named God. I couldn't simplify it further.
Okay, you cannot simplify it further. (I'd just like to discuss this a bit. I mean no insult. Just attempting to understand YOUR position a bit better.)
Obviously you suppose a god exists. (I think we can agree on that.)
And equally obviously you suppose you know the nature of the god...via scripture and the traditions of the Catholic Church. (I think we can agree on that, also.)
Do you acknowledge that your suppositions could be wrong...or is that something that you are unable, for one reason or another, to acknowledge?
I'd be happy to discuss this as well, it's really interesting.
I suppose a god exists. I acknowledge my suppositions can possibly be wrong, but nothing can be so compelling to change my belief.
However, I do not suppose I know the nature of God; as God is undefinable to begin with — he does not possess intrinsic accidental nor essential attributes. What we know of him, is only approximate. In fact, his maximum superiority is not mentioned in the bible (eg. omniscience and omnipotence) so we do not know for sure what conceptually, God is.
I will also have my take on an argument for God, specifically. It will tackle religious pragmatism and the underlying paradoxical characteristics towards the indication of flaws in faith.
If you look at someone as putting their views in a rational and scientific frame then maybe looking at them as worshipping “Athena” as a rough analogy of their chosen position. Whilst if an atheist you can simply reverse the analogy and view the monotheistic “God” as a concept that supposedly lies over all other concepts (ie. The Concept of Concepts). Or if they often talk of Love as a being the main aspect of their concept of “God” then you can equate this to “Eros” or maybe some other representation from theistic history in order to build up a better picture.
Someone obsessed with music and art would understand Dionysus more than Athena etc.
Great. I also find it interesting.
Okay.
I was a practicing Catholic at one time...but my position on the issue now is:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
Fine.
For the record, I see the words "believe/belief" to be a substitute for "suppose/assume/guess."
I see "faith" as an insistence that the supposition/assumption/guess has to be adhered to no matter what...sorta the thing you shared when you wrote, "...but nothing can be so compelling to change my belief."
What do you see as the most compelling reason for supposing a god exists?
Quoting Frank Apisa
I mean, I could just blurt out faith but then that wouldn't make any sense, philosophically, would it?
To me the most compelling reason is just our plain existence. I have hold unto the theory of intellectual design but I have altered a few things to, I suppose, make it better. The theory is as it follows;
Some humans practice idealism, the constant pursuit of perfection — perfection however; varies dependently on the human's vision. Our view of perfection, is a contingent perspective, whilst God's view on perfection, is necessary. That necessity conforms to the principle that how God or generally, a god designed the universe: the rocks, the trees, or even far greatly, the universe, is perfect. That perfection is tainted by human delusions, thus, moral evil like: Starvation, Corruption, Greed and whatnot, start to appear because of the pursuit of perfection.
I assure you, you will be.
Also, if you believe in God then great. I secretly hope for a God too as I especially like omnibenevolence. Why the need to make such a profound truth public? I don't see such motivation in other truths. According to the Tao Te Ching, those who speak don't know and those who know don't speak. What do you think?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
You do realise that this is a philosophy forum: a place where you're supposed to think critically.
I actually think you're just making things up. Maybe you do have a dog. Maybe you even have a dog that had cancer. Maybe you don't even have a dog.
So the problems begin there. What would be the epistemological basis for saying it's 50/50 at any point?
The idea is for a boolean question like 'was the universe created?' that we start at 50%/50% yes/no before considering any evidence. Then we modify that value up/down in the light of the evidence. So imagine if you were tossing a coin. You'd start at 50% heads / 50% tails as a guess as to how often it would come up... its the same thing for any question before evidence is admitted. If I then told you the coin was weighted to heads, that would count as evidence and you would change the estimate (eg to 90% heads). This is the mechanism my calculation employs.
I'm not sure where else you can start except 50%/50%:
- We could start by assuming 0% but that would be showing a bias towards the universe not being created.
- We could start at 100% but that would be showing a bias towards the universe being created.
- So its correct to start at 50%/50%, equidistant between the two extremes.
Starting at any value would be completely arbitrary, wouldn't it?
Quoting Terrapin Station
I guess (Just an educated guess, I could be entirely wrong) what he is saying is the confusion of potentials and the philosophy of Mathematics. You're not picking two stones from a bag, it is two sides that are completely different, principals and beliefs. I mean if that 50/50 analogy to if not a god exists, then I also have 50/50 chance of walking down the street encountering a box of gold, or not at all.
The capacity of the philosophy of Mathematics to calculate possibility is logically capable, but by the rudimentary laws of: Metaphysics, Theology, and Epistemology, it just cant.
Right. I'm just trying to get him to realize that there would need to be some epistemic justification for assigning a probability to it, otherwise it's just arbitrary.
Starting any any value other than 50%/50% would be arbitrary. Its optimal to assign 50%/50% - no bias at all for/against the proposition.
Do you understand what we're saying though?
Quoting Devans99
Mathematically, that may be true. But philosophically, it is questionable.
But if you look at my method, 50% is just the starting point for the probability analysis; I then adjust that number up/down as I take into account evidence for/against the proposition.
So if you look at the first step in my probability analysis, it looks 'philosophically questionable', but if you look at the analysis as a whole, it should make sense.
If your starting point, despite they're equidistant, is arbitrary because like what you admitted, philosophically questionable as it doesn't consist of epistemic justification; it also flaws the entire analysis. Your tower won't stand if the logic of structure is proper in the beginning — if not it will collapse. Mathematically, it might make sense, but by the principles of philosophy, it won't.
If you do not accept my method, how else would you perform a meta-analysis for proposition X when you have inductive statements A, B and C that each tell you something about the truth of X? How do you go about combining the % likelihood that A, B, C, imply X into one overall % likelihood of the probability of X?
I can see no other valid method apart from the one I'm using.
Quoting Devans99
That's the thing, you don't conduct an equation for the existence of a god. It's not two marbles with three factors telling a truth about them that predominantly adjusts their truthfulness. It's two extreme suppositions that are infinitesimally possible.
Analyse it this way, if it's 50/50 for both suppositions or; extremes, then it is also 50/50 for me to walk down the street, and encounter a case of gold, or I do not. The epistemic justification behind that for it to make sense is if someone called me to walk down that street, and mentions he will leave a case or not; but obviously, it is worth the risk. Therefore it is logically 50/50 then your mathematical statement can come to execution.
It's not a 50/50 proposition - we know the distribution of cases of gold is very low - you are taking into account evidence against the proposition implicitly.
If you look at the proposition 'was the universe created?', it contains no 'built in' evidence as too whether the answer is yes or no, so 50%/50% is the correct assumption.
If the distribution of cases is low, what makes it different to the existence of a god? Two completely different viewpoints that could explain the reason and purpose of everything tangible and perceivable in the universe and even the beginning of time, is not?
It just doesn't make any sense anymore. There is no epistemic justification behind the 50/50 argument of God's existence, you have confused probability, from possibility. Even shortening it to just an existence of an entity, the chances of both sides are incredibly small, yet then the case of gold distributed is the small chance factor here?
The philosophy of mathematics does not have the capacity to portray the concepts of metaphysics or epistemology. You simply can't calculate the beginning of the universe by starting at 50/50 with no epistemic justification and having a basis solely because there are two factors.
Quoting tim wood
I agree with him. Really. More than one person thinks your calculations are flawed; and I know conforming to utilitarian principles is not always right, but this time it might be.
Thats not what I'm arguing for. I'm saying 'was the universe created?', that is not the same question as 'Is there a God?'. I think the 2nd is not a 50/50 proposition if you include attributes like omnipotence in your definition of God.
Quoting SethRy
Yes there is epistemic justification. If you truly have no evidence either way then you have to assume 50/50. If I were to toss a coin 100 times, what would you assume the outcome would be? The best assumption, in the absence of any other evidence, is 50 heads / 50 tails. I fail to see how you can argue otherwise.
Quoting SethRy
More than one person does not understand my calculation I would say.
So, you are saying the creation of the universe can be, not of a god? okay, fair enough. That helps my point, it can be of the existence of God, Allah, or the flying spaghetti monster that the universe was created, if it wasn't, then it could be The Big Bang, or the causation of nothingness, or over a million more ideas that are not idealized by human concepts.
Quoting Devans99
No there isn't. You're simply gathering two things and therefore making it 50/50 because logically, 100 split to two certain possibilities are two, hence 50. But no, those possibilities are not certain as there will be over a million possibilities that the human brain has not even thought of.
You can toss a coin a hundred times, because both possibilities are given, whereas the creation or non-creation of the universe is not. The fact that the concrete, perceivable state of a coin is given, also provides it's epistemic justification; it's presence to the human eye straightforwardly confirms that there are only two possibilities, and then you can count on numbers. For the universe's origin, there is not, hence the conclusion; your mathematical statement has no epistemic justification.
Quoting SethRy
There are two possible states: either the universe was created or it was not (I am not arguing for God's existence, just creation of the universe).
Say you have a proposition X for which you truely have no evidence for. In fact you do not even know what the proposition is, only that it has a boolean outcome. Would you assume:
1. 100% certain that X is true?
2. 100% certain that X is false?
3. 50% certain that X is true/false?
So the question is, what is the distribution of answers for boolean questions for which we have no evidence for? It would be most remiss to choose 1 or 2 as that goes against our experience with boolean questions. It is best, in the absence of any other evidence, to assume a normal boolean distribution and to therefore to assume 50%/50%.
So for the question 'is there a creator?' we should assume 50% yes, 50% (as a starting point before weighing the evidence for/against).
Do you believe, that it is logically possible, to comprehend the origin of the universe, solely by statistical calculations?
I think therefore we can extend induction/statistics to provide an answer to many questions that are not amenable to the deductive method. I Admit with questions like the origin of the universe, any inductions we make have a wide margin of error.
I am roughly speaking agnostic leaning in the direction of deism.
Which is completely arbitrary with respect to what's the case without their being any epistemological justification for two options being equally likely.
I thought the justification given here was adequate:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/270560
Most things follow the normal distribution. And if we were to take all know distributions and do a weighted average of them into a meta-distribution, I would warrant it would look normal too. So 50%/50% is not arbitrary; it is optimal in statistical terms.
There's no more reason to choose 50/50 than 100/0. Both are just as arbitrary in lieu of any information.
So the epistemic justification is?
I'm asking for the justification of that claim that I'm quoting, as well as the justification for the claim that if that's known for x, y and z, then it's reasonable to assume for this particular question, too.
So when I am confronted with a new boolean question on which I have no evidence, I would start at 50% likelihood it is true.
What are a couple examples of this?
Say there was blood on his shirt. We might say that makes it 25% likely (on its own) that the accused is guilty. So the revised estimate is: 50% + 50% * 25% = 62.5%. And so on for any other evidence we have for/against the accused.
Another example would be 'is there life on Mars?'. Before taking in any evidence about our knowledge of the solar system and the kinds of places life can tolerate, it would be correct to start by assuming a 50% probability of life. We could then adjust this up/down in the light of the various evidence we have about Mars. For example, Mars has water so adjust upwards by an amount.
I don't believe the reason you mentioned, is an epistemic, it's logical, but not epistemic.
What you always identify to as an epistemic involves the presence and utilization of numbers and statistics. That alone, is pure evidence that an epistemic is absent, as we are looking for an answer without numbers, without involving statistics. It should not involve statistics as we, I assume, have agreed that the characteristics of the mathematical statement only extrapolates the logic behind the mathematical statement for the origins of the universe — not the reason behind that statement.
But there's no epistemic justification for assuming a 50/50 split on the question of whether someone committed a murder in that case. There would be no justification for assigning any probability to it whatsoever. Saying that there's a 50/50 probability for something is not the same thing as saying you have no idea what's more likely.--Especially if we use the 50/50 as a base for further calculations.
Well that relates to what degree you regard inductive evidence as true knowledge. Once you get beyond 1+1=2 nearly everything we know, we know inductively. Are we brains in vats? We answer no inductively. I don't see that we will ever get very fair without induction/statistics.
If you had to make an assumption without evidence, would you assume he is definitely guilty, definitely innocent, or somewhere in-between?
That's the problem. You suppose 25% defines the blood stain on the shirt, that doesn't mean it creates a definitive number if it makes up 25%. You particularly, used the word might, just implies it's completely arbitrary, you just used your intuition to tweak it's percentage for proving he is the murderer.
A mathematical statement is permanent, it cannot be tweaked unless it's former terms are altered. The creation of the universe isn't, so sometimes deductive argument is needed to create an epistemological conclusion; a conclusion that is not driven by mathematical principle, but by rational reasoning.
If you think about what your mind would do in a court case as you are presented with evidence, subconsciously it would perform a similar process: blood on the shirt so that makes him a little more likely guilty, prints on the knife so that makes him a lot more likely and so on.
That is all I am doing with my calculation; I estimate % likelihood for each piece of evidence on its own and then combine the results.
Quoting SethRy
Even if we had a deductive proof demonstrating creation of the universe; would anyone 100% trust it? The first cause argument is meant to be that; it uses only cause and effect as an axiom, yet not many people place 100% trust in it. So even in the presence of a deductive proof, there would still be a need for a meta-analysis to combine the evidence from the deductive proof with other available (empirical etc...) evidence.
Quoting Devans99
Yes, you are correct.
Quoting Devans99
Mathematician and Philosopher Edmund Husserl, proposed that although science aspires to find certainty in the cosmos - using empirical evidence (observations and data) subjects to biased assumptions. Experience, by itself is not science. In synergy, it requires rational thinking.
Mathematics does not rely on empirical evidence, it is full of assumptions to reach a conclusion. To identify something out of terms, it is a rational process. If you make a mathematical statement with terms that came from assumptions, it taints the certainty of the result you acquire. Husserl believed that having assumptions compromise philosophical investigation; this belief is called Phenomenology.
There has to be a reason why you argue something, not a 50/50 beginning.
Crimes are a bad example of that re what I'm going to assume, because I agree that it's a good principle to assume that someone is innocent until we demonstrate, at least partially via "physical" evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone is guilty of the crime they've been accused of. That's a special case just because of the social upshots of assuming that anyone is guilty in lieu of that.
For other questions like this, though, I'd simply make no assumption whatsoever, because there's insufficient information. There's certainly no way to assign probabilities to something for which we have no information, no frequency data.
Please remember that the 50%/50% step can be placed at the end of the calculation rather than the start (it makes no difference). It can therefore be seen as splitting the remaining % unbiasedly AFTER hearing all the evidence (instead of starting at a neutral point BEFORE hearing the evidence).
Quoting Terrapin Station
If you make no assumptions, you get no answers. I would like an answer so I choose to make assumptions.
I, for one, have no problem with starting at 50% - 50%. My problem is with the nonsense that atheists, theists, and "agnostic tending toward deism" add to the problem to get at something other than 50% - 50%.
There is absolutely nothing of substance...nothing unambiguous...that can be added to the initial 50% - 50% assumption that makes sense.
YOU ARE CORRECT....it does start at 50% - 50%.
It ends up there also.
For the God question, it's not as if there's no data to go on. 100% it's the case that there's no evidence of a God, not to mention that the very idea of it is absurd/incoherent.
Lemme ask you this, TS:
There is 100% NO EVIDENCE of any sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. Not one iota of evidence that there is any sentient life on any of those planets.
What does that tell us about the probability of sentient life on any of those planets?
Possibility is different from probability. Remember that. It's fair for both extremes because there is no evidence to disprove a god, only theories. There is also no evidence to prove a god, only ideologies that are reinforced with compromising logic and semantics.
That constant argument that has been ongoing since the ancient times is monotonous because evidence is scarce for both sides. Therefore, starting at 50/50 is just as random as 100/0; just because 50 represents one extreme, which is definitely logical, does not make it 50% possible.
I have been saying this over and over again. The capacity for the Philosophy of Mathematics to comprehend metaphysical and epistemological rudiments is logically capable, but you're in the territory where both empirical evidence and rational thinking is required. Mathematics does not have the capacity to calculate the existence of a god, it does not have epistemic justification behind the 50/50 assumption.
Not really the reason why 50/50 as a mathematical proposition is right, but in epistemic justification is wrong.
So says much of what passes for wisdom.
And yet you are confident enough of your language skills to think that this is a thread about God, and not about rabbits.You are using English, despite any doubts you might have. You are using a computer, and the internet, and your fingers or voice or whatever you use to write. You are confident that there are folk reading your posts, that they will reply...
In sort, the things you take for granted far outweigh your doubts.
Further I hope you do not reach all these conclusions on the basis of some sort of Bayesian (not Boolean) analysis. And even if you did, doesn't that imply confidence in Baye's theorem, and in the ability of numbers to represent the world?
In what way, is Baye's theorem flawed?
Would it still be reliable, when you need rational thinking?
If so, how?
I don't really understand how Mathematics could just define absolutely everything. Please educate me.
Mathematics is essential to the world. The computer I am using, the internet, and even the sound it projects. The algorithm running by binary, it is obvious that the world revolves around Mathematics. But, if the bayesian theorem is not flawed, then my argument should be entirely wrong.
I argued, that there is no epistemic justification behind 50/50 — which is used as a starting basis towards whether the universe was created, or not. Adding to that, I also argued that mathematics does not have the capacity to comprehend knowledge in epistemological, metaphysical, and theological territory. That mathematics needs to be accompanied with rational thinking.
1+1=2. In that statement, the '1's are the assumed terms. The result (2) cannot be changed unless the former terms, or assumptions are altered. If these assumed terms are taken from no where, then it does not make any sense. It can be empirical, when I say I hold 1 pencil on both my hands, thus I have 2 pencils, then there is empirical sense. It can be rational, when 1 does not have a value in the real world to start, thus requires adding value into 1; there has to be a basis why things began with 1.
So, is mathematics just as powerful to things that require rational reasoning? Please educate me.
Nuh. Mathematics is essential to our descriptions of the world, That's not the same.
What do you think mathmatics are describing?
So a suitable mathematics describes the world.
What would be an example of unsuitable math?
I think it is not unsuitable mathematics, it's unsuitable situations for forms of mathematics (Just a guess out of the blur). You would devise a proper mathematical theorem or formula to solve a problem, not something that couldn't be logically capable to do so.
Some speculative parts of physics treat time as a complex number. It seems very much a scalar quantity so I suspect this will turn out to be one of those cases of unsuitable maths being used to describe part of the universe.
In general maths describes the universe. Actual infinity is not part of maths IMO so we have a finite universe (and a finite God, if he exists).
Quoting Banno
But nature and reality appear to use mathematics:
https://www.planetdolan.com/15-beautiful-examples-of-mathematics-in-nature/
We can say mathematics predates the universe. We can also say that mathematics is universal and transcends the universe (in the sense if there are other universes, maths will be exactly the same in those other universes as our maths).
God if he exists is a mathematician, but he did not invent maths, he just discovered it.
See how the alternative leads @Devans99 to mystical expressions about mathematics:
Quoting Devans99
As if it were astonishing that the word "peanut" can be about any peanut, anywhere: '"Peanut" is universal and transcends the universe'.
Mathematics is constructed, not found. Hence, Quoting SethRy
Ok, Think I get it. Not much of a math guy so its a bit greek to me.
So does math the construct describe something, is it mapped onto something that is not constructed by humans?
Ok. Thanks.
So, Mathematics is an intrinsic theory, therefore already essential to the world, not its descriptions?
Because if you argue that mathematics was not invented, it was infinite, then that unstoppable regress would live by the existence of the cosmos and the world — therefore essential to the universe, to the world.
The concept 'Peanut' does not predate the universe.
1+1=2 in all universes. ? is the same in all universes. So if maths is constructed; it is constructed the same in all universes. IE it is discovered.
The universe is discrete at macro and micro levels so I think we can at least conclude the concept of 'one' is built into the universe.
Quoting SethRy
Not sure what you mean; can you expand?
To begin, I guess we can agree that a god, is necessary and completely superior to beings that are contingent. The earthly possessions consist of contingency. That contingency, relies on it's creator, in this situation, we suppose it's a god.
When we say it is 'a god', we do not know of it, finite or infinite, perceivable or con-substantial, what we know of this god, is approximate. Unambiguously, god created the substance of the cosmos, this god fueled the constant, ongoing, system of time and space.
If mathematics predates the existence of a god, we can assume this god is finite, for there is something greater than his existence. If this god was absent, then the universe would conceivably be absent as well. No god = no universe.
If this god discovered mathematics, he must have used it to create the universe. Therefore, the absence of mathematics would form a conclusion, that without it, there is arguably, no god? but surely, no universe. No Mathematics = No universe, but not necessarily, no god.
So, I personally believe, that God, not only a god, created mathematics and utilised it to construct the cosmos.
I think it is probable that the universe was constructed using mathematics but I don't see how God could have constructed mathematics itself. For example, its not possible to construct a coherent maths where 1+1!=2, IE maths is invariant - whoever 'creates' it creates exactly the same thing each time... hence it seems 'discovered' is a more appropriate word.
Quoting Devans99
It is also probable that God, whom theoretically, designed the universe intellectually in a way that it is infinite. Supposedly, with God's omni-godly capabilities, he should be able to create things intellectually but still abide to the laws of logical possibility. He can't make square-circles or 2-2=7 because he permanently designed logic as well, in a way that is infinite yet understandable to human or more specifically, contingent perspectives. The concept and entirety of mathematics is intellectually designed which can (just can) be evidence for God's existence.
Unsuitable mathematics in particular situations happened due to distinction of logic. God designed the origins of logic purposely by concepts that are known to necessary beings, thus we do not have the capacity to rationalize completely how everything began. We only developed, as sentient and rational beings, to utilise mathematics into our humanly descriptions of the universe, and not it's phenomenal existence — not traceable to the roots and origins of logic, mathematics and the overall structure of the universe.
What is logic? It is information (statements with their truth value). True and false are 1 and 0. In a world without logic it's impossible to tell true from false so there is no information. I don't think anything could exist without information and information (being able to differentiate between things) implies logic.
Quoting SethRy
I don't see how you could 'design' logic if logic did not exist. You would not be able to design anything without knowing the difference between right and wrong.
But mathematics is necessary for, and therefore essential to, many of the artificial things existing in the world. The world would be completely different without mathematics, so mathematics truly is essential to the world in which we live.
See it as the origins of the universe, no, time - no not even that, existence. Existence, if we suppose a god exists, was created by this god. From the very beginning, that even the concepts of nonexistence was void.
We know that existence and nonexistence were two opposites. But their disparity was meaningless as the correlation was absent, one can only live by the presence of the other. The beginning was undefinable. Hence, existence predates logic and mathematics.
(I would point out an oxymoron in this; If existence and nonexistence wasn't there, what was God?)
The beginning, as undefinable, was pure nothingness. Not perceivable, not tangible, not sensible - concepts far from our humanly understanding. Then a god, I personally would suppose, God; created time, logic, step by step to construct universal life - to construct existence and its subsets like logic and mathematics in order for it to stand. God is, of, substance to the entire universe - filled with purpose, design, and conceptual origins that only of him knows.
That whatever greatest, the most awesome thing that you believed to be the completely best, God is greater. God was greater than existence and nonexistence.
I don't think there can be a temporal beginning for God as that requires time - he must exist permanently beyond time and be without cause.
The act of creation requires logic. It would require logic to create time. It would require logic to 'create/discover' logic. So logic can't be a creation; it must be a discovery.
God is also omni-temporal and omnipresent. Concepts of cause and effect and infinity are of different interpretation to him.
If logic was discovered, then is it essential to this god and the universe? That without logic, the universe and the world could not exist?
Damn this is complicated.
Quoting Devans99
Great point.
I believe so. True and false is the most crude representation of information we have. If the universe could not support true and false (IE logic), then it would not seem to have any information in it, so no beings, matter or gods.
Some believe God has a personality and also can plan ahead. Had OpinionsMatter's dog died the dog probably might have been better off dead depending on how it was treated when it was alive. I've prayed for death about 200 times in the past 10 years and have even been held up at gun point and i chased the robbers away. After being in that situation i stayed where i was and called the police and shortly after that i prayed that the robbers wouldn't get caught because i knew how bad it is to get into the criminal system. The point i'm trying to make is there are worse things than death. I feel as many people do in that sometimes the only way to die is to do it yourself. I would not wish suicide on Hitler. If i thought Hitler was alive in Argentina i would do it my self. I'm pretty sure Hitler died a long time ago.
The point is death can be a release or at the very least an act of mercy.
Okay. Suppose again, the beginning was absolute nothingness - not even nonexistence, not even nothingness. I just used the word nothingness, only to start a concept. Nothing at all, that even nothingness was void.
That includes the existence of logic, logic was not existent nor nonexistent, it was void. Presumably, we agreed that logic is essential to the universe. Analyzing the principles of creation, it is known that if logic was essential to the universe, then it should coexist by it. Likewise, if the universe ceased or did not exist, then logic would not.
So by the universe's creation, logic was planned to be created as well - they happened at the same time, process and product.
In fact, logic cannot be argued by basis of theism because God, as I said, is and was, omnitemporal and omnipresent. Time and space by his creation is tangible to infinity. Perhaps, God designed the universe with a beginning yet still be infinite; constantly expanding yet constantly reducing.
I'm have the opinion that you can't get something from nothing so something must have always existed. That something is the timeless first cause. It has always existed. But it could not exist without logic. Logic in its most basic form seems to me to be differentiating between different things. No logic means everything is the same, so nothing can exist.
So on the one hand you could say God exists permanently and logic exist permanently. But on the other hand, God could not exist without Logic, but Logic could exist without God.
Maybe ...
British computer scientist's new "nullity" idea provokes reaction from mathematicians, Wikinews, Dec 2006
Addressing mathematical inconsistency: Cantor and Godel refuted, J A Perez, Feb 2010
Bible Codes, K Sean Proudler, Jun 2014
'Cantor linked the Absolute Infinite with God, and believed that it had various mathematical properties, including the reflection principle: every property of the Absolute Infinite is also held by some smaller object'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Infinite
Criticising Cantor is far game IMO.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=25&ved=2ahUKEwigmZuv0LPhAhUxXRUIHZw3DXwQFjAYegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Flogika.uwb.edu.pl%2Fstudies%2Fdownload.php%3Fvolid%3D57%26artid%3D57-08%26format%3DPDF&usg=AOvVaw0DlXIF5pxIwocATv-3HJJd
Talking to God... you can get locked up for that nowadays... what a looney...
'I have never assumed a ‘Genus Supremum’ of the actual infinite. Quite on the contrary I have rigorously proved that there can be no such ‘Genus Supre- mum’ of the actual infinite. What lies beyond all that is finite and transfinite is not a ‘Genus’; it is the unique, completely individual unity, in which every- thing is, which contains everything, the ‘Absolute’, unfathomable for human intelligence, thus not subject to mathematics, unmeasurable, the ‘ens simplicis- simum,’ the ‘Actus purissimus,’ which is by many called ‘God.’ (Meschkowski & Nilson, 1991, p. 454)17'
Cantor states in the passage above that absolute infinity is not part of maths. If only he had realised that actual infinity is not part of maths either; that would have saved us a lot of pain.
, Perez' paper isn't about Cantor's "Absolute Infinite" (which is nonsense), but alleges to disprove Cantor, Church, Gödel, Turing and others, where their writings provided eminent insights.
Don't go all ad hominem when you'd have to address/justify Perez' paper (which is nonsense).
Anyway, @DingoJones asked for bad math, and coming up with some examples isn't all that hard.
Pseudomathematics (RationalWiki)
You have frequent conversation with the one closest to you. You might ask questions, labor with difficulties, ask for some help, share some joy or sadness; it's personal conversation. It's not magic. And it continues over time with subjects being refined, understanding being clarified, lessons being learned, experience being shared. Is there more?